I sent in a request for an interview with the Chief to the Press Office. If granted, what would you ask him? Below is what he sent out yesterday.
**************
I’m grateful to serve as your next Chief of the Forest Service. First, thank you to Chief Moore for his leadership. He spent his life in service, dedicating a 45-year career to the benefit of the American people. I recognize that I am the first Chief who did not come from or previously work within the agency, but I hope you will see that as I do—as a strength. I have over 25 years of land management experience and I’m a lifelong user of public lands. I grew up roaming the woods of Virginia, not coming home until the streetlights flickered on. My grandfather, an avid birder and Scout leader, influenced my appreciation of the outdoors, as did my father-in-law, who was an avid sportsman, hunting and fishing in Gallatin County, Montana.
Working for state agencies in Montana and Idaho has given me a perspective on the role of the states in managing public trust lands and how that differs from goals and objectives in managing federal lands. My tenure at Idaho Forest Group gave me a deep understanding of markets and the role that raw material availability, quality and price play in being able to support a profitable forest products industry. The logging contractors and truck drivers are critical infrastructure and without them our ability to manage the forest and suppress wildfires can be impaired to a point that management is not feasible. All this gives me a balanced perspective as Chief.
Studying forestry at the University of Montana gave me an academic’s view of the forest management, including wildlife management, watershed management and silviculture. A class in environmental politics at the University of Wyoming, co-taught by Dr. Gregg Cawley and former U.S. Department of the Interior Secretary James Watt helped shape the way I think about public lands today. Cawley, ever the one to look the part of a lost soul from the 60s, looked exactly as you’d picture an environmentalist. He and Watt had different views about public lands and conservation and their respectful dialogue and classroom engagement taught me to think critically about land management issues and the role that values, science and politics plays in what we do.
Leadership Philosophy
I believe humans have two ears and one mouth for a reason, meaning we’re supposed to listen more than we talk and that we should learn from one another. I will come into a meeting with a direction but not all the answers. I want healthy, respectful dissent, but once a decision is made, I believe we must follow through together and hold ourselves accountable. That’s how I’ll present myself as your Chief.
The Forest Service is a decentralized agency, and I want to manage it as such. You are part of this agency’s strengths, which I see as a tripod of people, culture and tradition. I support decisions made locally when aligned with our overall strategies and goals. As Herbert Kaufman noted in his seminal work, “The Forest Ranger,” “It is the man or woman on the ground that is ultimately doing the work and making decisions.” I am committed to this agency, the American people and to supporting all of you, and I ask you to share that commitment. It’s not about me; it’s about us and the American public.
I want to refocus our efforts on safety, active forest management, fire management and recreation. As a field-based organization, safety must always be at the forefront of our minds. Years of fire suppression and declining timber harvest have left us with significant fuel buildup. I want us to do more to create resilient forests through active forest management, including timber sales, fuels reduction through mechanical thinning and prescribed fires, as well as fighting fires safely and protecting resource values.
Our public lands offer some of the best recreational opportunities in the world, and many are on Forest Service lands. I want to increase those opportunities to benefit urban and rural communities, yet we must balance public access with the potential for impacts on adjacent landowners.
The Forest Service carries a fiduciary responsibility to the American public. We must steward tax dollars wisely, so I’ll examine how to best optimize our workforce and our expenditures. We’ll focus on fundamentals—blocking and tackling. In the Forest Service, our motto gets at the core of our mission: “Caring for the land and serving people.” This requires us to be stewards of the public’s land and resources.
There was a time when preservation versus management was the source of significant debate. I believe that time has passed. Land managers, sportsmen and conservationists are allied now. Our largest partners are conservation and sportsmen organizations. Communities across the country depend on national forests and grasslands, and I will work tirelessly to support and protect those communities by partnering to actively manage public lands for multiple uses.
I believe strongly that we are in service to the public. Service is part of who I am, and it runs in my family. I have volunteered with several organizations, including the National Forest Foundation, Boy Scouts of America, Knights of Columbus, and several university advisory boards. My wife co-founded the nonprofit Laryngeal Cleft Network and was a dyslexia tutor. We’ve been married 30 years and have three kids, one in the Peace Corps and two in college. I believe we have to give back and that opportunities to serve are all around us. I know you believe in service, too, or you would not have chosen your career.
You’ve heard of the golden rule. I believe in what is known as the platinum rule: Treat others as they want to be treated. To do that, you have to get to know people and build trust. One way to do that is by soliciting feedback from those who use our public lands, from tribes, states, recreationists, industry, sportsmen, ranchers and the mining community.
I want to hear from you. I want to hear your motivations and ideas. Why did you want to work for the Forest Service? What brings you to work every day? I want you to identify problems and I want you to bring me solutions. We can’t be defined by what we’ve done in the past—we must chart a new path forward to ensure the productivity and health of our National Forest System. I pledge to work with you to protect people and communities and ensure our national forests and grasslands are healthy and productive.
You asked what questions for Tom Schultz. (1) his perspective on managed wildfire along with prescribed burning, (2) protecting the workforce from unplanned/unmanaged force reduction, (3) emphasis and use of fee retention and stewardship projects. In the press release there were two points I wondered about (1) he mentioned the difference between “the role of the states in managing public trust lands and how that differs from goals and objectives in managing federal lands” – could Tom expand on that thought, and (2) he referred to “Forest Service lands” – it was drilled into me there is no such thing – they are National Forest lands only managed by the FS (not owned by the FS!)
I believe the Timber EO will get plenty of attention.
I would ask him if and how he intends to emphasize effort to maintain and reestablish public access to NFS lands. Will the FS defend the public’s interests in Court? Will there be actions to establish and protect historical routes and easements to NFS lands being threatened in so many locations by lawsuits regarding private property, ROWs and adjacent land uses. If Recreation is to be one of his focus areas, how will he resist heavy political pressure to remove/alter public access routes that allow for more land boundary adjustments, building in sensitive alpine areas by special interests and adjacent landowners? How will view land swap deals between existing public tracts and private interests?
His specific statement regarding concerns of adjacent landowners is troubling to me as historically the public loses. We already have overwhelming private ownership adjacent to millions of acres of public lands locking us out. These are posted properties that block, prevent use and enjoyment by citizens land on the other
Side of the barbed wire. You can’t even get permission to cross. The decision and settlement that just happened in the Crazy Mountains and involving Big Sky- Yellowstone club developers is shameful. The interference and pressure by our Senator on the FS feels and looks like a sell out to campaign funders to me. Especially the removal of a good District Ranger trying to maintain established historical access routes on trails with a history of FS trail Maintenance and signing. Like he should do.
The other related area I would ask him about is what he intends to do about the subject of corner crossing? We have so many millions of acres off limits it’s ludicrous that leasers of grazing lots for ex. get to use and impact public lands for a low fee, cross back and forth over them to get to their private holdings but we cannot. We cannot cross a simple corner to access our substantial public lands in the same manner. The current laws don’t pass the straight face test of plain fairness. With the pressures of population grow-this a large issue for National Forests and people that expect to use and enjoy them.
A good start I think. I wish he would have mentioned the other mission areas, Research and State and Private, but I understand that the heart and soul of the Forest Service is the National Forest System and it must come first.
The posters before me asked good questions and made excellent points. Certainly lots for the new chief to learn.
John:
Thank you for reading the new Chief’s letter. With no Forest Service experience, a reminder that the dominant role of DIRECT and INDIRECT stewardship on most forests is what is the “true heart and soul” of the Forest Service. But one has to explore directly with time all (or most of) the Mission Areas to get a true “feel” and what feeling it is. Such a grand organization. One must gain a feel for all of it. Sure, I also understand that most “do not know what they did not know” about this iconic public servant. For example, I never thought in my wildest dreams that I would go to the State and Private Forestry Mission Area. I was firmly advised not to: “It will be the end of your career.” Well, it was not. The time I spent in Business Operations as the Director of Information Resources Management was incredible. Of course, my association with you in Research and Development could not have been better. And the assignment in Colorado on those magnificent National Forests that reached the clouds, was pretty special. During my time, they were called the Grand Mesa-Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests. Amazing rural and urban land gradient to help answer a lifetime of questions to help improve people’s lives.
