This is the second of two posts reflecting on generalized critiques of “the Forest Service.” Yes, things seem to be unusually messed up right now, but looking more broadly…
Bob said:
The Forest Service is lost and struggling. The NLT, RFs, and Rangers have developed an unhealthy contempt for the mission. I think it blossomed in the pandemic. It manifests as arrogance and a complete lack of focus on the public.
and Zeke (maybe) said:
They’ve lost their esprit de corps and sense of purpose, and their reason for being has gone away
It’s certainly true that cutting trees, in some Regions and on some Forests, led to hiring of many kinds of specialists (including me, back in the day). Funding from KV and BD led to work and experience with burning piles and planting. We general employees were available for wildfires, and it all worked together, as a kind of general system in some areas. Even then, though, there were regional differences. For example, the Fremont (Region 6) had a very different approach to timber than its next-door neighbor, the Modoc, in Region 5.
On some forests, though, grazing was the big thing, and in others, recreation. It seems to me a natural fact that what you work in seems important to you, and there’s the overall old statement “caring for the land and serving people”. We all seemed to see it that way, whether we worked in wildlife or reforestation or hydrology or engineering or recreation, and I assume folks still do.
Check out your neighborhood Forest SOPA for ongoing projects to see what they are actually spending time on, along with the standard operations of recreation, road maintenance, signs, trails permits, encroachment, and so on. Or check out the White River SOPA or the Inyo or the Chattahoochee-Oconee as.. there are plenty of other things going on besides vegetation management – special uses, recreation, minerals, and watershed rehab projects. Even new (motorized!) trails as in the Lake Tahoe Basin.
Project work will include constructing three new trailheads, paved parking and restrooms at Pine Drop, Brockway Summit and Elks Point; constructing new e-bike trails, new motorcycle trails, and new non-motorized trails; designating new routes open to e-bikes and new routes open to motorcycles; upgrading road and trail crossings for aquatic organism passage; installing wayfinding and interpretive signs; developing and upgrading existing trailheads, parking areas, and access points; and updating the Motor Vehicle Use Maps.
***********************
But behind that is both an philosophical question “what is “the Forest Service”?” as well as a social science question “what do individuals think of when you think of “the Forest Service?”.
Again, I’d like to place this discussion in context of other institutions. One that comes to mind is the Roman Catholic Church- having been an institution for 2000 years or so- through a variety of different Zeitgeists in different countries through time. Let’s ask the same questions “What is the Catholic Church?” Is it the local parish, is it the Vatican curia, is it the people who did the Crusades, or people today or..? It’s all of those things. If we were to ask individuals, though, it might depend on how closely they had encountered individuals. Like, “I think the bishop is a jerk but my priest is great” or vice versa. It’s about the people and the experiences for those closer to the action. But there are also observations from afar.
Or try State Parks and Wildlife. Some people look at our in Colorado as “those people – all they care about it hunting.” In my case, it’s about my local guy AB, who always answers emails and writes a column in our local paper about wildlife concerns. I’ve had a conflicted relationship in the past with certain politicals in the organization’s previous (DOW) incarnation, but if you asked me today, my warm fuzzies about the organization are about AB and my liking of a certain wildlife area that they manage. But I would like if State Park passes worked at wildlife areas. So, like the Forest Service, (and the RC church) I’ve got generic warm fuzzies but also ideas for improvement. Both things are true. It’s not a loyalty test or an us vs. them. When people get frustrated with various aspects of the RC church, I tend to sigh and say “it’s an institution, composed of flawed people, many of whom are trying to do their best.”
We can, and should, work on improving institutions but as long as people run them, it’s best if we don’t get too upset when they behave suboptimally. Is the organization working? Is there a church to go to? Do I get answers to my wildlife questions? Are campgrounds and trailheads open? Does a university teach students? It’s pretty clear where the rubber meets the road in most organizations and where the focus of energy and funding should be.
************************
I probably contact different Forests, Regions and the WO as much as anyone. Shoot, Dave Mertz and I have been trying to get the info on how much funding has been obligated to the Keystone Agreements and Community Navigators.. a simple spreadsheet would do- for almost a year. FS public affairs asked me to ask the Department; the Department won’t acknowledge my requests let alone answer them. Either to the form I submitted or directly to the person putatively in charge of the FS section. So I too am frustrated.
But I also find forests and districts where I really couldn’t tell the difference between the old FS and the new FS in terms of responsiveness. So there’s that. And some are actually better because they have more technology to better answer questions.
***********************
Anyway, I think broad generalizations don’t help. I do think talking about our specific concerns, and getting them in the open would help. Like what could the Forest Service do to increase transparency and accountability, and give people better customer service experiences? We could start by learning from units that already do those things well. Remember that old management slogan “catch people doing something right?”
“The good old days” are gone and in southern Colorado the “great new days” are here. Well sort of, there are many challenges due to funding issues. To me, it is about working differently than the past. The timber program for the Rio Grande National Forest isn’t what it used to be because the spruce beetle killed most mature spruce on the forest (35% of the cover types on the forest). These dead trees are now more than 10 years old and have little commercial value, but the forest did its best to salvage what they could within the confines of budget and market.
