Reflecting on the past week, it seems like it’s very difficult to separate the specific issue we’re dealing with from the overall perspective of this Admin and its intent (thought by some to be unequivocally bad). I don’t remember having the same problem in the past. We could disagree about, say, the Public Lands Rule, note that people as diverse as PERC and some ENGOs were against it, and yet didn’t dive into who funds either group, or back up to how that matches with the Center for American Progress’s policy agenda.
At the same time, funding of people who put out documents or research is interesting, and relevant, and we can’t not talk about it. And equally at the same time, we know that say, Headwaters Economics generally has a point of view different from that of, say, PERC. So it might get tedious to talk about that every time we mention the group that puts out a study or news release. Still, everyone who gets paid has some kind of angle, so there’s that.
Let’s take the climate website issue. Apparently the memo was leaked to some outlets, but we are unable to get a copy, so we actually don’t know what it said. We could trace the memo and the apparent reaction and whether it makes sense to us or not. I think we all pretty much agree that while it is a symbolic act of some kind, it’s not a good idea. So we could move on from there. It seems to me that we are going to have many of these in the future (ideas of questionable value from the new Admin) and if every time we go back to Project 2025 or the Federalist Society, it might also get tedious. Granted, yesterday that was partially my fault for posting that part of Andy’s interview. Mea culpa.
The way I look at it is that there are many ideas out there. It’s like the two bags in the graphic. Some ideas are currently in the blue Democratic bag, some are in the currently Republican bag. Who determines what’s in each bag? People with political power of various kinds, and we can safely say.. not us. Then there is the plain burlap, ideas from groups outside the current red or blue bags, and finally just ideas from the rest of us, think tanks, citizens and others. Of course, within each bag are different groups jockeying to determine which ideas are in and which ones are out. As an observer, I think the pundits have it wrong when they say that people in the blue sack have moved to the red sack. They have simply rejected the content of the blue sack and decided to make their own way. I could write more about that, but not here. Certainly what’s in and out of each bag changes through time, as do people.
Sometimes, and I like to highlight these, Ds and Rs in Congress agree. I like to see people with different views working together toward our common good. Nevertheless, without being cynical, sometimes bi=partisan simply means “you get your pork/grift and I get mine, and it all balances out.” To everyone but the taxpayer, of course, who are footing the bill for pork mountains. So there’s always a need to examine these deals closely as well.
In my view, the role of The Smokey Wire is to, within our relatively small area of federal lands and forests, examine all the ideas produced by anyone and try to figure out if we (individuals) think that they are wholesome grains or rocks or chaff that gums up the works. To change analogies, each of us gets to make our own necklace of policy choices and in many cases, these won’t fit neatly into a particular set of ideas that unknown parties have put in the red or blue bag. Our role is to highlight the pros and cons of picking that particular bead for our individual policy necklaces. The point is to inform, and to share views about specific topics. Not to lecture or to castigate, which I grant is partially a tone thing.
After some reflection, I notice that some people here seem to want to go farther and bring in Project 2025 or USAID. I wonder if that’s because people really want to hear other opinions and at TSW they know they’re privy to folks hearing news and views from all kinds of sources. Maybe people who are despairing about the election really want to hear from people who are not despairing because while we are not in the blue sack, we are not in the red sack either.
For me, I won’t let anyone else select things for my policy necklace. I would like to hear from readers, here in the comments or at my email sharon at forestpolicypub.com. Because, after this week’s experimentation, I’m going to tighten up a bit more for The Smokey Wire and return to the prior focus. If people really want to talk about the other stuff, and hear from folks with different views, I can host that discussion on my Substack. So that’s a possibility.
Anyway, we actually missed quite a bit of non-new Admin news. We also haven’t looked at some of the actions of the last Admin that deserve a closer look. So next week we’ll be back to that. Please let me know what you think!
I’m with you on this, Sharon. I hope we can continue to look at specific USFS issues and why they’re good/bad and avoid a broader critique of politics. For example, we can discuss the deleting of Forest Service climate-related websites — the impacts on the agency and the public, alternate sources of information, perhaps effects on climate aspects of project planning — while avoiding devolving into larger issues — of which there are many. In other words, I hope we can stick to forests and USFS planning issues, and, as Sharon suggests, take broader debates elsewhere.
Thank you, Sharon. Yes, focusing more will be good. However, it is hard to focus when faced with things that I have never seen before; not even close. I want to call it direction, but what is happening is not that. So, it is hard for me to garner perspective. I am working on it. Hey, I am still stuck on just one thing. If there is a USDA Forest Service still standing and they have a role in the protection of lives and property from wildfires, I want that annual “Chief’s Letter of Intent for Wildfires” to place this clear direction in that letter. “In 2025, we will do everything possible to put out wildfires with a strong, immediate initial attack.” That’s it. No more “managed” or “beneficial” or “monitoring” or “watching for a higher power” wildfire tactics. . Just, “first put out the fire.” Surely, we can follow this clear, righteous path. I will leave it to others to address more lofty solutions of a higher calling. But I sure would like to influence at least one small gain that will indeed make a huge difference. Thanks for all your service.
