Forest Service Reorg - Progress or Politics

[Treeshark]

What are we measuring to determine if this or any change “improved” and worked?

The sheer volume of data here admittedly does not transfer well to a hunting forum, but I found some interesting reading here:

Performance Report

Reading through this a bit, it occurs to me how difficult it is to objectively interpret this type of data while also successfully avoid several data fallacy pitfalls (McNamara, P-Hacking, Cherry-Picking etc.). In other words, you’re asking a very important question that I’m not sure there is a good answer to.

 

[Bonasababy]

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.

Dont disagree but I detect a sense of helplessness in your post that is dangerous.

And I dare say...it helps continue the problem.

Collectively there is great power in raising concerns to lawmakers and in voting.

Regardless of party we can and should hold them accountable with that power.

 

[Dougfirtree]

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.

Decision making being more concentrated at the top, by political appointees should be really fun for the people working on the state/district level, as different administrations come and go...

I agree strongly that hard questions to your reps in congress are in order, as are hard questions from congress, to this administration. Maybe I should take a breath on this one, but I'm struggling with the 'let's give this some time and see what happens' perspective that I hear some taking. I don't think that this change has anything to do with a desire to manage National Forests better. I think it's exactly the opposite. I think the point is to end up with more decision making power at the appointee level, increase profit for extractive industries and to end up with less National Forest. I think we should skip over 'wait and see' and go right to the hell raising.

 

[El Jason]

I think we should skip over 'wait and see' and go right to the hell raising.

That’s my plan. Emails will go out tomorrow.

 

[Bonasababy]

That’s my plan. Emails will go out tomorrow.

Me too.

 

[daltrix99]

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.

Agree with everything you said, well put. I still don't like the idea of USFS HQ being at the figurative political epicenter of the public land antagonists.

 

[quarterhorse]

Nothing about this is is being done for the better. I've always heard complaints about ignoring local input - I take that as code for "we want extractivie industries, and state and local politians to be calling the shots". Nothing is standing in the way of local input now. Well except few if any people show up or attend meetings designed to collect local input. Or using CRA to erase public input and do what the administration wants.