The smoking gun that proves Trump’s Forest Service now denies climate change! Compare Obama’s FY 2017 Budget Justification:

“Agency operations and assets must become more resilient to the impacts of a changing climate so we can continue to provide a high level of service while caring for the National Forest System lands.”

With Trump’s FY 2018 Budget Justification:

“Agency operations and assets must become more resilient to extreme weather so the agency can continue to provide a high level of service while caring for the National Forest System (NFS) lands.”



  1. I hate to the FS cave in to this guy but I guess he is the “leader.” Sure glad I am retired for I bet I would get fired for not using “his” terms.

  2. Really! With all due respect, the fact that he doesn’t believe in climate change is the term “extreme weather”? Maybe the snowflakes are still falling, even during Spring. The several times I’ve heard him discuss climate change is in the context that he doesn’t believe in man made global warming, which I don’t believe he is alone in this thought. The fact that the climate is changing is undeniable, the fact that man is the cause is suspect, the idea that 4% of the world population can make an impact by reducing their CO2 output by 20% shows idealism over fact.
    This based on the fact that numerous ice ages have come and gone without man, the accuracy of timing in previous events is randomly variable.
    The mortality occurring in the national forests due to lack of management should be the cause of concern not the term used in a budget proposal, maybe a change is the guard is over due.

  3. Ridiculous, but maybe we should give the Forest Service credit for making the best of this situation. They managed to say essentially the same thing about how they need to manage, but without using the forbidden words. Anything on funding the biomass fuels program to reduce fossil fuel use and help prevent that extreme weather? Or more logging to store carbon in wood products?

  4. Seems to me that everyone agrees that the climate is changing and that the Forest Service must adapt to this change. The cause of the change is not pertinent to the need for adaptive forest management. Let’s not get lost in semantics but focus on taking action.

  5. My main point is that the Forest Service is “not” managing the forests, particularly out west. The lack of management is resulting is excess biomass and catastrophic fires, more so than “extreme weather” or “climate change”. In looking at Federal Land vs. Private land in the same areas, under the same weather, there is a marked difference in both mortality due to weather and fire severity. I just sat thru a meeting on a local forest, to hear that the target of 30mmbf (recently dropped from 50mmbf a few years back) was only 14mmbf this year, but because they had chose to do EA’s instead of EIS’s they were likely to sell only 800mbf. The writing was on the wall 4 years ago to do an EIS instead of EA, yet they had chose to continue their course. This after not salvaging several million a year ago that could have been done under a CE with little effort – Roadside already cut as part of fire breaks, easily reached with log loaders from existing roads, because it would take away from proceeding with selling green projects which were under EA’s, now the net result will be 0. Private companies that operate this way don’t last, private managers that perform this way aren’t employed very long, let alone advanced to supervisors.
    This is just a small example of the problems in the agency. Supervisors need to have a “can do” attitude and get back to management of the lands under their care, rather than a sponge for tax dollars. There are many forests that operate with the intent of actually accomplishing projects on the ground, not just efforts on paper, but as long as the agency doesn’t police itself there will be fallout and reductions. If there is no implementation, what is the purpose of tax dollars funding research for the sake of research?

  6. How about reducing man-enhanced drought effects by matching tree densities to annual precipitation levels? The idea of using bark beetles and wildfires to thin out forests is just as ridiculous as fighting extreme weather. Also, I never see people blaming climate change for the good weather they may have had, despite predictions, otherwise.

    • “The idea of using bark beetles and wildfires to thin out forests is just as ridiculous as fighting extreme weather.”


      Natural disturbance and mortality are exactly the mechanisms that maintained forests in a dynamic pseudo-equilibrium with biophysical parameters (climate, geology, elevation, CO2, herbivory, etc) for millions of years before humans arrived. Why are chainsaws and bulldozers suddenly essential for “forest health?”

      • Manmade equipment and intervention are needed because there happens to be 350 million people who happen to live in the United States, many in the urban interface. To ignore that or think that destroying private property and human life, is a true sign of the disconnect many have with reality.

        • Ah yes, the people in the WUI. Too many homes have been permitted in fire-prone forests. That policy and zoning codes make as much sense as allowing people to build on highly dynamic floodplains.
          Here’s an excellent video, with a USFS scientist, showing the importance and value of what homeowners can do to reduce the risk of ignition – Take a look at the home that survived a severe burn.
          Turns out the ember experiments were done by an insurance group.

          Much more effective to take measures near the structure than miles away in the National Forest.

          • “Too many homes have been permitted in fire-prone forests. ”

            Sooo, does that also mean there are too many powerlines, canals, railroads, dams, roads, etc in those same forests? Should private properties deemed unsafe for buildings be purchased from owners at the market rates? Should there be a ban on checkerboarded private lands? Should the highest function of a forest be to burn, finishing the worshipped ‘natural’ succession?

          • In all fairness, let’s require the Federal Agencies to take the initiative to make public land fire safe in the WUI. If they can’t then they need to offer the land to the adjacent owner. They should be liable for any fire that burns from federal land onto private land.
            They need to take aggressive, immediate action, to suppress any fire that originates on their land or be held civilly liable……. these are the rules that apply to private landowners, seems only fair!

            • The problem is that the eco-folks consider the WUI to be just one tree length in width. They also insist that all our forest problems sit squarely with forest residents, and their mere presence. Blaming wildfire victims for where they live is pretty dang cruel. I guess it is merely yet another aspect of “Whatever Happens”, where human needs come last.

      • I have provided ample evidence that shows stand replacements, instead of ‘thinning’. You are just being purposely dense about firestorm realities. Today’s forests and wildfires are so very far from what pioneers found but, you wish to preserve today’s unnatural man-impacted forest lands. I did not say that all forests need “chainsaws and bulldozers”. That statement shows how ignorant and out of touch you are with science, history and even reading comprehension. Pretending you know what a pre-Man forest looks like is just not believable. Active human management is a very ‘natural’ process, resulting in majestic old growth forests, as shown by history. “Whatever Happens” is NOT what the American public wants for its forests. THIS is where preservationists are failing, miserably, especially with this President in office.


Leave a Comment

Discover more from The Smokey Wire : National Forest News and Views

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading