dc4836
New member
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2024
- Messages
- 12
No direct terminations, but terminations by proxy
Forest Service Reorg - Progress or Politics
- Thread starter Big Fin
- Start date
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Yep and priority message from White House yesterday was that DOD needs trillions more and everything else is just fluff which needs budget cuts. The states can pick up the tab for anything else they think they need.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
You are giving Mike Lee too much importance in this. His views on public land are more widely held than we want to admit.
I just finished @Big Fin podcast talking with MT FWP R1 commissioner where there was heavy implication on "Federal Mismanagement of Federal Lands".
Transcript
“It's the federal lands management or lack thereof and the reasons for the lack of management. Those are probably the bigger hurdles to all Montana sportsmen than most folks give credit to and yeah, I mean, biology 101, healthy habitat.”
I cringed a little when I heard that given that is the main selling point of Mike Lee and those with his view. When Randy, who is unquestionably a leader in public land advocacy lets that out there, it shows how hard this is. My big concern is that point will stick because it is simple and can largely be agreed upon, but not many care about context. And not many people are going to delve into the Supremacy Clause and how certain laws let the legal fights drive decisions, which is where the changes should really occur. Destroying the power of the Federal government is the point to all of this. Mike Lee isn't the cause of any of it. We the voters are.
Bonasababy
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 16, 2024
- Messages
- 1,679
"Healthy habitat" to these folks mean wide open, less regulated timber harvest.
Wildfires and money needed to deal with them?
Nope, that problem is an opportunity to advocate for more timber harvesting. Fire is always due to lack of timber harvesting.
Not enough FS staff to even set up timber sales?
Perfect! We can just do like Canada and give the timber industry direct control!
The challenge for conservation and hunting proponents is differentiating between beneficial timber harvesting and the much higher unregulated level these folks seek.
For a peek at what that can look like:
Glad you follow the podcast.
Reading your comments had me go back and listen to parts. I think there are some distinctions and I thought we made some of those distinctions. There can be:
1. Mismanagement of Federal lands, and...
2. Federal Mismanagement of lands.
They can both happen, though I tried to message it as #1. So much of Federal land management is outside the hands of the actual "on the ground" managers. We talked about voicing concerns at the proper person, and your local ranger is not that person.
You make a good point about how hard it is to try thread this needle. Nobody is going to use Federal policy as the model way to manage land for productive values of wildlife, water quality, sustainable timber harvest, etc. Just too much politics that influence the methods of management and the whipsaw of changing directives every four years or so.
The quick and easy route that Lee et al desire is to point to the bad examples and imply that these examples are the norm, when they are most often the exception. Lee et al also wants people to think these problems are not solvable, and thus selling lands is the best way to cure the problems cited in the examples they provide.
The harder path is to acknowledge that there are problems, often created by Congress action or inaction. And to advocate for correction and improvement, not selling or giving away the land.
The best example I use, which seems effective when I talk to Beltway folks, is if the Federal lands were a portfolio of commercial real estate. If they were managed poorly, would you change the management systems, maybe the managers (Congress), or both? Or, would you just give the commercial properties away or sell them at a fire sale discount?
The answer is pretty obvious. And I think that is why it is an effective metaphor that simplifies a very complex issue.
It is why I always challenged elected officials as to their appetite for the hard work that will be required for better land management. Or, the easy path, which seems to be the American way these days, which would be to give the lands to states or sell them to a small handful of people/companies.
I wish it was easier to explain the complexities of what is causing problems on Federal lands when it comes to wildlife habitat. Yet, in the 15 second soundbites of social media's performative politics, the longer messages are too complex for most, especially our elected officials, so the deeper discussions seem to not happen.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Been reluctant to say much, and I know more than I'll say in this post. I've worked in R&D for going on 29 years and according to messaging nobody in R&D or the entire reorg is going to "lose their job".
We've been told that no experimental forests will be shut down. Research to some degree is going to continue. In my opinion certain parts of research are going to be reduced pretty significantly. The presidents proposed budget zero's out research funding for the FS, same with the current fiscal year. Congress will have a say and I expect similar funding for FY27.
How and what position some FS folks are going to have in the reorg is still up in the air. What I know right now is there's 2,733 bargaining unit employees represented by the Union that the agency is going to have to negotiate with as our CBA/MA is binding. The negotiation teams are being determined right now, article 11 has been filed, etc. etc. and those are the priority for me as I represent a pretty big chunk of those 2,733 folks as a local Union President and legislative co-chair. I've been retirement eligible for a while now, but this is precisely why I made the decision to stay most likely until December of 2028.
There is zero question about the intent of the reorg, it's been stated well. There is no doubt the agency is going to lose some great people and a lot of knowledge that is much needed right now. The miscalculation though, by those with the aforementioned intent, is the will of those that have chosen to stay. Trust me, many of them could have taken the easy way out, me included and they didn't.
Last edited:
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
That's it in a nutshell. Even politicians such as Mike Lee seem to forget that "government" is not just the people and programs which he finds it so easy to criticize. It's Congress at the heart of regulation, policy, and finance. Correcting those problems he sees in federal public lands management requires Lee looking inward at himself and his Congressional colleagues to do the hard work of rational analysis and legislative design and funding of realistic fixes for improvements.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
There was certainly some context an hour in. I thought the podcast was great. It just reinforced my frustration that it is hard to break the narrative with people. Despite having multiple channels (internet, podcast, whatever) to learn more and form a truly informed opinion, most people still just stick with the sound-bite narrative that there is federal mismanagement of federal lands. It's repetitively pounded into them. No context. No details, and most people don't want them because they add complexity. Things like most Rx burns are stopped by concerns from locals and lack of resources, not lawsuits.
Your closing summary stands. More people need to take every opportunity to comment to their state and national reps on these things. And they need to get active in their local regions. Get out of the chair and do the work. It is very enjoyable and quite satisfying.
Similar threads
