Chelsea, in a recent comment, linked to a post by Don Moynihan letter signed by some academic folks in public administration. Again, I think Schedule F is a bad idea, and I agree with these academics that there are areas of broad bipartisan agreement. I also think that any real reform needs to be reality-based. Which would be terribly difficult to generalize, because agencies and subagencies and missions are so different.
The letter the academics wrote said
Government workers will not take justified risks or innovate if they feel they are being judged on the basis of political loyalty rather than results.
I’m only speaking of the Forest Service here:
There are many reasons that government workers don’t take justified risks or innovate. We used to talk about how new ideas are dissolved by anti-novelty antibodies (actually there is a much better way of saying this, but I can’t remember). And of course, say with IMTs and managed fire, “justified” risk is in the eye of the beholder.
When I worked in WO NEPA, we had a list of policies we wanted to push in either variety of Admin. Admins, when interested, can actually overcome natural organizational inertia, so there’s that. For example, the 2001 Roadless Rule. I happened to be at a Chief and Staff meeting with Chief Thomas and we in RPA presented the idea that we could adopt a roadless policy. But organizational inertia prevailed – “but what about Alaska?” end of discussion. But with Admin interest and pressure..
Then we have to address “political loyalty” and try to determine whether, or how it is different from “policy alignment.” I think it’s a key question, since folks with different policy orientations can be in different parties. Meanwhile folks are Ramspecked in from Congressional staffs who clearly had some kind of partisan affiliation. So, is it OK to pick people due to policy alignment for SES jobs? It seems like it would be, or at least that’s what people already do.
Jim Furnish was kind enough to let us sample from his book on his own history of how he went from Forest Supervisor to Deputy Chief. In this part of his story, politicals sensed his alignment and put him in an SES position, from which he was able to do many innovative things in alignment with the Admin’s goals. Also note the intensive coaching for the SES application.
Anyway, let’s let Jim tell his story:
*******************
Washington, DC, Part II, 1999–2002
Capitol Politics
Chris Wood was Forest Service Chief Michael Dombeck’s policy advisor. Wood had followed Dombeck to the Forest Service from the Bureau of Land Management, where Dombeck had served, though never confirmed by the Senate, as acting director for four years. Dombeck, a fisheries biologist, had risen rapidly through the ranks of the Forest Service before detouring to the BLM, assured by then-Chief Dale Robertson that he had a “get home free” card. Now he was home again.
No Forest Service chief had ever employed a policy advisor before. It was hard to discern Wood’s role exactly, but not difficult to know that he was important. I first met Wood when he came to a Forest Service leadership meeting in Oregon in about 1996. Numerous stories about his influence with Dombeck preceded his arrival. It seemed Wood served as the chief’s gatekeeper. If you wanted to talk with the chief, you had to talk to Wood first.
This alarmed anyone who’d learned how to work the ropes in an agency with a very tight chain-of-command tradition. The chief’s office had historically kept a very open door to field officers, especially forest supervisors. Basic respect made stopping by to say hello to the chief de rigueur when in town. Now, anecdotes dribbled through the rumor pipeline about Wood’s unwelcome intervention in the affairs of the chief’s office. People longed to see this arrogant badass in the flesh.
When Wood came to Oregon, I found I liked him from the get-go. He was bright, energetic, optimistic, and smiled a lot, a high-minded go-getter with a real passion for issues. Youngish, he didn’t iron his shirts. He kept no pretenses, and he radiated confidence and power.
I suspect he sensed that many agency people viewed him with a wary eye, so I approached him warmly at coffee break, quickly discovering we shared a love of fishing. Then the questions started popping. He wanted to know all about the Siuslaw—what were our hot issues, what did I see as needing to happen to move Dombeck’s agenda forward? I had a vague awareness Wood used such questions to gauge my land ethic. I eagerly shared our work on thinning, road closures, and watershed restoration. Based on what I’d seen of Dombeck’s agenda, I thought my ideas about managing national forests were similar to the chief’s.
Wood enthusiastically encouraged me to keep up the good work. He mentioned that Chief Dombeck believed we were in a time of flux, and the chief wanted to find change agents. Wood said he planned to talk with Dombeck about the Siuslaw’s road closures, fisheries restoration, and thinning of plantations to promote old growth. Wood wanted me to stay in touch and keep him abreast of any new developments. This was the badass people feared? I saw nothing to fear.
To respond to Wood’s curiosity, I sent him a copy of “Torrents of Change,” a half-hour video produced by the Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics following the big flood of 1996. The video began by relating how the storm had affected the forests and rivers. It described how we on the Siuslaw had storm proofed our roads with water bars and how well our preventive measures had worked to absorb the punch of the storm. I also sent Wood a speech I’d just given at a Siuslaw forestwide celebration of human diversity. The talk included my thoughts on Forest Service obligations to tribes, since virtually all our western national forests had once been Native American ancestral homelands. Wood sent a note back saying that he really liked what he saw and would share it with the chief.
Wood must have sensed that I operated on a different wavelength than most other forest supervisors. On his next trip West, he confided to me that Dombeck had concerns about the willingness of agency leaders to break away from past traditions and dogma to assert bold change.
I agreed with Dombeck’s assessment. I had a certain dread and uncertainty about the future, but a keen sense that inaction was deadly. I felt compelled to break out of the mire and do something.
As we charged ahead with our programs on the Siuslaw, I mentioned to Wood how much I appreciated the newfound support I had received from the environmental community. He could appreciate that because it was so rare. Also, a fresh energy and enthusiasm was evident within the Siuslaw organization as we pursued our new mission. Yet, I explained, many of my peers had little use for or interest in the Siuslaw’s resurgent agenda.
I remember that Wood said something like, “We need this kind of stuff back in DC.”
On Wood’s next trip, he came right out and asked if I’d consider coming back to work in the chief’s office. “As what, for instance?” I replied. I loved my work in Oregon. Besides, I’d already spent a two-and-a-half-year tour in DC. I was not eager to return. In fact, going back to DC had not occurred to me since I arrived in Oregon.
“Well, the associate chief and deputy chief for national forests are both open.”
I let this cannonball bang in my brain for a moment. No forest supervisor had ever made that kind of jump.
I found Wood’s suggestion extraordinary. The associate and deputy positions were, respectively, the number-two and number-three positions in the agency. Both fell under the category of Senior Executive Service (SES) appointments, which normally involved an arduous evaluation just to get qualified, then usually six months of “charm school” training. I had done neither. Furthermore, plum positions like a deputy chief’s post always went to people already in the queue for SES positions, like regional foresters or associate deputy chiefs. This was how the old Forest Service did things.
Undeterred, Wood said the chief didn’t put much stock in all that. Dombeck just wanted to get people in these jobs who would move the Forest Service ahead. Wood said they had ways to cut through all the bureaucracy—evidenced by Dombeck’s recent appointment of Francis Pandolfi, an executive from the Times-Mirror Corporation and a complete outsider, to an SES job through open competition. Dombeck wanted people with new ideas, big ideas.
I asked if Dombeck was serious. Wood said yes, but he could guarantee nothing, since both positions would be filled through open competition. Dombeck wanted someone like me, but he couldn’t hand me the job. I understood.
I told Wood I needed time to consider his request.
I knew something about the recent rapid changes at the top. Almost immediately after Dombeck became chief, he’d fired several top SES leaders, including the former deputy chief, Gray Reynolds. Reynolds had issued a bitter rejoinder that had hit the inbox of almost all employees, saying his firing was unwarranted, unwelcome, and an offense to Forest Service tradition. Dombeck had replaced Reynolds with Bob Joslin, southern regional forester from Atlanta, but Joslin retired after only a year and a half amid rumors that he couldn’t handle the environmental politics of the Clinton administration.
Gloria Manning stepped in behind Joslin as the acting deputy chief.
There was turmoil elsewhere. Phil Janik had replaced Dave Unger, the recently retired associate chief. Dombeck chose to split Janik’s duties to create a second associate chief position. The person filling this new job would supervise the deputy chief of the national forest system.
Substantive questions needed answers before I could even think about being that person.
Could any forest supervisor succeed in such an environment, especially a supervisor from the Siuslaw, which was a small forest relative to many others? I would not be regarded as a particularly powerful or credible forest supervisor. I anticipated strong resistance and pushback because of an agency culture that respected power. If Dombeck selected me, largely unknown, as either associate or deputy chief, I would leapfrog about four or five rungs on the organizational ladder. How would this affect agency leaders’ trust in the chief? Bypassing all the more likely candidates would send a strong signal that he doubted them. This would echo in their doubts about him.
Could I succeed? Regardless of how positive Dombeck was about my accomplishments, he didn’t really know me, and I didn’t know him. My biggest concern was not my ideology, but my capacity to develop and build followership. Would regional foresters and national program directors willingly roll up their sleeves with me to get things done? A long career in the Forest Service had convinced me that a failure in either of these important jobs would be costly to both the chief and the agency.
I harbored doubts. Such a move carried steep risks. If Dombeck selected a nontraditional person like me, it would be difficult for me to bring others along, and I could easily become isolated. Yet I also sensed that Dombeck intended to pursue an ambitious agenda, and he wanted and needed like-minded people to help him. The possibility of helping shift the trajectory of the Forest Service held a tantalizing appeal.
I had long talks with my wife, Judy. Surprisingly, she supported my going after the job. She knew the inherent uncertainty that I’d get either job. Yet she’d enjoyed living in the DC area. We both knew a promotion would bring a big jump in pay, too.
Until now, Chris Wood had done all the talking with me. I told Wood that I thought it was time for me and Mike Dombeck to speak directly. Could Dombeck call me personally? Days went by, and then weeks. I began to wonder whether all my speculation was for naught.
Then, as often happens, about the time my anxiety began to burn away, Dombeck called.
We had a good talk. I shared my concerns and asked the chief his thoughts. He said he admired my accomplishments on the Siuslaw. He thought I had what he and the Forest Service needed to move the agency forward. He mentioned the scarcity of big ideas, much less big accomplishments, in crafting a twenty-first-century agenda. He and Jim Lyons, the under secretary of agriculture, both wanted people on the leadership team who would forge change.
We discussed the SES hiring process. He said he had hired others without SES experience via open competition. It was a tricky deal, though, and I needed to quickly get acquainted with Tom Leeper, who was the Forest Service’s SES expert. Dombeck asked me to tell Leeper, “The chief wants you to shepherd me through the application process.”
It was now summer 1998. Wood had mentioned that Sally Collins, Deschutes National Forest supervisor in Bend, Oregon, was also in the running. Collins and I tended to think alike, and we got along well. She and I discussed the merits of going after these jobs, and we both thought it was a big gamble. Collins told me her daughter was entering her senior high school year in Bend, and a move at this time seemed imprudent for the family. I countered that it would take many months before a decision was made, and she could bargain to delay her starting date until after graduation the following June. After much soul-searching, Collins decided not to go after either job.
I called Tom Leeper. He stood ready to help, but he warned of the arduous process before me. To receive a favorable review by the Office of Personnel Management, I would need to put together a sterling application. He said he would coach me along the way. I did ask if being a GS-14 would be held against me, since almost all those who qualified for SES selections came from the higher-level GS-15 pool. He said that would not be a problem.
The process required that candidates develop narratives demonstrating their competence in five evaluation factors: leading people, leading change, building coalitions, being results-driven, and having business acumen. Applications had to be approved by a panel of three government reviewers. If rejected, the application could be revised and submitted again, but only once.
I dove in and spent many evenings preparing my application until I felt it represented my best effort. I ran it by Tom Leeper, who said, “Looks OK.” So I submitted it. Weeks went by before Leeper called to tell me I hadn’t made it. The panel found four out of my five elements “deficient,” and the fifth just marginal. Leeper said I had another shot, but I had to pass the second time or it would be a dead end.
I begged for some insight on what I had done wrong and how to fix it. Leeper said they really looked for a “certain style” of writing (what I privately described to myself as elite bureaucrat or self-aggrandizing). Could he provide some examples? No, but he’d work with me when I sent him the next write-up. This he did: he said the application was still not there.
Desperate now, I asked if he could rewrite a few paragraphs to illustrate what he meant by a certain style. Then I submitted another heavily edited round for the Leeper test. Leeper remained nervous about my application, and I even more so.
I then invoked the Dombeck imperative. To “shepherd me” through this process, I told Leeper that he needed to give me more hands-on help. I told him that Dombeck wanted me to be a candidate available for selection. If I didn’t get through the SES gate, we’d all look bad. I asked him to work with me line by line, editing it strongly to make sure it passed the SES panel review. I was grateful when he helped me prepare my last-chance version for reconsideration.
I later discovered a couple of interesting things. Francis Pandolfi confided to me that he applied for his SES job with just one handwritten paragraph for each of the five evaluation elements. Seeing this, Leeper had delicately advised Pandolfi that this wouldn’t do, since SES applications were serious business, and Pandolfi had a lot of work to do before he could submit his work. Pandolfi said he told Leeper, “No, Tom, you’ve got a lot of work to do.” Pandolfi got the job after Leeper polished those few paragraphs to a luster that passed the SES board.
I talked with another SES person who served on review panels. He said the Office of Personnel Management took a very dim view of GS-14 candidates (like me), deeming them unworthy of consideration, since SES candidates were usually from the higher-level GS-15 pool. He indicated that GS-14s were routinely rejected without serious consideration.
Do these anecdotes indicate a double standard, or was I simply naïve? Even though I think Leeper should have been more helpful from the beginning, my application squeaked through the second time, and I became an applicant in good standing for both high-level jobs. As associate chief, I would report directly to Dombeck, and my responsibilities would include national forests and the agency’s research branch. As deputy chief, I would report to the associate chief, and I would manage all national forest issues, supervising nine regional foresters, ten national program directors, and a staff of about fifteen, with an overall budget of about two billion dollars. I knew I would be thrilled, and fully challenged, if offered either one.
**********
You can buy Jim’s book here.
Thanks to Jim for his insert. Very nice of him. Brought back lots of memories. I spent 30 years of my career as a member of the SES. I sure do not recall worrying about political affiliation, ever. I worked for 5 Administrations. I am pretty sure I was not picked for the SES assignments based on my “policy affiliation” either. Never once was I asked any questions about my positions on anything. Once I was in the position, I just tried my best to accomplish my Chief’s leadership direction. When I disagreed, I always felt I had a voice. I was provided superior freedom to work with Member of Congress, for example. Working with Senators Lugar and Byrd and Congressman McDade, again as examples, was a rich experience. In fact, I had lots of freedom. I loved my career with the Forest Service. Currently, particularly in the conservation area of wildfires, I feel the agency is a bit stale. But that will pass. It better. More than one-half the National Forests are dead or dying. The lack of landscape scale care of the forestlands is horrific, but that’s another story. I sure would hate to work for an Administration whereby one had to pass a litmus test as a non-political hire. That goes really against the checks and balance system established so long ago. It’s called Democracy and halting voices for the good of the American people is not what the Founding Fathers wanted. This does not give me the right to say anything I want. The 1st Amendment does not say that. But I always found lots of room to work within “the walls of solid judgment.”
Many of the decisions I made while in a specific assignment while in federal public service, “we” made because folks were not afraid to share their voices. And so often the choices made were superior. It would be so bad on so many levels if that freedom were compromised. And I did not know a GS-14 could apply for an SES position (smile). Good to know.
Very respectfully,
Ironically, Siuslaw NF had been a GS-15 forest, but downgraded to 14 following logging declines assoc with spotted owl. I lateraled into the Supv job from my Dep Supv position (after Wendy Herrett moved to RO – another twist of fate). I’d never met Dombeck prior to my selection – only one phone call. I believe I was selected for performance, not as a crony. I told Mike “I’m voting for Bush” and he was OK with that. We agreed often on key policies, but not always, As was the case with Jim Lyons (more in my memoir) – both ALWAYS valued my views (not true with next Chief after Dombeck left).
Happy to share revelations from the boiler room – where things happen, unbeknownst to many
Thanks for this, Jim! But can “performance,” in the case of NFS, be separated neatly from politics/policy?
I think “cronyism” is the buddy system which is somewhat different (like who goes elk hunting with whom).
Thanks for sharing your experiences, Michael! As a former RPA person, who worked with all the different parts of the Forest Service, I wonder whether your experience with State and Private and R&D affects how much controversy you were involved with that might have a partisan policy/politics nexus. Mostly I remember those branches working with Congress and others to get more funding. Which might be a politically easier lift that situations where there are trade-offs. I would be interested in hearing more about your experiences if you would be willing to write a post.
The Siuslaw often had very good Supervisors. My life in timber in the private side started with Rex Wakefield and ended with Tom Thompson. Dale Robertson was a great buffer between Deep State Lifers and the public all the while protecting his troops. If I remember, the Siuslaw Timber Operators Assoc. manager Kent Kelly’s offered 10 year forest plan alternative was chosen and Supervisor Thompson carried it to Robertson. We had preserved 180,000 acres of late 19th century fire reproduction, then 110 years old, as “old growth,” even as the actual “old growth” as known to the natives occupied 32,000 acres of the forest with at least 2 trees per acre in the past 300 yr age class.
The USFS Preferred Alternative was to cut 270 MMBF annually in a forest growing twice that amount. The Siuslaw Timber Operators Plan was, if I remember 35 years ago, was to harvest 332MMBF annually. Kent Kelly defended it with candor and facts. We did the research. Had peer reviewed science as our basis for preserving habitats, and having the full range of serial stage succession and mimicking indigenous pre Columbian practices. Our plan added volume over what was harvested and the science of loss revealed.
Environmental groups had declared the SNF had “overcut” the forest and offered numbers. What they failed to note that it was a federal high voltage three wire, steel pylons , a right of way almost all on the SNF, from the Siuslaw River north to the Yaquina River, to build out the BPA transmission diversity to respond to destructive weather events. So a 400 foot wide 40 mile long transmission line through a rainforest consisting of site 1 and 2 Douglas fir forests with every cutting unit sold having a parcel of non conifer red alder and maple to be cut and Douglas fir planted, which always gets “natural” inseeding of western hemlock, western red cedar, and the ubiquitous big leaf maple and red alder “hardwoods.”
The now missing element in Region 6 is the once south slopes coast and Cascades steep face grassy balds and indigenous fire maintained mountain wet prairies, fens, dry prairies. Along the South Fork Willamette River up to the pumice flats on the north end of the Klamath tribal lands, a south facing system of ponderosa pine and Oregon white oaks savannas, fire maintained by pre Columbian peoples, now overgrown by two centuries of missing native peoples. After no logging for 40 years, now a huge contiguous stand of fuels and pine and oak naturals. The Willamette NF started to recover the pine-oak south slopes more than a decade ago, but that petered out. PODs preparedness would be a great use of POD money to remove the true firs and Doug firs and leave the white oak, PPines, and incense cedars. And the largest trees on those south slopes today are the 5-7 foot DBH and 250+ tall sugar pines. All will be lost without proactive protections by mechanical removal of water consuming Doug fir weed, and then under burning site prepped ground from the river grade mainline to 1000 feet upslope. No planting needed. Regular under burning will form the “gentle mosaic of vegetation responses. My opinion.
Side note: During my career, the Siuslaw NF timber sale presiding officer was Glenville Wilson, whom my mind remembers as the most competent, gracious, polite, unassuming managerial employee in government at any level I ever worked with as a private timber purchaser and sale manager, logging boss, timber manager, and for a term, President of Siuslaw Timber Operators Association. If I remember, her husband was Dean of Pharmacy at Oregon State U. Still my high water mark for a service provider working for government. And so long ago. JT
Rex Wakefield was my good friend and fellow Eddyville Tree Farmer in the 1970s and 80s. I think he was one of the very finest Supervisors, forester, and person the Siuslaw NF ever had. He was a strong proponent of the 1906 “Use Book” and only quit the Forest Service and went to work with private industry when they tried to promote him to another state. He wasn’t leaving Oregon, no matter the job title — not stubborn, just realistic. Ken McCall and I did a series of oral history interviews with Rex in 1989, when he was experiencing the effects of Alzheimer’s, so many of his answers are a little vague or rambling, but his wife Mabel helped keep things straight. Rex’s 5-page history of the Siuslaw, which he wrote in 1985 before becoming ill, is on pp. 185-189: http://nwmapsco.com/ZybachB/Oral_Histories/Rex_Wakefield/Zybach-McCall_1994.pdf.
It seems folks are drifting into “comfortable history”, getting away from SFs original intent here.
But her line of inquiry persists. My view: political loyalty/policy alignment are highly correlated. This is how FS navigated the 1950-1990 logging heyday. If you want “ecosystem mgmt” and roadless area protection and T&E spp protection, better get ya some new leaders. FS has served timber industry well; their env constituency? Nope. This is the discussion needed here – picking leaders to achieve a better future (defining THAT future is a good topic, richly discussed by TSW).
More than once in my career, I heard the term “Green Shorts”, meaning you always supported what leadership says, underneath it all. As a Temporary Employee, not being loyal could send you down the road.
Hi Jim: When it comes to “[wanting] “ecosystem mgmt” and roadless area protection and T&E spp protection,” I would say that the USFS is filled with such “new leaders,” and I would include you as one of the first pioneers in this field at both a local and a national level.
I honestly mean this as a compliment because this effort has been so successful the past 35 years, and is seeming to continue for the foreseeable future. My problem is that I am more a “1906 Use Book” taxpayer-type than a fan of “protection” from valuable and historical roads and trails or costly efforts to “save” one of the 2400+ and ever-increasing “T&E” species. My opinion is that these are political and legal strategies rather than scientific or economic, and that the latter two perspectives would be more beneficial to both human and wildlife communities.
I’m not sure of the “original intent” of Sharon’s post, but it was nice to reflect back on the history of the Siuslaw NF with your writing, John Thomas, Jr.’s memories, and revisiting my times with Rex Wakefield. So far as an envisioned “better future,” I would go with immediate landscape-scale historical research; basin-scale reforestation and fire management planning; old-growth, road, and trail maintenance priorities; and a local business management focus.
The USFS did great for nearly a century, but now our public forests are a dangerous mess and getting worse. A systematic transfer of USFS lands to counties and tribes, within general state and federal management guidelines would be my preferred future. Probably won’t happen, but central government control is proving a massive failure.
Gosh, Bob… I’m sorta blushing. Thank you. I think the future is up for debate, but not sure I cotton to your rather Draconian vision. If you think this is bad, county control?? Gasp – utter chaos lies down that road.
Hi Jim: The counties are doing pretty good with roads, schools, parks, and public safety, but they were doing much better when our federal forests were being actively managed. I don’t see how they can do any worse than the costly, deadly, unsightly mess the Forest Service has made of western Oregon and northern California since 1990. And spotted owl populations (and their so-called “critical habitats”) continue to decline, coho continue to do well — but maybe not as well as when hatcheries were allowed to operate — and marbled murrelets live and eat in the ocean, not in a forest. My tour of the 2022 Cedar Creek Fire in Willamette NF yesterday only strengthened these perspectives and concerns.
“costly, deadly, unsightly mess…” I wonder how people on the street feel about pvt industry forest lands? Me – I definitely prefer Siuslaw NF today in comparison to pvt Coast Range forests. And I think the vast majority of citizens do too.
Hi Jim: It’s a question of aesthetics. My former wife was from South Dakota and did the book work and ran an occasional “women’s crew” for our reforestation business in the 1970s and 80s. We were based in Lincoln County, in the heart of Siuslaw NF country and she “confessed” that she liked seeing the topography and creeks of an area after a clearcut, rather than a wall of trees, which made her feel claustrophobic. My friend Charles Kay, a retired wildlife biologist from Utah made the same observation after a visit to the Coast about 20 years ago.
But you are probably right about a majority of people preferring to see the Siuslaw rather than a landscape of industrial forests. I’m not too sure of your adjective “vast,” though, because a large number of loggers, hunters, wildflower photographers, and sawmill workers most likely side with Pam and Charles. But you are probably right about “most” folks.
The Siuslaw is an anomaly, though, and not representative of other National Forests in western Oregon or northern California, which have been systematically decimated by wildfires the past 30 years, and particularly the last 10. The Siuslaw had it’s last major fire in 1868 or 1889, and wasn’t seriously affected by the 1936 Coast Range events because it is mostly in the spruce-hemlock “fog belt” adjacent to the Pacific Ocean and gets a lot more rain and a lot shorter fire season than other National Forests in this region. Olympic Peninsula and Alaska are other examples of ocean proximity and infrequent catastrophic-scale wildfires largely for that reason.
Now visit the Willamette, Umpqua, and Klamath-Siskiyou forests and see what people prefer. The only individuals that have claimed the appearance of these devastated, ugly, and dangerous landscapes is preferable to other forested lands — industrial or otherwise — are likely the firefighters and managers who get overtime checks for watching these fires develop. My opinion, based on personal values and hundreds of conversations.
Fair points, all, Bob. Yet consider this… Dolores Canyon (San Juan NF) has spectacular aspen in Fall, thanks to huge fire that swept the area decades ago; viewed as a tragic devastation at the time I’d guess. Not destroyed, but changed. Same process underway now with Wallow fire area near Alpine AZ. Jasper Fire in Bl Hills NF that created large open country in a sea of P Pine. Much was lost, but something gained — diversity? I am concerned about severe fire that limits natural restoration.
Thanks Jim: I am also concerned about severe fire, and the unemployment, wildlife mortality, air pollution, and soil degradation that accompanies these events. That is what I have been doing my best to prevent the past several decades. No real successes so far, and it looks like things are continuing to get worse.
I’m also concerned about the industrial reforestation projects on public lands. They were created to produce fiber, jobs, and income, but also adversely affect native biodiversity and create closed canopies that can carry crown fires. How to fix? The idea these creations can somehow be transformed into “critical habitat” or “old-growth” forest is dishonest and inaccurate.
I am unconvinced the Forest Service is actually interested in true environmental stewardship from its own leadership. There seems to be no emphasis on technical ecological understanding or truly modernizing silvicultural understanding. Instead, it seems to want us to become better people managers and leave the scientific innovations to partner NGOs. I am concerned.
strongly agree; agency is adrift and struggling with basic resource competency
I am concerned also. I also worry a bit that the universities aren’t helping with solutions to practitioners’ needs as they did 40-50 years ago. Thinking of reforestation and OSU’s Fundamental Fir program.
True story – several yrs ago Rich Stem (former R2 Dep RF) and I approached FS admin in ABQ about the need for a comprehensive residential 4-week training module for all new employees. Purpose was to build a culture of dedicated career professionals. Invest in them, reap dividends for decades! We were basically told to get lost – FS “had everything under control” with virtual training modules that new employees would complete independently on computers.
I think FS has little hope of restoring esprit de corps, deep sense of belonging, purpose and tradition as it stands today.
It’s hard for me to imagine turning down an idea that you and Rich collaborated on! I’m one of the many former Stem employees who is also a fan. Region 2 used to have a New Employees residential program- I think one week. Wonder whether they still do?
As Rich recently told me “Today’s FS is not the one you and I worked for”