Forest Service Reorg - Progress or Politics

[dc4836]

Are personnel at the closing research station being reassigned or terminated? This admin sure if doing a great job of destroying jobs when economic recovery was supposed to be a theme. Good thing we’re spending millions bombing other counties so that our country can’t be bothered to care of its own citizens

No direct terminations, but terminations by proxy

 

[INMT]

Perfect timing.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/03/climate/forest-service-research-stations.html?unlocked_article_code=1.YFA.trHp.mA6rgr5hvoOs&smid=nytcore-ios-share

 

[Straight Arrow]

Perfect timing.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/03/climate/forest-service-research-stations.html?unlocked_article_code=1.YFA.trHp.mA6rgr5hvoOs&smid=nytcore-ios-share

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]

View attachment 405332

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]

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.

"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:

https://www.biv.com/news/resources-agriculture/leaked-report-claims-bc-timber-harvest-is-vastly-overestimated-11501885

 

[Big Fin]

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.

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]

Are personnel at the closing research station being reassigned or terminated? This admin sure if doing a great job of destroying jobs when economic recovery was supposed to be a theme. Good thing we’re spending millions bombing other counties so that our country can’t be bothered to care of its own citizens

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.

 

[Straight Arrow]

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]

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.

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.

 

[Dougfirtree]

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.

And it's the only way we're going to protect what we have. There's nothing ambiguous, or hypothetical about the threats to public lands at this point. There is a battle being fought and people (especially people who live in "red" states and tend to vote Republican), speaking up loudly is the only thing that is going stand in the way right now. It feels like make-or-break time.

 

[Kaitum]

I work as a ranger at the district level. Like everyone, I have opinions about what the changes mean and how they'll affect land management. Will it mean greater decision space at the local level? Perhaps. I haven't seen it play out that way yet but I realize things need time to work themselves out. Here's what I think about each day when I walk into the office - the number and complexity of issues I need to address on the district haven't decreased and ignoring them doesn't make them disappear. But I have far fewer people to work on those issues today than I used to. I'm not going to say hiring more people and having more money will fix those issues. Some it would, some it wouldn't. I can tell you we've functionally been in a hiring freeze extending back far beyond this current administration, and I don't have the luxury of waiting until I can hire people. So I'm left trying different approaches, talking to different partners, and rethinking things from a different perspective. What other options am I left with? If you'd like to help with forest management at the local level, I'd encourage you to reach out to your nearest office. Take some time to learn about all the factors that need to be considered, even with efforts to "deregulate" you might be surprised how complex land management is yet.

I had an opportunity to spend some time with the chief recently. I'll probably never get that chance again in my career and I enjoyed those interactions. I understand the intention behind the changes. I'm not saying I agree with them but they're not asking for my concurrence. Will the changes improve land management at the local level? Time will tell. All I can do is navigate the waters I'm in as best I can with the tools I have on hand.

 

[F250]

I work as a ranger at the district level. Like everyone, I have opinions about what the changes mean and how they'll affect land management. Will it mean greater decision space at the local level? Perhaps. I haven't seen it play out that way yet but I realize things need time to work themselves out. Here's what I think about each day when I walk into the office - the number and complexity of issues I need to address on the district haven't decreased and ignoring them doesn't make them disappear. But I have far fewer people to work on those issues today than I used to. I'm not going to say hiring more people and having more money will fix those issues. Some it would, some it wouldn't. I can tell you we've functionally been in a hiring freeze extending back far beyond this current administration, and I don't have the luxury of waiting until I can hire people. So I'm left trying different approaches, talking to different partners, and rethinking things from a different perspective. What other options am I left with? If you'd like to help with forest management at the local level, I'd encourage you to reach out to your nearest office. Take some time to learn about all the factors that need to be considered, even with efforts to "deregulate" you might be surprised how complex land management is yet.

I had an opportunity to spend some time with the chief recently. I'll probably never get that chance again in my career and I enjoyed those interactions. I understand the intention behind the changes. I'm not saying I agree with them but they're not asking for my concurrence. Will the changes improve land management at the local level? Time will tell. All I can do is navigate the waters I'm in as best I can with the tools I have on hand.

Thank you for posting that. You are obviously a good leader with a good attitude. Your efforts to “ roll with the punches” and work with what you have are absolutely appreciated !! You are a credit to your agency.

 

[Pucky Freak]

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.

Lee is completely aware that the legislature’s job is to craft legislation and fund it in order to equip the White House to responsibly manage our country.

However, if his voters are foolish enough to vote Lee into Office, he takes it as carte blanche permission to advance his mission of funneling our collective wealth into the hands of his buddies. Everything else is empty rhetoric.

The problem is not Congress, or the President, or any other elected official. There are no longer any secrets about what these folks are all about. Once we vote yes we can expect a very clear outcome of resource reallocation.

