Press release from April 7….
WASHINGTON, DC.– Recent reports suggesting that certain critical programs –specifically regarding private land ownership and wildland fire management– may be shifted outside of the Forest Service have been a particular source of alarm for State Foresters. Forests are a vastly complex and unique resource that require a dedicated federal agency with the technical expertise currently residing in the USDA Forest Service. Wildfire is an inherent part of the forest lifecycle, and its management necessitates a forestry lens. Moving programs to an alternate agency in pursuit of efficiency may compromise both the integrity of those programs and the ultimate utility of efficiency efforts.
Forests are our nation’s most valuable natural resource, providing a myriad of public, economic, and environmental benefits. As efforts to downsize and reorganize the federal government move forward, State Foresters are raising concerns that decisions affecting the USDA Forest Service could unintentionally hinder the prosperity of forested communities and heighten wildfire risks for communities across the nation.
Many State Foresters acknowledge the potential benefits of organizational restructuring, having gone through similar processes in their own states before and appreciating the difficulties and progress that stem from such efforts. This same experience, however, is why State Foresters hold legitimate concerns regarding the ongoing downsizing and reorganization efforts at the Forest Service and are eager to provide state perspectives on the process.
“State Foresters can play a critical role in the federal reform dialogue, provided they are included,” said Jay Farrell, Executive Director of the National Association of State Foresters. “They are informed, engaged, and ready to ensure positive outcomes for forestry and wildfire management throughout this transition. While we are eager for progress, we urge a thoughtful and collaborative approach to achieving efficiency.”
As usual, Steve voices real concerns. Western Forest lands have become a pawn to be sacrificed to protect the ‘king’. The fate of our national forests should rest in the best science, democratic institutions and modern technology applied by a corps dedicated professionals not by some political whim.
Ah.. but but under federalism, and the separation of powers, “democratic institutions” can be a dogpile of powers, and the “best science” is contested as well.
Is there a separation of powers? Seems like we are going for a walk in never-never land.
The intermixing of science and politics is very serious and dangerous undertaking. TR tried to avoid this by placing the new forest reserves in the Dept. of Agriculture. Political economic concerns and agendas are almost always dangerous foes of the common interest. It is a risky combination with a bad history. As Alston Chase observed:
“When the search for truth is confused with political advocacy, the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power.”
Forest scientists and professionals should be cognizant of the history of this struggle, and be certain that what it shares with the public as knowledge is both disinterested and honest. what we a getting right now is neither disinterested or honest.
Could you be more specific? What we are getting from whom?
What we are getting includes 1) eliminating the Forest Service research mission, 2) ending most federal support for State and Private Forestry, and 3) a call for increased management and higher production (timber harvesting) on federal lands.
Here’s some of what is not being talked about enough.
#1 is the opportunity cost of curtailing R&D. Researchers have made impressive strides at improving forest technology as rapid advances in areas such as robotics, imaging, machine learning, materials, genomics, and many more. It’s challenging for forest scientists to keep up with the pace of change because the scale of Forestry R & D is already so small compared to that of fields like computer science and engineering, which are growing at breakneck paces with big financial backing. On the other hand, tech researchers continually run into problems adapting their technologies to forest settings because they have very limited understanding of the challenging conditions they will face even just a few feet off the main road in forested terrain. An really overlooked part of research is that it often involves grad students, and fewer sponsored research opportunities means our future capacity to conduct research competently will decrease.
#2 is how states and private landowners manage and protect their non-federal forest lands. These include some the most productive forests in the USA, but also millions of acres of average or low growing conditions. Private lands also face challenges such as development pressures and the high cost of protecting property near forests from hazards like wildfire. Private forests are also extensive. Forest landowners rely on tax breaks and cost-share subsidies to manage and preserve their forests, since hardwood forests like what we have in the East need long growth cycles with limited cashflow to support sound forestry practices.
#3 will be challenging because we know from experience that administering timber sales and practicing forestry requires people and infrastructure. Roads have to be built and mills have to be near the forests or people won’t have any reason to bid on timber sales . If markets (mills) aren’t in place, harvest planning and results will likely spawn unanticipated consequences. This has led to boom and bust type cycles in the past. That certainly could happen again if plans are poorly thought out and implementation is careless.
There is a lot at stake and good reason for concern. The people who know how to work in and with forests are being sent home and it’s not clear that those left will know what to do or will have sufficient resources to get the job done.