Recently I've read some touting that the government and the public at large would be better off contracting management of federal lands to private corporations. It's even gone so far that GW (from a 2º source) has manadated that the USFWS, USFS, NPS, and BLM at least investigate the use of private contractors for some to many of their jobs. Do you think this would be better or worse than the current setup?
What say you: Privatization of Fed. Land Management Agencies??
- Thread starter 1_pointer
- Start date
Ithaca 37
New member
All depends on what jobs and how the politics of it plays out. Suppose a bunch of welfare ranchers form a company to manage grazing? 
JoseCuervo
New member
I think they are already doing so. If memory serves me, there was an experimental project up in Montana at the Forest Service.
The Union for the Fed Employees was upset, as expected.
Contracting and Outsourcing just moves measurable costs to someplace that can't be measured. The management of the Contractor is expensive, and generally not fully accounted for.
The Union for the Fed Employees was upset, as expected.
Contracting and Outsourcing just moves measurable costs to someplace that can't be measured. The management of the Contractor is expensive, and generally not fully accounted for.
JoseCuervo
New member
Please list any cases.....
Would you say a private fire fighting company that has employees drinking beer and driving the van, killing all the employees is doing better than the FS is on transporting fire crews?
Would you say a private fire fighting company that has employees drinking beer and driving the van, killing all the employees is doing better than the FS is on transporting fire crews?
I talked to one of the Supervisors of Grey Back at a class just late last year and that is comming to an end. Every one has their hay day until they cross the line and the fire world is one of the last bastions that are putting an end to that, the Indian crews were just there a few years ago and it is now pretty much a thing of the past, there will alway's be exceptions...
You bring that up, I will bring up the Government crews that were in charge of the Thirty Mile Fire...
"in most cases," I put that in just because I knew you would come up with an isolated case or two any way!!!
You bring that up, I will bring up the Government crews that were in charge of the Thirty Mile Fire...
"in most cases," I put that in just because I knew you would come up with an isolated case or two any way!!!
JoseCuervo
New member
Anybody have a clue what that means???
Okay, I guess I have to come clean. Reason for me asking is that I read an opinion piece by someone who was involved in the academic side of range/natural resource management for over 40yrs and a past president of the Society for Range Mangagement. His biggest problem with this idea is that contractors may not be able to grasp the 'land ethic' required for proper long-term management. The reasons he states for this is that when chasing down 5yr contracts that those doing the management don't generate an 'ownership' feeling toward the land managed. They are in it for the short-term. He used examples of people renting patures/ranges on short-term contracts and how all too often these are abused.
The article just got me to thinking.
The article just got me to thinking.
1_p, I think that's a valid point. It's the same theory behind the Stewardship Contracting program. They hope that by allowing long term contracts (up to 10 years), private companies will become more connected to the land they're working on. I think they also utilize local companies for the same reason. I'm not sure how it will all work....the program has only been around since 1999 or so.
Personally, I don't think that going to private contractors is the answer. I guess I'm just a little leery of giving up control to the lowest bidder. But, I could be wrong.
I think the NPS is already working towards this, aren't they? Didn't Bush announce a policy last year to outsource over 400,000 park service jobs? I think that's about half of the park service. Not sure where that went.
Oak
Personally, I don't think that going to private contractors is the answer. I guess I'm just a little leery of giving up control to the lowest bidder. But, I could be wrong.
I think the NPS is already working towards this, aren't they? Didn't Bush announce a policy last year to outsource over 400,000 park service jobs? I think that's about half of the park service. Not sure where that went.
Oak
JoseCuervo
New member
Quality can suffer with the outsourcing. Generally companies outsource, as it is not a core to their operations, and somebody else can do it cheaper, and it is not that important.
I would (and will) argue that managing Public Lands is "core" to the government. With the huge percentage of Idaho that is Public Lands, I think we have much at stake, besides saving 3.2% by outsourcing the guys driving green pick-ups.
Would you outsource the Military, Police, and Fire Departments?
I would (and will) argue that managing Public Lands is "core" to the government. With the huge percentage of Idaho that is Public Lands, I think we have much at stake, besides saving 3.2% by outsourcing the guys driving green pick-ups.
Would you outsource the Military, Police, and Fire Departments?
