This was originally a comment, but should raise some interesting discussion.
*************
Transforming the Forest Service requires focus on a few simple things that will change the agency over time. Preparing a complex document on transforming the agency is just a way of insuring failure.
The ONE organizational change that is needed is to move District Rangers into the small communities next to the National Forests. The agency needs lot more contact with those folks.
Then build a organizational structure to support small Ranger Districts. The Ranger Districts don’t have to be staffed with a full complement of specialists. The Ranger Districts just need access to people that can do the needed work, they don’t need to be stationed at a Ranger District.
But the District Ranger needs to be there in the community.
Second, there have been many comments of the failure of leadership in the Forest Service. Leadership starts with the people you hire at the GS 5/7 level. The Forest Service needs to hire better employees and train them.
The needs to look at DOD. Those folks understand how to work in a large organization while at the same time know how to get things done at the ground level. I would simply contact DOD and set up a transition program for military personnel to get a college degree in natural resources while still in DOD and then transfer to the Forest Service.
It would help change the current culture in the agency, where people owe their loyalty to their profession rather the Forest Service.
New employees need to spend their first year learning about the Forest Service and being exposed to a wide variety of jobs. The agency use to do this, but dropped these programs during the budget cuts of the 80’s.
Third, the Forest Service needs to cultivate and bring back a relationship with retirees and seasonal employees.
Every former seasonal employee I have met has fond memories of the Forest Service, and without exception many say it was the best jobs they ever had.
The Forest Service needs to reconnect with those folks and give them free bling like Forest Service hats and t-shirts that honor their service to the agency. The also need to inform and ask for their support in current issues that are facing the agency.
The retiree’s are a tougher sell, since so many have such a negative attitude towards the Forest Service. I suspect much of the negative attitude has to do with the lack of communication between the retirees and current management in the Forest Service.
The former seasonal employees and retirees are much more effective in defending and explaining Forest Service priorities to the public than the agency itself. People trust people they know.
Fourth a focus on public contact by ALL Forest Service employees. My first professional job in the Forest Service we discussed how to make the reception area more inviting to the public. These days Forest Service offices are in many cases closed to public entry, or have NO reception area.
In the field, it is even worse. The Forest Service is represented by contractors in the campgrounds, trail maintenance, timber sales, and even on fires.
Transforming the Forest Service is simple.
Just focus on providing good public service and be sure to deliver the message while in person.
“For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong” HL Mencken
Hiring at the GS-5 to 7 level is increasingly difficult as non-federal wages and cost of living increase way faster than we can keep up. Hence the increasing reliance on contractors in many situations. In my 12 years of working for the USFS (after 10 years at the NPS), I’ve been on 2 districts that meet all the suggestions- small district in a small town, office that is open and easily accessible to the public, employees who are out in the field a ton. So maybe we’ve avoided some issues with this, but I think larger, systemic issues still loom large.
Hi ND, what specific larger systemic issues do you mean?
Hiring is far too slow, pay is too low, facilities are often inadequate (we have 6 people in an office that is “rated” for 3). I’m sure that others can come up with additional challenges.
dingdingding – I’m not a massive mencken fan but this is a prime use of this aphorism. There are a few truths to the original post, but like too much content here these days, it boils down to “man things sure used to be good let’s get back to that” with an astonishing inability to notice that history happened in the meantime. or to the extent history is acknowledged it’s somehow the occurrence of that sinister DEI that led to declining wages, difficulty with recruiting and retaining field personnel, the loss of timber industry, management incompetence, whatever. does the USFS have too many things to do, as one law review article opined on multiple use agencies? is recruiting and retaining highly qualified employees in hollowed-out rural areas subject to unique limitations that may not have existed in the past? nah, it’s just the laziness and ideology (of those with whom I disagree of course) hollowing out the once-great agency of course.
I agree with Mr. Steblina that the Forest Service should go back to having more districts to provide closer contact with the public and the portions of the forests that the Ranger and employees manage. I was a multi seasonal forester back in the 1970’s on the Greenville District of the Plumas N.F. My Forest Service job was the best one I ever had. I am still in touch with friends and colleagues from that time.
I was never for district consolidations as they spread employees out over wider areas than their former unconsolidated districts. I know times have changed and pressures on the FS has been pretty severe since the 1980s. I think the old District model – more districts with most specialists located in the Supervisor’s office can work. Like Mr Steblina says, It is a good time to look at other agencies like DOD to see if there is a better model to follow. I think the respect that the USFS used to have will return with keeping the resource professionals and techs closer to the public and the forests they manage.
Finally, fire management and suppression needs should allow for more year around fire crews including hotshots who can work on thinning and other projects when not fighting fires. I think this idea has been gaining traction, though the budget uncertainty may not allow for this right now.
Agree with all your suggestions. Wonder, also, what is necessary at the SO or what could be at the RO only, instead of RO and SO. (Likely not a simple answer.)
