Advice for the Next Forest Service Chief : Guest Post by Michael Rains

Michael has had a long and distinguished career with the Forest Service, including in senior leadership positions outside of NFS.  As he says below, he worked for nine Chiefs and five administrations. He brings up the Carter Admin idea of one Department of Natural Resources, which we haven’t previously discussed.  And he’s been in the room for many budget hearings, which many of us have not.  So he brings a unique and valuable perspective to all this.

*******************

To begin, I took the last line of Sharon’s recent message: “Anyway, those are all the things I could think of, others? And what do you think makes an “able administrator” as Silcox was thought to be” to direct my comments.”

And please know, I (Michael T. Rains) am trying to be constructive. If my words offend anyone, I am sorry. That is clearly not my intention. Also, you will see that I consistently use the word “we” when I talk about the USDA Forest Service. It’s a habit. I am now retired from the Forest Service. The agency was and remains such an important part of my life. I think about it, mentioned it, or suggest someone should work for it, every day. Albeit somewhat “stale” at this moment in time, the Forest Service is a grand organization that requires the best “RKP” leadership available. I am hoping the new Chief can provide the correct leadership “style” to achieve the next great step for the Forest Service for another hundred years.

Actually, my mind has been racing about whether or not I should respond. That is, comment to this blog. Candidly, I was/am a bit afraid to do so and I am retired; go figure. I thought about my 2007 Student Teaching Experience working on my Teacher Certification in the 9th Grade, Earth and Space Science class at Marple Newtown High School in Pennsylvania, and a poster I made for the classroom. It was entitled, “Everything is Connected.” It focused on ecosystems, but the notion still strongly carries with me today. That is, there is always a reaction to every action. I often take from Newton’s Laws (smile).

Then my thoughts focused on my current position as a substitute teacher at the 6th thru 8th grade levels. I am certified in three subject matters, but as most of you know, a “Sub” has to be flexible; you are there to serve. Now I teach at only one school after years of gaining experiences from grades 5 through high school. In my school, there are signs throughout saying, “no room for bullies.” To me, a “bully” is a “person, organization or notion” that because of position power, can be harsh just because they can. The thing about bullying, eventually it has profound lasting harmful impacts on everyone – even the bully.

We now have a new Administration that is quickly gaining the “rap” of being a bully. Actually, I do think this is only partially true. I have been associated with some of the new appointments and these folks are “solid citizens”, no doubt. However, there are some that wield their position power in less than productive ways and it tends to create a total image; not fair, but it always seems to happen this way. For example, it only takes one or two very disruptive students in a 6th grade math classroom to turn the entire class sideways, creating a “rap” for the entire class; “be careful with Period 8, they are a handful.”

I do not know the new Chief Schultz. I want to assume he is solid for this incredibly important position as “America’s Chief Forester.” Sadly, almost any appointments from this new Administration initially takes my breath away because of my position on “everything is connected.” Allow me to suspend judgment prior to investigation. I think I can. I want to.

During my federal government career with the USDA Forest Service spanning almost 50 years, when asked about the agency, I provided the three brief statements: “…I like being employed. It is an honor to work for the Department of Agriculture. And, I work for the greatest organization in the world, the USDA Forest Service.” I love the Forest Service. However, it has become somewhat “stale” over the last two decades. I retired in 2016, so as a Senior Executive then, and to be fair, I must have been part of the problem. Maybe “stodgy” is a better term. I have often said that since retiring from federal service, I think I am now a much better contemporary “thinker.” Maybe it’s because now I am now working with younger learners (smile).

The notion of being somewhat “stodgy” reminds me of a time almost 40 years ago. I was completing my Developmental Assignment for the Senior Executive Service (SES). A professor asked the class of about 25 “students” (i.e., soon to be official SES members), “how many of you have political appointees as your boss.” 24 hands went up; not mine. All eyes turned to me when the teacher said, “you must be at quite a disadvantage.” I became somewhat indignant and began to let my ego overload by brains, explaining how “it’s possible for anyone in the Forest Service to become the top leader if they had the ability and willingness. A political appointee would stifle that aspirational opportunity.” Just a few years later I began to understand what the teacher was suggesting. I was very wrong and perhaps someone who is a great leader, without any natural resources management skills, could also be an outstanding Chief. In order to be a great leader, you have to be a great follower, as well. A great leader, Charlie Bolden — the former NASA Administrator — taught me that. I believed this strongly today. Great leaders are very good followers and learn quickly. I am getting to a key point. Hang in there with me please. Let my story unfold just a bit more

Most of the Chiefs in my Forest Service career really did not fully understand the level of power and impact the agency had/has. The Forest Service has a direct and indirect stewardship role on 80+ percent of America’s forestlands along a complex rural to urban land gradient, including 138 million acres of urban forests. What always troubled me was the fact that we were enamored with the “193 million acres of National Forests and Grasslands.” When I was deputy Chief of State and Private Forestry, I tried to change the narrative just a little.

I worked for nine (9) Forest Service Chief’s and five Administrations during my career. Some were very good. Only one Forest Service Chief admitted to me the more narrowly defined view he had of the agency’s mission. I will always recall what he said, and this was from a really vibrant Chief: “I must admit that state and private forestry and research do not roll off my tongue very well. It is because I have spent my entire career in NFS. I must change now.” Think about it, almost every Chief, Deputy Chief of the National Forest System, and Regional Forester of the Forest Service spends (or has spent) their entire service time in NFS; at least at that time while I was still in the agency. That’s really a shame. This prompted me to serve in every Mission Area of the agency, perhaps a fact that I am most proud of. There was a time when I was asked about my interest in the position of Deputy Chief for the NFS; I was a Research Station Director at the time. I was honored but nearing the end of my career. Honestly, I wondered about my stamina; that’s a very demanding job. I said “no” after thinking about it all night. I still think I did not have the required stamina at 68 years of age. That was almost a decade ago. I think I made the right decision. I think I did.

So, if the Forest Service is as complex as I say it is, and all the 9 Chief’s that I had the honor to work for were focused mostly on the NFS, why would anyone object to someone being another Chief who is new to the agency that “does not know the entire organization”? I know many will initially be concerned, but I do not think we should be overly concerned. One Chief that I worked for had some terrific ideas and was not a bully. But he had not come up through the agency, and I do not think we gave him an honest chance to fully succeed. Upon reflection, many of us were very wrong.

In the classroom, I always introduce myself by signing on the front white board, “Mr. Rains, R.K.P.” The R.K.P. represents, Respect, Kindness, and Productivity; my core values that I strive to deploy every day. I always ask the students to treat everyone with respect, please be kind, and be as productive in and out of the classroom as you can be. People that are bullies or learn that behavior from organizations that are bullies, will always lose. Maybe it will take some time, but eventually their behavior will be their Achillies heel. Never doubt this. So, if our new Chief Schultz is respectful, kind and productive as he can be, we should give him a real chance to succeed in leading the once greatest organization in the world that “cares for the land and serves people.”

Another thing, it is the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) linkage with the Forest Service that I ponder a lot. As Bernie Casey said in the movie “Another 48 Hours”, “not everything is everything.” Allow me to explain. In 1901, the Division of Forestry was renamed the Bureau of Forestry. The Transfer Act of 1901, at the urging of President Theodore Roosevelt, transferred the management of “forest reserves” from the General Land Office of the Interior Department to the Bureau of Forestry, Department of Agriculture. When Gifford Pinchot talked his friend “Teddy” into moving him (Gifford) to USDA so he would not be so constrained (some suggest not being bullied), the Forest Service was officially created on July 1, 1905. About 60 years later I would have the privilege to join the agency.

During the Carter Administration (Jimmy Carter, 39th President, 1977-1981), it was suggested we have a “Department of Natural Resources”, combining the Department of Interior and the Forest Service to achieve a more contemporary stewardship vision. The notion was quite solid. Thus, it was tossed to the side; too much change, too quickly. I think this proposal needs to be revisited. If one is truly looking for efficiency and effectiveness, it’s worth reviewing. And the Forest Service “Regions” could be reviewed in terms of the stewardship of landscape level ecosystems (i.e., the “Sierra Nevada Ecosystem). Hey, the current Forest Service organization is pretty outdated. It has served the country well for more than a hundred years. I think it’s time for a methodical review. The agency does not need to be bullied by dumping “all new employees”, for example. That’s not thinking. That’s just kicking butt and taking names; nothing good happens.

I heard very recently, the “fire program” with the Forest Service should be turned over to the BLM (Bureau of Land Management). If I may, that is a very bad idea. Believe me, I have some experience on this subject. If anything is to be done – for example, thinking about the “Department of Natural Resources” – keep the bullies at bay and very methodically think about a solid contemporary wildland fire organization that best serves the needs of our country. I do think it is time for a new version of the 2001 National Fire Plan. I would urge to please go slow on this. It has huge payoffs if done correctly.

The Forest Service is still with the USDA. In my view, that’s a problem. Most of the USDA Secretaries have been “wheat, corn and soybean” kinds of leaders, with all due respect to these commodities. That’s what the selected Secretaries understand. There is a Mission Area in USDA called “Natural Resource and Environment (NRE).” Now, it includes only the Forest Service. That’s called inefficiency and I am sorry to say, ineffectiveness. This should change. The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), the old Soil Conservation Service (SCS), left and went to another Mission Area – the Under Secretary for “Farm Production and Conservation.” I am not sure that was/is effective either. One needs to ask the NRCS employees. They are also amazing employees. They will know the truth and what works best.

