Forest Service Reorg - Progress or Politics

I don’t pretend to have the answers. Maybe you do.
I would try to move more decision making power back down to the forest and district levels. I would uncombine all the districts and forests that have been combined over the past few decades. I would push for better pay in order to attract a more motivated workforce. I would push to repeal and rewrite the endangered species act in a way where it can be used in a constructive manner, rather than just being used as a weapon by environmental groups that make a living suing the government. I would search for ways for the agency to generate funds so it would be less of a tax burden on the public.
 
I would try to move more decision making power back down to the forest and district levels. I would uncombine all the districts and forests that have been combined over the past few decades. I would push for better pay in order to attract a more motivated workforce. I would push to repeal and rewrite the endangered species act in a way where it can be used in a constructive manner, rather than just being used as a weapon by environmental groups that make a living suing the government. I would search for ways for the agency to generate funds so it would be less of a tax burden on the public.
The eventual move is to privatize all these functions across all these federal agencies. 2027 Budget request below. The fire management dominates the funding obligation. Probably easiest to transfer that $5b to private contractors in the name of “efficiency”. Capitalism baby!
IMG_2615.jpeg
 
There is significantly more acreage in the west though, right? So extending your concern to its logical conclusion would seem to support this move.

(I was happy to see a planned regional headquarters listed for Madison, WI.)
But how many states and national forests is that covering? And what about all of the on going research being conducted out of the various offices including my home state of Michigan? We have some large national forests ourselves and a fair few serious issues for flora and fauna.

This move is more about isolating the NFS for the representatives in Washington. IMHO.
 
“I think it pushes the decision-making space back down toward the ground and I think that is a really positive thing,” said Caswell, who bases his support on the assumption that state directors will be chosen from within the ranks of the Forest Service and won’t be political appointees.
I hope this optimism proves true.
“What we really need to do is get back to that focus on accomplishing work on the ground. It’s not about how good our analysis is. It’s not about whatever,” she said. “It’s getting back to getting work on the ground whether it’s trail work, watershed restoration, timber management, whatever it is, getting that work done on the ground needs to be a priority.”
Which of course, takes money and bodies. Maybe if Congress would FUND the work? And maybe we shouldn’t have canned all those employees a year ago?
 
I hope this optimism proves true.

Which of course, takes money and bodies. Maybe if Congress would FUND the work? And maybe we shouldn’t have canned all those employees a year ago?
And how do you even recruit new people to want to do the work? If you were a college student or young professional do you really want to go work for agencies that are constantly being hamstrung by congress? Or the way the rhetoric is that if you work for the government you’re lazy, inept, wasteful, etc. I could no doubt go to my closest town that has a district office and probably find locals complaining about the FS office and employees but telling you what a great guy the local thief meth head is
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
118,810
Messages
2,207,029
Members
38,653
Latest member
Jparsons667
Back
Top