I agree with the local Districts and residential Rangers as being central and vital to the success of the Forest Service from the early 1900s to the 1980s and into the early 90s. Then, DEI, litigation, and spotted owls changed everything. I think even more important during those times was the reliance on local businesses and employees, as outlined in the 1897 Organic Act.
You write: “Finally, fire management and suppression needs should allow for more year around fire crews including hotshots who can work on thinning and other projects when not fighting fires. I think this idea has been gaining traction, though the budget uncertainty may not allow for this right now.”
I think year-round employment should be the first order of business, like it always had been until the Forest Service began developing contracts that directly favored migrant reforestation crews and seasonal firefighters during the 1980s and 1990s. When loggers and local people put out the fires while they were small, and planted trees in the winter, often with local school kids. The increasing development and western dominance of short-term, low bid, low quality contracts became a magnet for illegal migrant farmworkers, destroyed a growing regional industry, and directly resulted in wildfire monitoring becoming a major portion of the USFS budget. Taxpayers covering costs rather than producing an income, with much of the money going to other countries rather than local communities.
I document this process pretty well in my newest book, “Forest Reforestation & Restoration: An Anthology,” which I just finished and is the third in a 4-part series of my collected writings on forestry topics from 1980 through last month. I’m going to post more detail on this topic here in the near future, which will include excerpts from the book; a key portion is Dr. Brinda Sarathy’s interview with me in 2003 while doing her doctoral thesis (and her future book, “Pineros”) on this topic (pp. 35-82): https://www.amazon.com/dp/1732127697
“who can work on thinning and other projects when not fighting fires.”
That was tried many times over the last 4 decades. It didn’t work. It’s much less likely to work, today, with “year round fire season”. Hey, firefighters often do not even know their trees species (but of course, that isn’t a prerequisite for the job, as of now). The very same could be said for Temporary Employees, who often have even less knowledge and experience in Forestry. Going back to a heavy reliance on Temps is shortsighted and wrong. Relying on firefighters is a mirage.
Firefighters now only need three days of training, don’t need to be a US citizen, and don’t even need to know English, much less tree species: https://en.cibercuba.com/noticias/2025-02-22-u1-e42839-s27061-nid297257-latino-eeuu-cuenta-cuanto-gana-bombero-forestal
When you say “last four decades” you are talking about exactly the same timeframe I am: 1985-2025. A complete transition in management, policies, and personnel. That’s why “trying” doesn’t work. Trying to manage our public lands and resources from a distant, centralized government bureaucracy doesn’t work — just ask Lysenko.
That’s weird, Bobby, my friend who is a new as of 2024 USFS firefighter hire has spent the last 7 weeks in training academy, after a full season doing wildfire suppression. Do they also have to actually work 40 hours a week doing real things when not on a fire?
Don’t worry, Bob won’t let facts get in the way. He thinks it’s a clever argument to reference Lysenko here, though Lysenko’s problem was far more related to some deeply wacky theories about biology but why bother with even googling something when you can make a smoke-cloud argument about the evils of bureaucracy.
Anonymous: I did reply to Anon regarding his ongoing juvenile and personalized trolling — and was apparently censored — because I really dislike people using fake names to attack real people from their hiding spots. Way too cowardly from my perspective, and irritating distractions to serious discussions at best.
You have no idea what I “think” anymore than I have any idea who you are or why you are afraid to reveal yourself. But at least I take personal responsibility for my opinions. I will say my argument against Lysenko was an argument against centralized government resource management, not your superficial Wikipedia “fact” check.
And FYI, I believe that our current misdirection with the USFS is also based on the “deeply wacky theory” — implemented by a centralized bureaucracy — that big dead trees, large rotting logs, and a “multi-layered” canopy are NOT signs of a “healthy forest” so much as obvious indicators of a “dying forest.” By definition (“dead and dying”), and waiting for the next crown fire, landslide, disease or insect infestation (if not already present and functioning), windstorm, volcanic eruption, or clearcut in order to be rejuvenated.
Just like people and all other lifeforms: dead and dying are the polar opposites of “healthy.” Facts, whoever or whatever you are.
You miss my point. During winter and other periods outside of fire season, permanent fire crews can train and do different projects such as thinning, and watershed restoration as examples. There primary mission s/b fire suppression. These other projects, though relevant and necessary, are secondary to their critical and primary mission of firefighting.
Ron: I’m in full agreement. For many years the types of fires we have been encountering nearly every year now were rare and unusual. We had seasonal fire lookouts beginning in the early 1900s, and almost all fires were put out by local people who knew the roads, trails, and woods (NOT “wildlands” or “WUIs”) on a personal level. The “Six-Year Jinx” Tillamook Fires were so unusual they made international news. When the fires went out, people returned to their jobs logging, maintaining roads, working in a sawmill, or attending classes. Now, these predictable events have turned into the major budget item for the USFS and seasonal crews are shipped from all over to watch them burn. The whole process has been clearly documented, these fires were just as clearly predicted, and my opinion is this racket should have been stopped 20 years ago when it became obvious that public resources, wildlife, jobs, families, communities, our air and waters — and government treasuries — were being damaged and destroyed by this approach. We need to return to full-time local employment and stop depending on migrant crews to manage our lands and wildfires. We know how to do it — our parents and grandparents showed us how.
