#Winning = more public land poop

Status
Not open for further replies.
WIbiggame said:
I know several here have, but I have to ask how many have volunteered to help clear trails, remove trash, empty toilets? Because if 10% of all the "save the public land" heroes I've seen pop up yhe last 2 days there would be a surplus of volunteers to cover the 10% let go.
Click to expand...
Why would anyone? All I would ask is that they quit arresting those who are clearing the trails.

3 years ago I was hiking with a Husqvarna carefully camouflaged in a pannier and ran into a prim and properly coifed Rangerette stinking of perfume a couple miles up the trail. Fielding the usual barrage of 10 questions about llamas while hoping she didn't inquire about the "bar condom" sticking out of the lead llama.

I carefully navigate the interrogation and wander on up the trail to a trail volunteer crew sweat dripping off their noses and Miss Rangerette is chewing them a new one because they didn't adequately scatter /disperse the sawdust and chips from their two man buck saw "off the trail".

Discreetly taking a "wheeze break" to observe the ass chewing I asked (after she strutted on up the trail to do more of God's work) I asked the crew boss and they were cutting 90-110 beetle-killed off the trail/mile on some of the lodge-pole dominated ridges. That strongly resembles hard work. The brass of someone to bitch at volunteers for doing that type of hard labor "incorrectly" was amazing.

Dave will ALWAYS land on his feet, now the others??
 

Attachments

  • 821E5D1C-554B-4E2F-B527-EBD9AE35FFAA.jpeg
    821E5D1C-554B-4E2F-B527-EBD9AE35FFAA.jpeg
    178.8 KB · Views: 58
I buried a lot of shit and packed out untold bags of garbage in my days as a wilderness ranger for the USFS. I also bury a lot of shit when I am just out and about in the woods. I will never understand how a person can shit on a trail, road, in a parking lot etc.

One day I will catch someone in the act and probably end up in jail.
 
Big Fin said:
I think it will be fair. Let's face it, there have been many administrations that have had full control of both houses of Congress and the White House, yet they didn't do the things that would have improved Federal land management. Shame on them. (And edited to add: Shame on us for not demanding more accountability.)

I'm a smaller government, lower taxes kind of guy. Lowering tax bills is how I made a very comfortable livelihood that allows me to do this gig without any regard for profits. I also know a thing or two about how to run a business. Cutting contracts and waste might work and should work. Cutting personnel costs will show some benefit if, and that's a big IF, done with some sanity and strategy.

There once was a push to force the Federal Government to use "Zero-based budgeting." Carter had considered it and so did Reagan. Every agency budget would start at zero and be justified from there, rather than "take last year's numbers and add 10%." None of that took hold, as the Beltway lobbyists and both parties saw that as problematic to the folks paying their salaries. So, it died, and with it died much chance of the US Government operating more efficiently.

In my thirty years of engaging in hunting and conservation politics, I've learned that both sides are good at capitalizing on the political moments without much concern of the long-term consequences. Just the way politics and lack of accountability have morphed in this country. Madison wrote in great detail his concerns about "factions" and their ability to disregard the rights of the people. Even with all of his wisdom and foresight, I suspect he could have never predicted what we are witnessing the last 30 years.

It is hard to argue that you want better land management when you come in with a sledgehammer where in the business world a knife or scalpel would be used. Nobody would run a business by firing everyone who meets a certain employment status (probationary, even if you are a long-time employee whose promotion put you in a probationary status). You wouldn't implement a hiring freeze when using seasonal workers get you the best return on your assets and does the best job of keeping your assets from going up in smoke.

You can't cut essential programs and essential employees necessary for better land management and then bitch that their isn't better land management. You can't claim the Federal lands are not getting a good return on their money, yet in other votes you refuse to change the Hard Rock Mining Act of 1872 and charge a royalty to mining companies. You can't complain about Federal ROI on those lands, yet vote to keep grazing rates 5-10% of grazing rates on adjacent state and private lands; or vote to keep Federal O&G royalties way below what states and private land owners charge.

And in this instance, the folks cheering on these personnel cuts "in the name of efficiency" are likely to be the ones bitching when they see less land management. That has been the mode of operation since I've been involved and I don't expect it to be a different mode of operation.

This will have consequences. Will it reduce the waste and inefficiency in Federal agencies? I doubt it, given the way they are going about it. Could they have done it in a way that does reduce waste and inefficiency? Absolutely, but that would have required application of a lot more business ideas, none of which would allow for the headline grabbing soundbites.