Very respectfully,
Michael T. Rains, you are spot on! The thing that always put a bur under my saddle was the “intent” was to strategically anoint others to figure out what it is we were supposed to do. High(?) level discussions and postering that seldom bore fruit . FLT’s, RLT’s always talked about concepts; employees wanted to know how. We’d get back to our respective Units, and the first thing to greet us was “what did you learn and how will it affect us?”
And, the players (I admit I was not the sharpest knife in the drawer) seemed constrained, and miffed, to explain anything to anyone else “below” them…
Top down, no nonsense, get ‘er done direction, I’m all for it!
What a Reactionary wildfire response, guess it fits with the times… You gonna advocate for the 10am rule next?
James, I certainly would, the ability to successfully manage a wildfire is a game of craps, except the odds are far worse. There are lots of “Rules of Thumbs”, out and about in every region of the country. You mess with the Rules, you’ll pay the price! Once again, New Mexico may have learned their lesson but I doubt it….
The actual key to putting fire back on the landscape is to ramp up Rx fire, but even that is a gamble in the best of times…. Mechanically treated the timber stands (repeatedly) and follow up with fire; grasslands and brush is generally a one entry solution.
Hi Jim: I also strongly agree with Michael and, for the record, also strongly support the 1935 10:00 AM Policy, as expressed here many times.
Regarding “returning the fire to the land”; it has usually been my experience that the strongest supporters of this concept politically and in the media, typically know very little about the actual history of fire on the land.
In most geographic areas, “returning fire to the land” successfully, first involves “returning people to the land.” A few centuries of gathering and burning firewood on a daily basis, while creating and maintaining oak savannas, camas meadows, and huckleberry fields results in very little fuel in an area. Setting it on fire every few years, or more often, results in even less fuel.
What people are doing now for “ecological benefit,” or whatever, is dangerous, deadly, costly, and ugly. And most of these folks are directly funded by taxpayers. This systematic destruction of our nation’s forests, wildlife, air quality, and rural economies should have been stopped 20 years ago, but still persists.
A “healthy forest” should include a healthy human population. Once we have that again (maybe through an EO?), then we can reasonably — and probably should — “return fire to the land” again in a safe, positive, and productive manner. Opinion, based on personal experience and research.
Michael, FWIW, on the Hotshot Wakeup podcast interviewing Sheehy, it sounded like he was saying that we need standards for wildlfire like we have for structural fires… a target time to put it out.. standardized across fed agencies. You might want to listen to that podcast to get your take. https://thehotshotwakeup.substack.com/p/senator-tim-sheehy-after-the-horrific
By the time we got to be seniors at the School of Forestry at UC Berkeley, we were quite sure of our “expertise” and “knowledge”.
It was a good thing that the Forest Policy class came late in the senior year.
I remember coming in early to class and listening to all the complaints from my fellow students about the “stupidity” of certain folks that were commenting on forestry issues.
Dr. Henry J. Vaux taught that class and he let us go on for several minutes about our tirade against the “uniformed”.
He told us that in a discussion on issues “always argue the issue, not the person”.
It was some of the best advice I got in my professional career. Full disclosure, I got a lot of good advice from Dr. Vaux. As the years went by, I realized just how good his advice was for foresters.
I think it fits in this forum.
I was never a fan of President Clinton and think he was one of the worst Presidents in American history on a many of issues from foreign policy, appropriate work behavior to the environment.
Being an immigrant to this country I did have a different perspective than most Americans.
I think I would enjoy having a beer and talking with him about the decisions he made as President. It would be hard for me to accept his positions, but I would get a much better understanding of why he did what he did.
In this forum, at this point in our lives, it is hard to believe that we will “convert” folks to our position. BUT, we can get a better understanding of different beliefs.
I don’t read this forum to confirm my beliefs. I do appreciate learning WHY other people have different beliefs than I do.
Henry was right. Argue the issues. We all think we are “right” and all we need is to educate the other side of our position.
That is a dead end, in light of the age group in this forum.
So before the end comes, all I want is to better understand what happened and why and what the future holds.
Again. Remanding lands in the public domain to the tribal communities from whom they were seized can’t happen soon enough. But as much as this interested party would like to see a Forest and Land Management Service within the Interior Department a Trump administration consolidation will cause catastrophic damage to both agencies.
The absence of cultural fire, the extirpation of apex predators, the resulting rise of mesopredators, increased numbers of domestic livestock, the melange of industrial chemicals, anthropogenic climate change and voila: failed forest policy.