If using firefighters for other highly technical jobs was a real ‘solution’, then we would have seen success stories and more use. Again, firefighters don’t have the time, expertise or desire to do those kinds of jobs. It is MUCH better to have natural resource technicians doing firefighting, in their ‘spare time’. Do we really want thinning projects worked on, only when firefighters are still on their appointments, but outside of fire season?
I would have never proposed getting rid of all non-fire Temps, but I guess we get a chance to ‘see what happens’, without all those “warm bodies” who go out in the field every work day. I’m kind of giddy about seeing all that economic ‘winning’ that Trumpers seem to want for the Agency.
I am a forester. I do not advocate elimination of foresters and other specialists in the Forest Service. I am for year around firefighters. I am for intensive fuels management to help alleviate the Western wildfire problem.
Thank you Vladimir for your observations.
As my previous comments indicated, I would go much further than you did and directly state that the Forest Service has a dark history of incompetent management. I laugh and cry when I read that the probationary employees with be getting the boot.
The people that need to get the boot are most of the District Rangers, Forest Sups, Line Officers, Regional Foresters, and the SES. These people are the ones that have accountable to no one and only protect their own, and put that above the mission of the Forest Service: Caring for the Land, and Serving People (at least it was when I retired).
I would also add to Vladimir’s comments about decentralizing the District Offices. I would add that we should eliminate the WO (or 90%) , and push most of the Regional Office employees to the Districts.
Lots of pieces to consider here so thanks for stimulating a discussion.
Sorry, but I don’t buy the go to the Dept. of Defense for recruiting idea. I’ve worked w/ lots of great FS specialists who were both loyal to the agency (do their job well and meet management direction, etc.) while also being focused on their resource specialty. A half-hearted, minimally qualified fisheries biologist, who’s loyal to the agency, isn’t going to do the high quality work that comes from a person who’s passionate about their specialty.
I agree that it’s much better to have FS employees, rather than contractors, interfacing with the public. IF THAT’S what we think is best THEN CONGRESS and the public have to be willing to fund that model!
I was the Recreation & Trails program manager on a district of the Gifford Pinchot NF from the late ’70’s – mid ’80’s. Each year I had a good seasonal staff funded by Congressional appropriations: 3 for campgrounds; 6 person Force Acct. trail crew; 2 for erosion control; and 1 – 2 for Cultural Resources. Some of that work directly supported the district’s large timber sale program (90 MMBF annually).
However, funding for campgrounds, trails and other recreation services should NOT be tied to timber sale level.
>> Recreation demand exists separately from sale volume. The people who live in large metro areas within a 1 hour drive of “Urban NF’s” are going to keep visiting and will need high quality recreation opportunities regardless of the timber sale program. Urban National Forest was a concept spearheaded by Gary Larsen, former Forest Sup on Mt Hood NF and some of his colleagues around the country. Think Hood – Portland; Mt. Baker Snoqualmie – Seattle; Willamette-Salem, OR; some forests in California that are influenced by San Francisco; Angeles-LA; forests near major metro areas in the east.
>> Recreation is an important economic driver in many communities near and within NF’s. We need to fund the agency capacity to support that part of the recreation economy.
Yes, GS 5/7 employees are important to the agency and are the foundation for future line and staff officers so high quality is important.
>>> HOW MANY of those entry level folks were TERMINATED in the past 2 weeks??
— Self-inflicted Brain Drain is very short-sighted!
Having the Rangers live in local communities and be loyal to FS is much like some of the Command and Control strategies that Herbert Kauffman described in his book; The Forest Ranger – A study in administrative behavior. I think first edition was late 1960’s (I first read it in ’74) and documented how adherence to The FS Manual, frequent transfers and other strategies helped make Rangers be more loyal to the agency RATHER than local communities. Kauffman really captured the post-war USFS.
There are some lessons there once we decide what we want from District Rangers.
I remember when I first was hired by the FS in the late 80s, I was given a copy of the paper: “From the Back Woods to the Board Room” (or something like that). It talked about how the FS moved the higher up frequently to avoid any connections with the local people, apparently so they wouldn’t be tainted in carrying out the latest WO’s buzzword mission. Maybe that was from the book you mention.
Consolidating districts were budget driven decisions. Facilities cost a lot of money. I agree, it would be better to have more small districts like their used to be… show me the money.
I disagree with the idea that employees need to be loyal to the forest service rather than their profession. When I went through forestry school in the 70s, we had several sessions about professional ethics. Those sessions emphasized the need for ethical behavior towards the resource not an entity. Kind of like taking an oath to uphold the Constitution not take a knee to the President.