If the history that has formed my crystal ball has provided any insight, this will likely go down as one of the greatest lost opportunities in my lifetime. It will be used as a continuance of the "defund, demoralize, and devalue" approach the anti-public land crowd has used since the 1980s. Their goal always has been, and always will be, to make the public lands such a burden through defunding and lack of Congressional leadership, that eventually Americans will lose much interest in these lands and view them as a liability to get rid of. Seeing the far fringes be given the wheel on public lands, it's hard for me to see this as any thing other than a huge squandered opportunity and a fulfillment of the dreams of those who've been strategic in their fifty-year plan to rid Americans of their public lands.

I know the hyper-partisans, or even the mildly partisans, will criticize that assessment. That's fine. I expect such from folks trained to use party politics as their first level of filter. As the political pendulums have swung in my lifetime, neither party has really cared for the interests that exist mostly in the middle, rather they want to use any opportunity, in this case public lands and conservation funding, as spoils of political victory, and in the process limiting any forward progress to those few instances when the political stars align for a week or two.

Not sure I can fit all of that into a 20-minute segment. Summary will be, "Shitter's full; that's what the majority of us voted for, right?"
Click to expand...
A very thoughtful and insightful take. I would however, like to dig into a couple of things. On "using a sledge hammer when a scalpel would do". A valid point, however, one must ponder that if decades of attempts with a scalpel have been largely ineffective, a sledge hammer might be what is needed. Will it hurt? Yup. Can we get through it and make things better? I believe so. Next, on this being a potential lost opportunity. I'm not convinced that's truly the case. Let's explore some grand hypotheticals for a second. And I'll reiterate before I get poo pooed. This is just a hypothetical. If our model of conservation is state based, is it unreasonable to use federal cuts as an opportunity for more state involvement in management? If Congress refuses to give federal agencies the tools and freedom to effectively manage our public lands, is it unreasonable to push for more of those responsibilities to be delegated to the states? Mind you I'm not talking about ownership of federal lands, but rather the management duties thereof. If federal personnel are being cut, is it unreasonable for states to hire those same people? Finally, if we want to influence those in charge of management of our public lands, is it more feasible to be effective at the state level or federal level? I agree, you can't cut employees and programs that are essential for better land management and then bitch about there not being better management. However, if said essentials continue to be ineffective, are they still essential? Or is it perhaps an opportunity to try something different. Anyway, thanks for digging into this and being an outspoken public lands advocate.
 
KingOfTagSoup said:
A very thoughtful and insightful take. I would however, like to dig into a couple of things. On "using a sledge hammer when a scalpel would do". A valid point, however, one must ponder that if decades of attempts with a scalpel have been largely ineffective, a sledge hammer might be what is needed. Will it hurt? Yup. Can we get through it and make things better? I believe so. Next, on this being a potential lost opportunity. I'm not convinced that's truly the case. Let's explore some grand hypotheticals for a second. And I'll reiterate before I get poo pooed. This is just a hypothetical. If our model of conservation is state based, is it unreasonable to use federal cuts as an opportunity for more state involvement in management? If Congress refuses to give federal agencies the tools and freedom to effectively manage our public lands, is it unreasonable to push for more of those responsibilities to be delegated to the states? Mind you I'm not talking about ownership of federal lands, but rather the management duties thereof. If federal personnel are being cut, is it unreasonable for states to hire those same people? Finally, if we want to influence those in charge of management of our public lands, is it more feasible to be effective at the state level or federal level? I agree, you can't cut employees and programs that are essential for better land management and then bitch about there not being better management. However, if said essentials continue to be ineffective, are they still essential? Or is it perhaps an opportunity to try something different. Anyway, thanks for digging into this and being an outspoken public lands advocate.
Click to expand...
Appreciate the thought you put into that. I don't have all of the answers, but I'll give a few notes of what has or hasn't been tried.

As for using a scalpel, that's not even been tried. Congress, where the buck stops with budgets, spending, deficits, has never tried. Not when the Ds were in control or when the Rs were in control. Congress has never taken their budgetary responsibility seriously. Where we find ourselves today, I place 100% at the feet of Congress, controlled by both parties over the decades. Had Congress done their job, none of this would be necessary. Had Congress done their job for the last 75 years, our lands would be in a well-managed productive state. But, they didn't do their job, no matter which party was in control.

Some may think I blame President for the situation we are in. I don't. I don't blame Biden, Obama, or Bush. I blame Congress. Article 1 of the Constitution vests Congress with what we today call "The Power of the Purse." If Congress had done their job, we wouldn't be here.

For my entire life, Congress has proven to be an unaccountable, derelict body of elected officials, with no interest in fulfilling their duties. Just look at any talk show that has a member of Congress. Have we ever heard any of them talking about what responsibilities they have and what accountability they have for the current situation? Nope, they just blame the President at that time, blame the rich, blame the poor, blame the majority, blame the minority, blame the (insert group here). They ignore that under our Constitution, the buck stops with them when it comes to the financial condition of our Republic.