CO- Yeah, I remember Bush asking the NPS to at least look at outsourcing, but thought it was mostly for non-management oriented jobs. I think that many are tired of the black-holes (economically) that many of the parks have become. This may be a way to alleviate that some?? I know I'm interested in how the experiment with Valles Caldera works out!
EG- I too think that states like UT (which has a higher % of public land than ID
) would be negatively impacted from the outsourcing.
Do you guys feel this would open the door to more catering of NR management to specific industries?
I know I'm interested in how the experiment with Valles Caldera works out!EG- I too think that states like UT (which has a higher % of public land than ID
Do you guys feel this would open the door to more catering of NR management to specific industries?
"quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by ELKCHSR:
Every one has their hay day until they cross the line and the fire world is one of the last bastions that are putting an end to that, the Indian crews were just there a few years ago and it is now pretty much a thing of the past, there will alway's be exceptions...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anybody have a clue what that means???
I really don't believe you are as niave on as many of these topics that you like to act stupid on.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by ELKCHSR:
Every one has their hay day until they cross the line and the fire world is one of the last bastions that are putting an end to that, the Indian crews were just there a few years ago and it is now pretty much a thing of the past, there will alway's be exceptions...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anybody have a clue what that means???
I really don't believe you are as niave on as many of these topics that you like to act stupid on.
Erik in AK
New member
I support privatization of concessions, campgrounds, road maintenance and other nuts-n-bolts functions, basically anything that could be sub-contracted but "management" as in policy setting and enforcement should remain in federal hands. The viability of privatization is based on an assumption of profitability for the non-governmental entity otherwise no one would bid for the contract.
Would privatization of National Forests result in toll roads and pay-as-you-go permits for access to public lands? I tend to think so? What about logging, mining and drilling? Does the contractor get royalties on resource sales/leases? If so doesn't that create a direct economic incentive for the private manager to manage for profit and not for the continued viability of the resource or the habitat it occupies. The non-profit nature of federal agencies removes, I think, the profit motive from management decisions.
Would the profit issue of privatization drive more realistic grazing fees? Maybe, but ranchers are a powerful political force in those states where this is an issue. I tend to think that grazing fees would remain largely static and the contacted manager's overhead would be borne by other users, namely you and me.
The "damn gummint" is far from good enough sometimes, but with them, we the citizenry, have far greater recourse. Public agencies are funded with public money and therefore they and their managers/directors are more subject to public scrutiny. Privatization could very well serve to minimize public input on major policy initiatives within the agency in question.
Thoughts?
Would privatization of National Forests result in toll roads and pay-as-you-go permits for access to public lands? I tend to think so? What about logging, mining and drilling? Does the contractor get royalties on resource sales/leases? If so doesn't that create a direct economic incentive for the private manager to manage for profit and not for the continued viability of the resource or the habitat it occupies. The non-profit nature of federal agencies removes, I think, the profit motive from management decisions.
Would the profit issue of privatization drive more realistic grazing fees? Maybe, but ranchers are a powerful political force in those states where this is an issue. I tend to think that grazing fees would remain largely static and the contacted manager's overhead would be borne by other users, namely you and me.
The "damn gummint" is far from good enough sometimes, but with them, we the citizenry, have far greater recourse. Public agencies are funded with public money and therefore they and their managers/directors are more subject to public scrutiny. Privatization could very well serve to minimize public input on major policy initiatives within the agency in question.
Thoughts?
Ten Bears
New member
I don't support the privatization of any "public" goods. Leasing use is one thing, handing over is another.
This is already happened, but wasn't due to private companies. Some of the high use areas (ie Mirrow Lake Highway) charge a fee for driving through or using the area.
To me that would be a concern, but not a huge one as NEPA would still apply.
RockyDog
Member
Id like to see firefighting all privatized. Bunch of welfare BS to pay Millions of dollars to fight every 100 acre fire. There's way to much waste and the heroic shovel brigades are paid way to much for what they do.
The hotshots should stay federal, but why pay a bunch of ditch diggers so well. The ditchdiggers are kept well out of any danger with todays FS policies of just watching it burn if there is any bad conditions.
The hotshots should stay federal, but why pay a bunch of ditch diggers so well. The ditchdiggers are kept well out of any danger with todays FS policies of just watching it burn if there is any bad conditions.
Similar threads
- Locked