I also agree with the need to put forest service employees out in the field and the campgrounds instead of contracts. Supposedly this was also done for budgetary reasons. I’m not convinced it always saves money.
I have yet to walk into a district office that didn’t have some kind of reception area. Many have become less cozy due to the need to protect employees from potential violence or the desire for groups to take over offices in protest. The concern is justified.
Personally, I have been impressed with the GS 5-7 hires. Maybe I’m living in a bubble. Additionally, our local forest has a good relationship with retirees. In fact, I routinely go out to lunch with some of the employees. Retirees often attend retirement parties around here.
I agree, cross-training of employees during their first year or two is a positive thing. Some forests still do this. It tends to depend on forest leadership. I also think every employee should go through customer service training. I headed up customer service training on our forest, but then that fad went the way of the dodo bird.
One thing I didn’t see mentioned is the need to streamline policies and redundant reporting that add to inefficiencies. I would suggest that the RO and WO quit micro-managing messaging to local communities. I also think there has to be a way to not penalize a forest for not spending all their budgeted funding and to put an end to frivolous yearend spending.
Mike, I don’t know about the less cozy “due to threats” concept. I’ve seen lots of variations of coziness in district offices, and it doesn’t seem to be directly related to any threat level in different parts of the forest or state. Certainly employees should be protected.
It seems to me that there were many protests and takeovers in Region 6 during the timber wars, so I don’t think concern for employee safety is a new thing.
Your point about “not spending all their budgeted funding” is a concern government wide, so maybe there will be a government-wide solution. If it is a bad idea for a National Forest, we can imagine it’s a very bad idea for, say, the Defense Department.
I’m speaking from personal experience of why changes were made to front office areas on the Rio Grande NF and it was driven/encouraged by the RO at the time. The public doesn’t even have access to restrooms anymore. If I remember correctly, it was linked to the unrest tied to the Bundys.
Hmm.. favorite district on the forest to the north of the RG has an open bathroom for visitors, which I use frequently (also a gift shop). And the Klamath Rd on the Fre-Wi .. has a separate hallway with restrooms for visitors. Perhaps it has to do with the original design of the building and how easy it is to keep the public space separate?
Agreed. Designs vary widely
Consolidating Districts (and Forests) was not budget driven. It was political. This started when Clinton/Gore made the FS the “National Reinvention Lab”. (remember that? And yes, that was also a traumatic time for the FS, just like now.) At the time, it was a buzz word that consolidation was somehow more efficient.
It was never shown that combining District and Forests would save any money–but it sure increased windshield time and travel costs. In most cases, the FS infrastructure (buildings, equipment, etc.) were never reduced because it was needed to function. In many cases, new buildings had to be built to house the consolidated units.
Us employees were continuously threaten with RIFs, having to move to neighboring towns. Management (particularly the Regional Offices) did not push back at all and clearly didn’t care–they just had to mouth the platitudes.
Consolidation’s obvious downside was that rural communities that had FS employees (relatively high paid for rural area) lost many of them and their eventual retirees. It also removed the Forest Sups or District Rangers from local community contact. And also lost support from local communities for the FS–why support the FS if their communities were had lost many of their employees?
Facilities cost a lot of money. It seems like one district office costs less than two. One GS-13 vs two GS-12 district rangers saves money. What am I missing?
Don’t get me wrong, I was against consolidation for all the reasons everyone else has expressed.
Hi Mike.
Most District facilities (or Forests) were not closed nor sold during this consolidation (some were like in Aspen where a city block cost $1 million).
There may have been one less GS 13, but I’ll guarantee you there were more other employees. The new Ranger now spent more time with the Forest, or RO, or the WO (on how to be Management!! (I forget the name of that ridiculous program)) and other junkets, so she didn’t get twice as much done on District, but probably one quarter of what should have been done before the consolidation…)
If you look at Forest and District budgets (I used to be be the Union budget guy….) none of the budgets decreased after consolidation. (budgets histories are a whole other story…)
The mantra in the FS National Reinvention Lab days (Clinton/Gore) was to “do more with less”. I am not kidding. What a joke.
When I started in 1989, I had heard that motto of our group was “can do”, when I left it was can’t do anything.
Mike, I was a Ranger, either full time or acting on (counting combined RD’s) six Ranger Districts. It seems I was on one of yours because what you speak of is pretty much what I also experience! Probably both being a product of the 1970’s forestry educations cut us from the same cloth…. I still think that for a forester, the District Ranger job is the best in the outfit. I come from a remote work center, with a technician dad and absolutely bled the commitment to the local communities I served! It was always so danged hard to leave those family commitments that we built and experienced.