If nothing changes, this means the Secretary or the Under Secretary for NRE need to be very sensitive to the complex Forest Service mission. Most of the time, they are not. Yes, if a huge wildfire causes political concern, their attention surfaces. Administration leaders have to understand that “forestry” is not “wheat, corn and soybeans.” Think about it. Would the USDA Secretary ever be someone with just a forest stewardship background? I doubt it. The farmers would not allow it. Heck, the NRCS probably would not allow it (smile).

This then requires a Chief that is very sensitive to the overall, complex stewardship role of the agency and be quite politically connected, or at least very politically astute. The latter is a problem; so far, most have not been or wanted to be connected effectively with Members of Congress, for example. Sure, they (most Forest Service Chiefs that I have worked for) will be obedient and “go to the Hill” if called. Otherwise, “fuhgeddaboudit.” And we face the alarming results that have surfaced over the last several decades and the impacts of lost land, lost lives and lost communities will continue. Nothing changes if nothing changes.

To be realistic, I am not sure the current arrangement of the Forest Service Chief being assigned to the Under Secretary of the USDA NRE Mission Area is productive or even fair. Allow me to present an example that I witnessed several times. The setting is the “Forest Service Appropriations Hearing” with Congress. The Chairman at the time was the late Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia. At that time, I was the Director of the Northeastern Area, State and Private Forestry. West Virginia was in our twenty-state Area. Senator Byrd was a very big deal; incredibly powerful. Yet, since the topic was the Forest Service budget (vs. the agriculture budget), top leaders from USDA were absent. I know this was an affront to the Senator. In his mind (and in reality), he was a top leader in the Senate and he expected the top leader from the USDA to be present; not a person from an agency within USDA. From some reason, we just could not understand this very predictable dynamic. The result, unfortunately, was the Chief was treated unfairly, I thought. Actually, in my view he was bullied a bit by some Members of the Committee due to his lack of “psychological size.”; it was not good. I know this sounds odd. To me, the Chief’s position was/is iconic. To many others, the Forest Service was/is simply an agency that they do not know much about. “They fight fires, right?” And, in those circumstances, the Chief of the Forest Service simply is clearly at a disadvantage due to her/his position power level. Nothing really new and nothing changes. This need to change “Departmental readjustment” is critical, if the mission of the Forest Service is to rise to the level of attainment that is needed today. Perhaps now a “political appointee” would be better for the Forest Service. That Harvard University Professor sure thought so, even 40 years ago.

Let me be absolutely clear about “some” of the Committee Members treating – in my view — the Forest Service Chief somewhat harshly; unfairly in the example I described. It was not Senator Byrd. I know he was disappointed because he told me later when I was meeting with one of his staff. I loved Senator Byrd. He passionately stood up for America and his state and his constituents. To me, he was always R.K.P; very firm and very fair.

Back to our forests for just a minute. Did you know that about one-half of the National Forests are not healthy and not resilient to disturbances? Are you aware that about one-fourth of all the acres of forestland burned in 2024 probably did not have to burn? In part, due to a very intellectual argument known as “managed” fire. This drives me crazy. You cannot manage wildfire. It is called “wild.” First, put out the fire, then decide the best course of action to help restore the landscape, at least with today’s forest conditions. Ask the trees, they speak. They will tell you, “It is not a fair encounter to let the fire burn. Thousands of Americans’ die each year due to smoke-related health problems. Knowing this, why would anyone ever let a wildfire burn – “monitoring”; it’s called “watching.” It’s not a rhetorical question.

The single most important thing the Forest Service must do is be more aggressive in their direct AND indirect role in the stewardship of most of America’s forestlands. Become a much stronger partner with State Foresters and other leaders at the state and local levels, including cities. On the rural and urban land, many call this “forest management.” I refer to it as “forest maintenance” because so many people understand the word “maintenance.” To most it means “to care for.” In this case, words really matter.

The indirect role, I always refer to as “Federally Assisted State Programs,” is really key. The Forest Service needs to accentuate this. This demands inclusive behavior and actions. On the other hand, “Federalism” sounds a lot like the “Civil War era” and is clearly exclusionary, to the “max”, respectfully. If Chief Schultz is to be really effective as the next America’s Chief Forester, he must embrace a complex federally assisted role along a rural to urban land gradient. Think of the amazing support this stance would garner. It’s called the Forest Service, not the “NFS Service.”

If our new Chief could do just one thing this year, I would strong suggest putting an end – at least for the foreseeable future – to the practice of “managed” wildfire. The very first thing is to ensure that Chief Schultz’ annual “Letter of Intent for Wildfires” that will come out very soon, includes clear direction to “first put out the wildfire with a strong initial attack.” Over the past five years or so, a group of conservation leaders – about 80 or so with literally thousands of years of stewardship experiences, including some of the best fire control leaders in the world – have contributed to a document known as “A Call to Action.” Most everything that I have just said is in the document. Plus, lots of other relevant information that is important to the agency mission in wildland fire control. Check it out. If you want a copy, let me know. My email is [email protected].

Very respectfully,