As much as I don't think the current approach represents much semblance of business models, a bit of me understands the "If Congress isn't going to do their job, we'll do it" approach. It's gonna be messy and only time will tell if it will work. As for contracts and wasteful spending, I'm a bit more comfortable with a sledge hammer being used.

I think every citizen is happy to see a more aggressive approach to waste, abuse, and fraud. Yet, I don't know any business owners who would go about the personnel decisions in the manner this is happening. Any good business owner would use a scalpel here. No matter the organization, a profit-based business, non-profit org, or an agency, the people are the most valuable asset. Using a sledge hammer here not only is bad business, but hammers people who don't deserve it. Some might say, "Well, that's collateral damage." I find that collateral damage unnecessary and very unfair.

As to the notion of states taking over management, history shows that would not help. Until Congress tweaks the Equal Access to Justice Act, adjusts the single-species approach to the ESA, updates the 1872 Hard Rock Mining Act, pushes back against courts to enforce the rules of the Wild Horse and Burro Act, and a ton of other Federal laws used to litigate management actions by Federal agencies, the states will do no better. The litigators are not going away. They'll just redirect their lawsuits to the states. Then the states will be the new "Damn Feds."

Again, everything I mentioned could be fixed by Congress. But, just like the fiscal responsibilities they absolves themselves from, they shrug off their duty to manage our assets (land) properly.

I guess it can all be summarized, don't blame our forest ranger or our BLM range scientist or our USFWS biologist. Don't even blame the President, current or past. Blame Congress. This problem was created by Congress. Only they have the Constitutional power to correct it for the long-term.

Thank you for a post that asks some genuine questions we should all think about.
 
KingOfTagSoup said:
A very thoughtful and insightful take. I would however, like to dig into a couple of things. On "using a sledge hammer when a scalpel would do". A valid point, however, one must ponder that if decades of attempts with a scalpel have been largely ineffective, a sledge hammer might be what is needed. Will it hurt? Yup. Can we get through it and make things better? I believe so. Next, on this being a potential lost opportunity. I'm not convinced that's truly the case. Let's explore some grand hypotheticals for a second. And I'll reiterate before I get poo pooed. This is just a hypothetical. If our model of conservation is state based, is it unreasonable to use federal cuts as an opportunity for more state involvement in management? If Congress refuses to give federal agencies the tools and freedom to effectively manage our public lands, is it unreasonable to push for more of those responsibilities to be delegated to the states? Mind you I'm not talking about ownership of federal lands, but rather the management duties thereof. If federal personnel are being cut, is it unreasonable for states to hire those same people? Finally, if we want to influence those in charge of management of our public lands, is it more feasible to be effective at the state level or federal level? I agree, you can't cut employees and programs that are essential for better land management and then bitch about there not being better management. However, if said essentials continue to be ineffective, are they still essential? Or is it perhaps an opportunity to try something different. Anyway, thanks for digging into this and being an outspoken public lands advocate.
Click to expand...
This was exactly what the Project 2025 document called for, actually. Let the states do it.

Problem is at the same time this whole federal effort is trying to shift more responsibility to States to pay for health care, to pay for transportation, to pay for education, to pay for disasters. Do you think, given it’s never been a priority to adequately fund before, that public land management is going to be adequately funded now, under this scenario? I’m not sure that’s a realistic expectation.
 
Nameless Range said:
Public land transfer aside, lately I have been thinking about politics through a similar lens of your whitetail/jackalope statement.

If you told me to make a list of what makes the USA great, Public Lands - my access to hunting,fishing, etc - would easily be top 5. Really top 3. I bet to those pulling the strings right now they wouldn't make the top 100 - aren't really a part of their model of the USA and its positive attributes.

For a foundation of my soul and one of the finest things about my life in this country - public lands - I think it is insane to defund them to their detriment, because it's a real devaluing of what's best here. To watch people I know be kicked to the curb and receive emails that say, "The Agency finds, based on your performance, that you have not demonstrated that your further employment at the Agency would be in the public interest", I want whoever wrote that email to explicitly define the "public interest", because I don't think our interests are the same.

None of these bigwigs making proclamatory decisions are taking their sons to check traps on public lands after school like I am this evening. Aren't planning backpacking trips with their buddies for the upcoming summer on public lands as I am. Aren't eating a stuffed pepper right now filled with the protein of an elk that came from our shared mountains. The fact is it may actually be true that a lot of these sonsabitches wouldn't know the difference between a fictitious antlered rabbit and the most widely distributed ungulate of the Americas. Someone could be brilliant at business, one of the finest engineers in the world, have created enormous amounts of wealth by providing value to millions - and still be a bonafide idiot in respect to my way of life. In this realm, so many of us are without representation.