We’ve discussed a lot of “Monday morning quarterbacking” but the main theme of ties to the land/community keeps popping up. I think we went astray when consolidation took over. I think Congress failed the Agency when all those COLA’s, yearly wage increases and loading top heavy programs were not accounted for in budgeting. Checklist leadership ascension, leading by committee, social engineering and (I love this) “virga” leadership; that’s leadership NOT reaching the ground! 🤣
I worked for the FS in the 70’s as a tech for a couple years, then graduated college and worked for state highway agency as engineer for many years. I would echo the comments about the districts. The highway department and it’s people when I started were literally a major part of the communities they lived and worked in. We had 7 districts, then went to 5 but with 3 subdistricts so more like 10. Then back to 5 but with no subdistricts. When we had the 7 to 10 effective districts with people living in and part of their community it was a great place to work. As things became more “modern” and they moved everyone to a more regional office most of the local contact was lost. We were just another faceless gvt agency that people didn’t like to deal with. As we go even more modern they added more levels of management and the people who did still deal with the public had less and less freedom to make any decisions. As a result, unlike in the “old days” when the people in a town could talk to the Highway Foreman about getting a problem on the road fixed, it all had to be referred “up the chain”. No pride in the job anymore. Just a job.
Jim, some folks in the FS have told me that the new budget process moved some decision authority away from the Districts. It seems like that is a general tendency of bureaucratic organizations.
PS to my other comment. During Covid they closed the Main Forest HQ Office for one of the largest forests in the state. You could not get past the lot gate to even get to the door to knock on it. They would not answer their phones, ever. You could call and you got a message directing you to the website. You could not even leave a voice mail for anyone. If you did a web search to track down the Forest supervisors email he would never reply. When I finally got a hold of someone to ask for info I was told I would have to file a Freedom Of Information Request. All I wanted was their road maintenance workplan for the year. Something they should have on hand at all times. I was thoroughly disgusted with the whole place. Elon should take an axe to the current people running it.
Yes on axing the higher ups. It is long over-due.
As I’ve been saying, the FS is infamous in having incompetent, bland, scared-of-their-shadows, go-with-the-herd management (but they loved to go after lower level employees that were just doing the job).
I’ll say too: the Forest Service was a great place to work, our mission was worth arguing over, we had great people, and I have many friends there still.
But to survive the FS you had to know when to kiss-ass to survive your job, while trying to ignore the buffoons in management (that never did anything but go to meetings and fly around the country with their privilege.)
I must confess that it has been 18 years since retiring from the USFS. I still have contacts within the FS including my son. That said, I watched/participated in what I’d call the dumbing down of the agency and the lack of accountability in general and to the mission.
Closing/consolidating ranger districts was a huge mistake and as mentioned by other commenters, really did take the FS face and connection out of the community and along with it the support of the community. Not only the Ranger themselves but the faces of the staff in the community. The USFS became just another Govt agency/bureaucracy to the public.
I feel that many supported these consolidations to increase their own pay grade(s). The 1st RD I started on as a seasonal had a GS-11 Ranger. Today that same RD, after consolidation with a neighbor RD, is a GS-13 with nearly twice the staff as the 2 RDs had previously including a GS-12 Deputy DR – all located in one location. It has been my observation this is not a unique situation. Consolidating national forests has had the same effect.
Can this effect be undone?? I doubt it, but maybe start with moving the USFS HQ out of DC and placing it in a state location. Today many of the old RDs are used as “work centers”. Not sure if it is feasible to de-consolidate and return some of those locations to full RDs with a Ranger and staff.
Finally, the FS must restore accountability and targets to program. Too many people today rarely get out of the office and the agency is “top heavy”! Too many planners and not enough doers. Too many key board employees. I often hear people, here in MT, say they rarely ever see FS people in the woods except LEOs.
Just an opinion of an ole forester, who worked in 3 regions, 6 NFs and the RO from seasonal to DR to RO staff.
The last vestiges of the Forest Service that many espouse here in the comments are nearly gone due to the actions of the current administration.
Historically, the district office is open 7 days/week from Memorial Day to October. The district encompasses parts of a vast Wilderness and also staffs two remote back country work centers. These work centers serve as a hub for backcountry trail crews, but also for public contact. Crews live and work out of these centers for the summer while partners and volunteers pass through on assignments.
The district office sits 55 miles from pavement and houses all employees on site. The community is a collection of forest service employees, outfitters, guests, and visitors. Nearly all employees are on a hitch schedule to provide the 7-day coverage. The vast majority of employees are in the field every day,
Operating this far from town comes with costs and the Region has long been scrutinizing the costs of staying open. But luckily for the Region, this season there will be no trail crews, no river rangers, no front desk or office managers to support, so the savings should be great. Someone at the RO will get a nice bullet point in cost savings. The wilderness work centers will not be staffed by employees, if at all.
There has been lots of mismanagement along the way to decry, but the district was getting along until now. Once shuttered, there is no reason to believe anything will reopen.
Anon, I thought the freeze on seasonals, and other non-permanent employees took place in October, 2024. How can the current Administration be faulted, the election had not even occurred yet?
The current administration did not start the war on the Forest Service.
