Forest Service Reorg - Progress or Politics

[BuzzH]

That has never seemed to hinder the full speed ahead approach.

Indeed...I know its tough to imagine.

 

[Irrelevant]

Back on track...

Seems the administration is violating the law with the "reorg"...

PL 119-74, Div. C, Title V, Sec. 505 (Consolidated Appropriations of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2026)

SEC. 505. (a) None of the funds provided under this Act, or provided under previous appropriations Acts to the agencies funded by this Act that remain available for obligation or expenditure in fiscal year 2026, or provided from any accounts in the Treasury of the United States derived by the collection of fees available to the agencies funded by this Act, shall be available for obligation or expenditure through a reprogramming of funds that: (1) creates or initiates a new program, project, or activity; (2) eliminates a program, project, or activity; (3) increases funds or personnel by any means for any project or activity for which funds have been denied or restricted; (4) relocates an office or employees; (5) reorganizes or renames offices, programs, or activities; (6) contracts out or privatizes any functions or activities presently performed by Federal employees; (7) augments existing programs, projects, or activities in excess of $500,000 or 5 percent, whichever is less, or reduces by 5 percent funding for any program, project, or activity, or numbers of personnel by 5 percent; (8) results from any general savings, including savings from a reduction in personnel, which would result in a change in existing programs, projects, or activities as approved by Congress; unless the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations are notified 30 days in advance of such reprogramming of funds.

Um, I clearly don't understand.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/6938/text

your quoted section is found under Division A, Title V, Sec 505. Div C doesn't contain it. There was only one instance of "relocates" found in the bill text.

 

[SAJ-99]

View attachment 405755

Just want him to be transparent. Like most good HT debates, it will not be a debate about what is best, but what is best for him.

 

[NR_Hunter]

Here is another gem we get to consider:

The Trump administration's proposed 2027 budget includes a $10 billion "Presidential Capital Stewardship Program" for D.C. beautification and construction, while simultaneously slashing National Park Service (NPS) funding by roughly 25% and cutting over $200 million in staffing. This proposal includes dismantling U.S. Forest Service research and reducing wildfire management capacity.
D.C. Beautification ($10B): The funds would be used for Washington, D.C. federal building improvements, parks, and projects in time for the nation's 250th birthday.

This is not a R or D issue, this is a fundamental attack on our collective parks, public lands and the support for them.
So instead of systematically improving, sustaining and fixing things across the entire country, we get to see this wannabe king baby put up arches and gold plate everything around him in DC. Got it....

Randy's first point on this is unfortunately far too accurate and the long-play the anti-public land cartel is pushing - remove all tools and money to help improve things, show everyone how broken and ineffective it is, then privatize it for a select few to get even richer. It is infuriating. My Irish side is wanting to resurrect the IRA for a while.......

Real talk I just hanged this flag last week

 

[BuzzH]

‘Illegal’ forest service overhaul risks causing ‘chaos’ across US public lands, union claims

The restructuring will close all regional offices, which manages 193m acres of land, roughly the size of Texas

www.theguardian.com

 

[SAJ-99]

Here is a BBC article summarizing to the situation. Sort of an outsider’s take. In summary, platitudes and promises from the admin and an explanation of the structural change and how it might impact workers at the service. I’m not sure anyone changes their vote on this. The promises are attractive to those that want to verve them. I will keep relying on the Union and courts to try to stop this nonsense.

What is Trump doing with the US Forest Service?

The Trump administration has announced it will move the service's headquarters to Utah and restructure the agency.

www.bbc.com

 

[Alpine01]

Here is a BBC article summarizing to the situation. Sort of an outsider’s take. In summary, platitudes and promises from the admin and an explanation of the structural change and how it might impact workers at the service. I’m not sure anyone changes their vote on this. The promises are attractive to those that want to verve them. I will keep relying on the Union and courts to try to stop this nonsense.

What is Trump doing with the US Forest Service?

The Trump administration has announced it will move the service's headquarters to Utah and restructure the agency.

www.bbc.com

At a personal level, I have my doubts on this re-org but I am willing to take a wait-and-see position for now. That Utah Governor Cox supports this is not surprising. I am surprised that Polis is backing this plan. Polis is a friend to land conservation folks, but is certainly not a supporter of hunters and gun owners. I can see him backing this approach as a means to shut down (or severely curtail) hunting in CO on public lands given no Federal impediments to slow him down. Just my biased opinion however but given how he has stacked CPW with anti-hunting commissioners, I think it is a plausible rationale for his support of this re-org. Polis (and his Dem legislative super-majority) also have state budget shortfall issues. Getting control over Federal public lands may be seen as a way to extract revenue from these lands and further enable his welfare-state objectives that he can't afford at the moment.

 

[SAJ-99]

At a personal level, I have my doubts on this re-org but I am willing to take a wait-and-see position for now. That Utah Governor Cox supports this is not surprising. I am surprised that Polis is backing this plan. Polis is a friend to land conservation folks, but is certainly not a supporter of hunters and gun owners. I can see him backing this approach as a means to shut down (or severely curtail) hunting in CO on public lands given no Federal impediments to slow him down. Just my biased opinion however but given how he has stacked CPW with anti-hunting commissioners, I think it is a plausible rationale for his support of this re-org. Polis (and his Dem legislative super-majority) also have state budget shortfall issues. Getting control over Federal public lands may be seen as a way to extract revenue from these lands and further enable his welfare-state objectives that he can't afford at the moment.

I agree with the general view, but that is a different subject. The question is where does it take Our Public Land. The "wait-and-see for now" is my biggest issue. I worry that we can't put it back together again if it doesn't work. To the point made by other members, who would work for the government again when the jobs, many of which require specialized knowledge and skills that takes college and years of experience to build, is solely dependent on the whims of voters who have shown to be more and more impetuous. If you have doubts, I hope you express them to those who need to hear.