I do not believe that if our public lands degrade, if shitters are full, if the roads suck, if the weeds choke last year's burn, that it will meaningfully reduce the amount of visitors coming here. The resource itself will instead absorb that friction in all sorts of undesired ways.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately I think you nailed it. Self proclaimed kings really don’t give two chits about public lands.

www.nytimes.com

‘Long Live the King’: Trump Likens Himself to Royalty on Truth Social

A fondness for regal themes was apparent as the president applauded his administration’s move to kill congestion pricing in New York.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

IMG_4094.jpeg
 
Doublecluck said:
I never run in to human chit, always some cow that left a big greasy pile that’s gonna take 1/2-3/4 mile of sage to get out of the tread on my kennetreks. Forest service would need a god damn excavator to bury all the chit at my favorite elk spot.
Click to expand...
This ^

Human shit has never been a problem for me, now the cows are another story. That shit is everywhere in some areas.
 
People that grew up in the West don't worry much about cow/bull shit, we just tend to wear it on the outside of our boots instead of inside...

Just sayin'.
 
BuzzH said:
People that grew up in the West don't worry much about cow/bull shit, we just tend to wear it on the outside of our boots instead of inside...

Just sayin'.
Click to expand...
Shit on my boots doesn't bother me, but when you're 6 miles in to a NF and it's like you're walking through a pasture, it feels out of place.

I'll explain it for you, you're missing the point (again). The miniscule amount of human shit you encounter is nothing compared to the cow shit.
 
Big Fin said:
Using a sledge hammer here not only is bad business, but hammers people who don't deserve it.
Click to expand...
Question with this part. I agree some tact from this administration wouldve gone a long way in these cuts.

But could it be framed this way; a sledge hammer was used no going back now. If the administration came back with a scalpel to piece the positions that are needed back in while keeping the un needed out would that work?

I don't pretend to know business or politics to the extent you do.
 
I don't know if these can be read without a firewall...but some good reporting on what is occuring to federal folks in my part of the country....

www.startribune.com

Dozens of Minnesota federal workers fired in latest cuts, with no severance

The Minnesota Star Tribune talked to roughly two dozen workers who all said they were not the only ones in their departments to be cut.
www.startribune.com www.startribune.com

www.startribune.com

How will job cuts to federal land agencies affect Minnesota? Here’s what we know.

Uncertainty surrounds Superior National Forest and other agency staff.
www.startribune.com www.startribune.com

I expect the impacts listed in the 2nd article are repeated around the country.

Some excerpts:

Her immediate supervisor abruptly retired, too, and now, Nezhad said, the Gunflint office that already dealt with staffing deficits has no employees. The office used to have seven or eight people.

An agency employee in Minnesota who requested anonymity out of fear of retribution said the cuts and fallout have SNF staff “in crisis mode.”The workforce that manages the 3 million-acre national forest “already is 100 employees down” to about 250, said the employee. They include a variety of jobs such as rangers, firefighters, biologists, and visitor services staff.

The LaCroix district site in Cook, Minn., already was down to one permanent seasonal employee in visitor services. Tofte and Gunflint office hours were cut last August because of a lack of workers. Office workers have a raft of responsibilities, from processing BWCAW permits to taking payments for timber sales and hunting guide licenses.

The Trump administration said firefighting positions are exempt from job cuts. An official with the union that represents Forest Service workers said “that is a lie.” He also said the probationary job cuts are illegal. Some agency workers whose jobs are threatened do secondary work such as helping fight wildfires. “When fire season takes off, they have a red card,” he said. “You are called to duty.”
 
WIbiggame said:
But could it be framed this way; a sledghammer was used no going back now. If the administration came back with a scalpel to piece the positions that are needed back in while keeping the un needed out would that work?
Click to expand...
If you were suddenly fired from your job, citing performance issues that weren’t ever brought to your attention, and told your work was no longer in the public good, then asked a few months later to return, would you? I think anybody would be insane to take any job with the federal government for the remainder of this administration.
 
Last edited:
Gulf of America said:
If you were suddenly fired from your job, citing performance issues you that weren’t ever brought to your attention, and told your work was no longer in the public good, then asked a few months later to return, would you? I think anybody would be insane to take any job with the federal government for the remainder of this administration.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. Was just a random thought I had 😀
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Oak
Getting tougher on squatters on NF lands
2
Replies
28
Views
7K
Deleted member 16864
D
I
White House Puts the West on Fast Track for Oil, Gas Drilling
2
Replies
28
Views
6K
Stocker
Stocker
E
Rescuing a jewel
Replies
0
Views
2K
ELKCHSR
E
Use Promo Code Randy for 20% off OutdoorClass

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
120,047
Messages
2,248,057
Members
39,083
Latest member
mpat

Share this page

Back
Top