In my original post regarding this and the new Chief, I tried to convey that a real “America’s Chief Forester” must be aware of all the lines the agency connects with. Yes, of course, “193 million acres of National Forest and Grasslands.” Well, the Forest Service has such an indirect and super meaningful role on 138 million acres of urban forests. If one takes out the “Grasslands”, things begin to be…well you know what I am trying to say. And look at the impact our own Dr. Dave Nowak in research has had on people along that complex rural to urban land gradient. Now, that is impressive.
Recall, my “Everything is Connected” poster I made during my High School, Student Teaching Experience in 2007 with 9th graders? We started with a “Graphic Organizer.” Maybe the Chief will ask for one. It’s true, most of the Chief’s that I worked for, thought the “heart and soul” of the agency was/is the National Forest System. Clearly, that mission area is great, but it could be much more cohesive and so much more impactful to our country. My key message to the new Chief: You are the new leader of the USDA Forest Service, not the ‘USDA National Forest Mission Area.”
I often think about the impacts you made in the 20-Northeastern States and your full service to the care of our country. You are a giant among us lessor souls, for sure. Come to think of it, I believe I have said that to you before (smile). And recall, “the mission area designations will prove to be the demise of the Forest Service.” Maybe the new Chief will work on that. How about Lands, Science, and Urban Interface? Let me think more about “Business Operations.” Since it is such an umbrella account, the Graphic Organizer (GO) should show that accordingly. Absolutely, Lands, Reasearch and Uban Interface intertwine, so sometimes your “tell to sell” objectives have to make the “GO” a bit less than perfect and that’s okay.
Help me with notion that “the Chief of the Forest Service leads the USDA Forest Service and the unique direct and indirect connections to most of America’s forests.” Recalling, former Chief F. Dale Robertson, he understood the connections quite well. A great Chief. I love that time in the agency. See you later and my best wishes as we both find the well-deserved and larger “heart and soul” of the Forest Service. Do you think the new Chief might read any of this? (smile).
Very respectfully,
He refers to the “American” people four times. How does he reconcile that national interest with this statement: “I support decisions made locally.” I also agree that his statement about “balancing” public access with the potential for impacts on adjacent landowners sounds suspicious from someone who should be advocating for the American people’s land and rights to use it.
This Administration is all about reducing government costs. How does he reconcile that with his emphasis on “active” forest management. Shouldn’t we expect some proof that such expenditures save us money before such a wholehearted commitment?
I was immediately struck by this statement regarding his lack of Forest Service experience: “I hope you will see that as I do—as a strength.” As if saying to federal employees that a federal career is really nothing to be proud of.
First, I don’t want ANY logging at all in Montana, it takes so long for trees to grow. I would love to see Mr. Schultz fight for no logging here, but I guess that’s not realistic. I am mostly concerned about clear-cutting.
I do not want our Montana mountain ranges to look like the Cascades!! The decades of clear-cutting of the beautiful old-growth trees, in the whole range, north to south, looks TERRIBLE. Huge swatches of stumps and slash. It’s as unsightly as it gets. The Cascade Mountains are beautiful from a distance, but don’t look close.
Also, the Oregon Coast Range! Completely stripped of old-growth trees in HUGE areas. Looks terrible. They might as well just finish off the whole range because it’s ruined already.
If Montana can escape the awful logging that trump wants to do for cheap lumber, that would be awesome. If not, PLEASE DO NOT CLEAR-CUT! PLEASE.
Thank you for reading my comments.