We are the problem. We continue to elect charlatans, grifters, and criminals to lead our country like it is some kind of joke. The depressing part is, it is becoming increasingly uncommon for either name on the ballot to do us any net good.

 

[Nick87]

Lee is completely aware that the legislature’s job is to craft legislation and fund it in order to equip the White House to responsibly manage our country.

However, if his voters are foolish enough to vote Lee into Office, he takes it as carte blanche permission to advance his mission of funneling our collective wealth into the hands of his buddies. Everything else is empty rhetoric.

The problem is not Congress, or the President, or any other elected official. There are no longer any secrets about what these folks are all about. Once we vote yes we can expect a very clear outcome of resource reallocation.

We are the problem. We continue to elect charlatans, grifters, and criminals to lead our country like it is some kind of joke. The depressing part is, it is becoming increasingly uncommon for either name on the ballot to do us any net good.

While I wholeheartedly agree, unless you take money out of campaigns thats not gonna change. We'll will continue to have to pick which end of a shit sandwich to take a bite from.

 

[SAJ-99]

Will the changes improve land management at the local level? Time will tell.

I have a lot of sympathy for what you and other employees are going through. I’ve been through a few corporate mergers and acquisitions and the brass always tried to convince us it was for the better. I learned after the first couple that it never was. The “let’s give it time to see” is a common narrative to create for those that feel stuck. It’s a horrible spot to be in.

The part of your post I highlighted has been on my mind given the overriding theme is “management”. Given you are on-the-ground you may have a better idea on the question. And maybe ask of the person above you and above them. What are we measuring to determine if this or any change “improved” and worked?

 

[Dougfirtree]

I have a lot of sympathy for what you and other employees are going through. I’ve been through a few corporate mergers and acquisitions and the brass always tried to convince us it was for the better. I learned after the first couple that it never was. The “let’s give it time to see” is a common narrative to create for those that feel stuck. It’s a horrible spot to be in.

The part of your post I highlighted has been on my mind given the overriding theme is “management”. Given you are on-the-ground you may have a better idea on the question. And maybe ask of the person above you and above them. What are we measuring to determine if this or any change “improved” and worked?

Ha ha, that's a dangerous question to ask someone in power, who has an idea...

 

[SAJ-99]

Ha ha, that's a dangerous question to ask someone in power, who has an idea...

Then rephrase to How can I do my job to help us meet your objectives? I’m pretty sure there isn’t a clean answer to the question, but it is revealing.

 

[El Jason]

I asked a retired USFS Chief their perspective on this. 1-10, 1 is a nothing burger and 10 is doomsday. They replied they viewed it as an 8 with respect to future public lands management.

 

[BuzzH]

I have a lot of sympathy for what you and other employees are going through. I’ve been through a few corporate mergers and acquisitions and the brass always tried to convince us it was for the better. I learned after the first couple that it never was. The “let’s give it time to see” is a common narrative to create for those that feel stuck. It’s a horrible spot to be in.

The part of your post I highlighted has been on my mind given the overriding theme is “management”. Given you are on-the-ground you may have a better idea on the question. And maybe ask of the person above you and above them. What are we measuring to determine if this or any change “improved” and worked?

That is a great question, and in my mind the only reasonable question that should be asked in this entire reorg.

One of the primary reasons we are all being given is to put management closer to the ground and give citizens easier access to FS staff. Really? That is interesting to me since as it is right now, anyone that wants to ask questions of the FS can waltz right into the many district offices we have now. One step further, the public processes and public involvement is not going to improve with the reorg in any way that I can see. I don't believe for one second that any of the public is going to have more or easier access to the upper FS leadership in Salt Lake than they had in the Washington Office.

I also heard that the State Directors are not going to have any policy making authority, which IMO, translates to top down decisions. I also wonder why if this is such an improvement in process, why the SES employees had to sign NDA's about the reorg? Before anyone says this is normal...no its not.

Apparently from what I'm hearing as well, that Congress knew very little about this whole reorg and from what I understand, only learned about the details when they dropped on 3/31.

IMO, the correct answer to your question may be to ask your Congressional folks that exact question. What problem is this reorg trying to solve, and how do we measure success or failure? Sounds like the perfect reason for a congressional inquiry.

 

[Straight Arrow]

One of the primary reasons we are all being given is to put management closer to the ground and give citizens easier access to FS staff. Really? That is interesting to me since as it is right now, anyone that wants to ask questions of the FS can waltz right into the many district offices we have now.

Furthermore, when a policy, program, or plan is to be implemented there is a lengthy public comment period to accept public input. Typically the comments are even made public to be reviewed by the public. People who wish to be engaged have opportunity.
Yep, it seems like yet another bureaucratic solution desperately seeking a problem!