The “great new days” has been in the works for a while. Because the RGNF was always a bottom feeder budget wise, the forest learned to adapt to get things done. A partnership with Volunteers for Outdoor Colorado put a full-time volunteer coordinator on the forest and local BLM field office. I managed that position before I retired. The San Juan Mountain Interpretive Association helps the forest staff the front desks and provide educational programs. A few different local/regional NGOs work with the forest on a variety of conservation projects, including timber projects. These partnerships help connect the forest directly with locals working together to do good things.
I’m on the board of the Headwaters Alliance based out of the mountain town Creede. We have organized a meeting in Nov. to get multiple potential partners to discuss land/water management issues and how we can all work together to mitigate them. The district ranger who covers the headwaters of the Rio Grande will be there, as will a rep for Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Colorado State Forest Service, county commissioners, town leaders, and at least two other conservation oriented NGOs.
The one issue I wish we could figure out is how to maintain the forest roads. The funding isn’t there and I’m not sure how to secure it. Maybe something we will figure out at our meeting. I will be leading a roundtable discussion in which I will bring that up. Many of our Level 2 roads that were passable with a 2-wheel drive high clearance vehicle are now de-facto 4×4 roads. Many more are on their way.
I’ve heard the philosophy stated by some in the USFS that if the forest doesn’t get the funding then they just won’t do the work. Forty years ago a forward-thinking, risk-taking forest supervisor took over the reigns on the RGNF. He put everyone through creativity training. His philosophy was you know what you need to do, figure out how to do it. His only sideboards were it needed to be legal, moral and safe. Policies can be broken, but laws can’t. The forest has never looked back.
Just because a NGO is doing work that used to be done by public employees (e.g., interpretive services at visitor centers) does not mean that tax dollars are not still paying these outsourced workers. The San Juan Mountains Association receives 80% of its funding from government grants. The Headwaters Alliance receives almost half of its funding from government grants.
BUT, NGOs can do things the USFS can’t thus adding value beyond their costs. For example, in the case of interpretive associations, they can buy and sell a variety of materials that is educational and useful for visitors, thus improving their experiences. Additionally, in the case SJMA, they can hire someone within a few weeks to cover our front desks. Try doing that through Albuquerque. The HWA is able to seek government and non-government grants the USFS can’t. They bring in a lot of non-USFS government funds. I can’t remember the funding breakdown for the VOC volunteer coordinator, but when I cranked the numbers each year, we were getting more than twice the value of our cost, not to mention the relationship building that occurs with volunteer projects.
The value of NGOs working in partnership with government agencies can’t be understated. One more example that ties in with FSEEE: Many years ago, before your tenure, a certain US Senator requested personal information on all employees concerning their ties to environmental organizations. All employees received a WO request to provide this info. I had taken exactly one constitutional law class and knew this was illegal. I called Jeff (an email would have been stupid) and told him the situation. Two days later the request was cancelled. Thank you FSEEE.
One can wring one’s hands and complain about the funding and/or policy issues that appear to be blocking one’s way or one can take it as a challenge to figure out how to get the work done in spite of government bureaucracy/funding. During my entire career with the USFS, I had the attitude of figuring out ways to get the work done in spite of all the obstacles thrown in my way. There are still people in the organization doing that and they should be encouraged and celebrated.
I see two layers here.
1. People trying to do what they need to do with existing impediments (like, can’t hire people) at the local level. Those are the people we should support.
2. Removing bureaucratic impediments (like our R-2 RF suggesting we use BLM’s office in Denver for HR and not ABQ), well that wasn’t realistic, but was creative.
I guess my point is that if the FS has to send money elsewhere to do work, because of things like targeted hiring, and the difficulties of contracting, just maybe those difficulties and criteria (like meeting quals in hiring) are not really all that important.
Or the flip side would be the more or less philosophical question, why have government employees at all if ngo’s are more effective and efficient? How would we consciously separate what should be in and out?
I sat in a neighboring cubicle to Terry Tipple who had a Ph.D. in public administration during the Lamar Beasley NFF Subaru Forester kerfuffle. The public admin world has given a great deal of thought to the pros and cons of “public-private partnerships”.. I can’t remember the details, but there’s probably some good thinking in that world.
Andy, I find 990s somewhat impenetrable.. what section has the origin of grants?
I remember sitting at the Watershed meetings in Creede, as a water guy myself (by default, but whatever) I was always impressed with that group! Who was the Sup you mentioned? I envy the Forest for finding ways to make it work. The only problem I ever ran into was just getting burned out, after a while. It just wears a person down!
You are correct on the “bottom feeder” analogy, it’s a tough place to be but occurs in each Region. However the RGNF is a fine example of what a Forest should be! It demonstrates pride in its presentation to the public, brought on by a caring and professional group of employees!
The forest sup was Jim Webb.
You are right about the burnout issue, but when the forest sup is a leader rather than a manager, people step up.
I’m a fan of creativity and bulldozing problems or going around problems or whatever.
The FS leadership just overspent the budget. Austerity is being forced on FS leadership. FS leadership is on the record that current funding levels are not adequate to the task at hand.
You really think that forest sups and district rangers are going to be encouraged to keep making progress, however creative, and having the agency meet CCF targets, Rx targets, rec sites managed to standard targets, road maintenance targets during a period, however long, of forced austerity?
Or is it more likely that FS leadership will, off the record of course, instruct the RFs to instruct the sups to instruct the rangers to do less and achieve less to prove that the budget is inadequate?