For the last 30 years, Democrats (and environmentalist, sorry Andy Stahl) have been gunning for the Forest Service for decades. E.g., Clinton/Gore tried to close down Forests that had “below cost timber sales”. Democrat administrations have long tried to reduce the FS budgets because of our “timber” bias. I used to visit my girlfriend in the DC area, and at parties (all Democrats and environmentalists), they were appalled that I worked for the evil Forest Service. Republicans were generally in favor of the FS. Now all government agencies are being targeted because of “waste, fraud, and abuse”, DEI, ect., etc. The FS administration has left the FS prime for picking. I still live next to a FS SO–don’t ask me how many cars were in the parking lot the last three year (okay, almost none).
Unfortunately, NFS funding has been dismal because of Democrats and now Republicans. Another failure of FS Administration to be promote the FS.
Jim Z. Sure, the freeze on 1039’s took place this fall. And detailers were cancelled in the previous spring. That is on the previous administration, not sure where you thought I was defending them.
All of the employees I referred to (trails, rivers, front desk) were converted from 1039s to seasonal perms (13/13) last winter. The district was planning on having those 17 individuals back this summer until they were terminated by the current Administration.
It would be preferred to go back to having 25 field going employees like there was three years ago. Hope this clears it up.
I remind people that on 2-11, ALL non-fire Temps were eliminated from Federal service. Surely, that would have included Forest Service Temps working outside of fire. The blame for losing Temps should clearly be placed on the Forest Service leadership. They got all the money they needed, and didn’t produce good (enough) results.
District Rangers have always been in communities next to the Forests. The current problem is most DRs never did any of the work they are now supervising. Old time Rangers were required to have experience as well as a degree and for the most were professional foresters. Very few DRS are Foresters today ! Line officers in general are diversity picks. How can you mange Forests without experience and knowing nothing about trees?
Del, spot on!
Exactly!!
Dear Sharon,
Hat’s off to everyone on this thread of comments. I have not worked for any gov’t agency other than as an elected official couple decades past working with the agencies guided by Clinton, Gore, George Frampton III (CEQ), and Lyons. That said, USDA’s and DOI’s centralized policy decisions have guided the feasts and famines throughout everyday of my ~44-year, very small business life, ending 2015.
Not going into which forest: While in grade school during the 1950’s my classmates and I collected all kinds of badges, pencils, hats, &c. (Smokey Bear) from USFS Rangers (dressed in uniform) coming to our class, sometimes with government trappers and porcupines (A decade past I doled those memories out to my younger grandchildren, grand-nephews and nieces.). The high school upperclassmen had jobs at the Work Station when school was out. The FS employees were an integral component of our community; we went to school together, attended church socials, and I don’t recall meeting different employees being transferred in or out as frequently as today. We grew up together.
My mother baked every day and about 2 or 3 times a month the District Ranger or other employee stopped by our place in the timber to see how we were doing (and grab a roll and coffee, or, gasp!, breakfast! Yep, their day began before sunlight back then – especially if horseback). Don’t think that the civil engineer and forester purges of the 1980’s went un-noticed by us as well as the monumental change the new experiment that took shape beginning in earnest June 1996 brought to our communities. The last time we were visited by a Ranger in our bailiwick was 2003, but maybe we missed him/her.
My brother-in-law’s family has logged/farmed in Europe for centuries. In 2007, I took a couple of my logger nephews into “our” forest, post pine beetle. One of them relayed to me a story about how their great-grampa was sent to the U.S., pre-WWII, to learn from America’s USFS. Then, near as I could understand him, he grinned and quipped, “Perhaps you need to send some of your USFS back to our area to see what our Dad learned from his Dad.” Also, I believe that was the final year our Look Out was manned.
Looking back over the decades, and looking from the outside in, it is a real nice change to read Mr. Steblina’s thoughts and ensuing comments. Very refreshing, thank you.
Wow! Thank you for your story. It is great, moving, and fun to visualize. Your story chronicles how the FS has gone from a grassroots, hands-on, can-do organization, to an organization ruled by with banality, conformity, and uninspiring dull bureaucrats.
Excellent post Randy, it brought back one of my favorite memories of the past, when the FS would do “dogwood tours”. The mountains of Arkansas are pretty diverse in species, and one such “gem” is the American dogwood (Cornish florida). It puts on a showy bloom that lightens up the forest floor. Well, the FS had cut viewing locations along major roads, developed pull offs for vehicles to use and every Spring would do “dogwood tours”.
Saturdays, the Ranger or TMA would lead a procession of visitors on these designated routes to view the blooming trees, and catch glimpses of redbuds, wild plum, service berry, and other understory delights. Card would line up behind the lead green rig and travel from stop to stop.
And now, the first question would be “I need a job code for that, an overtime authorization, safety plan and LEO support!” It wouldn’t matter anyway, those cut out overlooks grew up in brush in the late 1960’s…. Oh yeah, a proper dogwood tour ended with a giant potluck, at a local recreation area! No sign of a concessionaire….🤣
Thanks for your post Vladimir. If the USFS is going to be clobbered, then I am going to advocate for keeping, and even augmenting the district offices and work centers at the expense of the WO, ROs and maybe even some SOs. I didn’t vote for this mess, but it has been apparent for a long time that the FS has grown top heavy and paralyzed by excessive procedures and analysis. At the very least let’s try to reverse the trend and have decent services at the community level. I know, dream on.
I guess I get the last word??
Full disclosure: My professional career started with a private forestry consulting firm, moved on to a planning position with the NPS, then a recreation planning position in the SO for the Forest Service, followed by a field position on a BLM Area Office as a recreation forester, then to the Forest Service in Forest Planning as a economist and analyst for 15 years, and closed it out as a Recreation Program Manager in the SO. The only Ranger District experience was a seasonal on three different Ranger Districts.
I don’t believe the “good old days” were that good. The Forest Service was willing to hire me as a professional on their assessment of my skills, not once but twice with the words “if I got a haircut”. And the AO made it clear when I took the BLM job that I was not welcomed back on his National Forest, being a traitor to the agency. My recommendations have nothing to do with nostalgia.
My concern about small Ranger Districts and Rangers in communities comes from my experience watching effective community Rangers.
I was on a fire in 1994, as the fire headed for a small town. The District Ranger was also the Branch IC on this very large fire for the time. As a PAO I sat in on the meeting with the Mayor, Police Chief, Fire Chief, and other elected officials in the community.
The Mayor said “tell us what to do Al, we will mobilize the cities resources”. There was a level of trust and confidence that comes from having a Forest Service Ranger living and working in the community. I am sure that comment would not have happened if the IC came from Cal Fire and had just met the city leadership.
As for the quote ““For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong”.
Yes, I believe that that a simple answer might be wrong. However, we are not looking for a “answer”, we are looking for a SOLUTION.
Those are different.
Yes, the analysis might show a complex problem, but the solution better be simple for it to be successfully implemented.
Complex solutions are doomed to failure due to mis-interpretation of priorities, and individuals putting their own priorities on solutions thinking nobody will notice.
It is difficult to find a simple solution to a complex problem. It takes a lot of thought and understanding of the problem and motivations of the humans involved in the solution.
As a immigrant, I was always fascinated by the complexity of the American revolution and the various motivating factors. The Declaration of Independence was a simple document anchored by the words “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”.
A simple solution to motivating the colonies with different interests.
I like simple solutions.
I am disappointed that there was not more focus on community support and having a workforce that aligned with agency mission. Really the Forest Service has a very broad mission, if you as an employee cannot find something in the mission that you can support and work to implement I suspect your not trying real hard.
I once took over a project from a very technically competent Forester. The entire project was on the verge of failure due to cultural, and social conflicts between him and the crew. It had nothing to do with technical competence. Though I really appreciated it when I took over the project. He solved all those pesky problems, I only had to deal with the crew.
It is the same with the Forest Service. The problem is not Forest Service “technical mis-management” and fixing those issues will not resolve the problems.
The Forest Service needs to reconnect with its various publics. It needs a strong base of trust and support for its multiple use mission.
A Forest Service landscape architect once told me “that the public judges the quality of the Forest Service timber program, by the quality of the Forest Service recreation program. If we do the recreation program right, they will assume that we know what we are doing with timber management.”
It is not easy to rebuild public trust once you lose it.
However, I think we might be at an inflection point where the Forest Service can once again regain the public trust.
But it will not just happen.
The Forest Service needs to make it happen and the first step is to reconnect and stay connected on a close basis with its various publics.
Thanks to all the commentators. Got me think about the good (and bad) times that I worked for the FS. A couple late comments:
First, Being a Union activist, I watched the FS in the Clinton Gore days of being the National Reinvention Lab. It was 100% politically driven and of course did not save the FS one penny on our budget outlays, but was also a painful, uncertain time. At the time the Unions (including my Union) did not raise one peep about what was going on. Why? I guess Clinton Gore were Democrats. When my union’s national newsletter arrived before the 2000 election and had big pictures of endorsed Gore (who vowed to shut down timber production in the FS) on the back cover, we probably lost half of members who resigned in disgust (the FS Unions are open shop…).
The Unions now are fighting back, as they should, but just pointing out that the Union didn’t fight back at all when the administration were Democrats and we had very trying times…
Secondly. We need to bring back merit. The Unions are correction in fighting what’s happening; but they should also have on the agenda, that the FS Administration (GS14s and up) are the ones that need to go, not the worker bees. Everyone knows that DEI hires have been given the promotions in the FS, but this didn’t start four years ago, this has been going on for decades (whatever it was called then). We had the consent decree in the late 80’s. Back in the early 90s, my group in the FS was called together by our new Line Officer and we all have to say our sex (yes!), our racial background, and when we planned to retire–and that was 30 years ago! I can only imagine how much worse it must have gotten since then. And in all the selection panels I’ve been on, rarely have the most qualified candidates been picked by Management. The FS management and politicization are to blame for the deep hole that the FS is now in. But I’m afraid that the current purging will be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The people that got us in this vulnerable situation will keep their jobs and continue to get promotions. This can only change if hires and promotions are again based on merit.
Art, in this Politifact article, a fellow named Kamensky said..
https://www.politifact.com/article/2025/feb/06/yes-bill-clinton-offered-mass-federal-employee-buy/
so it sounds like unions agreed to take out middle managers who were likely not union members. This might be an approach for the new Admin, but as you point out, based on their political inclinations, unions may not agree to that either this time.
Hi Sharon, and thanks for the reply and link. I recall David Osborne, with disdain as we thought he was a traitor, but an advisor to Al Gore. I don’t recall the name Kamensky, but being in the Union, I never was aware of any effort to “reduce middle managers” as he claimed, and would question that accuracy (likely empty rhetoric in his rarefied bubble of the VP). Certainly in the FS no middle manager were eliminated (closing offices didn’t reduce any middle managers). According to the PoliticFact piece, the Clinton Gore reinventing government “would enable the “reduction of employment” by 273,000 people by the end of 1999″. I looked up the FTE counts from that era and the reduction from 1994 to 1999 was only 80,000. (Sorry, I have a nice graph, but don’t know how to insert it…). Again, that number in the PoliticFact piece is false. Sorry I ran out of time trying to the find the FS FTE history from that era.
As bad as this is, the Unions should be taking this opportunity to promote getting rid of the upper management dead weight. None of them are in the Unions.
A couple further thoughts:
By 2003, the number of civilian FTEs was higher than it was in 1994. So any reductions, as small as they were, were at best ephemeral.
Getting back to the PolitFact piece: I can just envision “250 career civil servants work[ing] on the review and creat[ing] recommendations with agency employees.” What a crock. What I seen were 250 of upper class Gore cronies sitting around, scratching their chin, while they ponder how to write platitudes and deal with the rif-raf. Sorry everyone–I feel the PolitFact piece is very naive and self-servicing for insider-people like Kamensky.
To claim that these people worked with Unions is something I never saw: we had Partnership Councils long before Clinton Gore and still functioned quite well under Bush. But to claim that Unions were somehow participatory “so they felt this was an acceptable trade-off” under the Clinton Gore Reinvention Government is, far all practical purposes, false.
Unfortunately, (or maybe fortunately) their is every indication that Trump and the DOGE boys are serious in cutting government waste, unlike Clinton Gore when it was just self-serving, empty rhetoric–though it gave us employee much angst, just like now.
Again, the Unions are correct in fighting for low level employees, and this could also be the first opportunity in a long time to push the Trump administration into real change in the FS by getting rid of the banal, dead weight, do nothing, upper bureaucrats. But we are all afraid of the baby being thrown out with the bathwater; and let hope to heck that people like Osborne and Kamensky aren’t advisors in the coming changes to the USDA
Art, thank you for all your help and recollections. I’m concerned that the writers of history as always, have an angle, and as long as those of us who lived through history are around, it’s important to share our remembrances..
Hi Sharon,
Thank you for your kind words.
This is meant to be a personal communication, but don’t know how to contact you directly, so will send this via the Reply.
I see that you are probably the moderator of most of these posts. I appreciate your openness and your looking at all sides of it.
As you probably noticed, I’m a new commentor on this website. I recall noticing this website in the past, not commenting, and thought that this website was just another “Andy Stahl anti-FS” site. I’m sorry for having that tainted view and have been happy to see that you are balanced. And will try to follow you more often. Thank you.
here’s my contact info sharon at forestpolicypub.com. I’m quite fond of Andy, and he is the expert on many topics, and very helpful to me. And his is one of many views. Here we try to use everyone’s knowledge to figure out what is or was, and then each person has their own opinion and talks about why they feel that way, experience, research papers, legal cases, whatever. The most important thing we do is to use the knowledge of our different contributors and commenters to get at what’s really going on.
Hi Sharon, I finally found some of my old data on FTEs in the Forest Service around that time.
I have personal communication from the WO HR in 2000 which stated that the FTEs in the Forest Service were:
1994: 39,956
1999: 34,366
This is a significant reduction in six years (14%), MUCH higher that any other federal agency (6% overall). We in the local Unions knew we FS employees were being hammered by Clinton Gore and Andy Stahl.
I am still looking for FS historical charts that have been published since to verify those numbers.
But in Clinton Gore days, the FS employees were seriously hammered on and we were all, rightfully upset. I do not have the GS breakdown on who was let go. And our national Unions in DC did almost nothing to fight back (and even endorsed Al Gore!)….
I’m still trying to get better data, but most of that reduction, I recall, was from early-outs retirements, buyouts (I don’t recall anyone losing their job), and from hiring freezes–and I suspect most of the reduction was from lower levels employees, not middle or upper management.