We served national forests under both parties, and know today our public lands are in danger (Opinion)
Divesting our public lands from public ownership would be a grievous error
But maybe the authors didn’t select the title or the tagline.
Collectively, we have over 200 years of experience in public land management and have served as U.S. Forest Service chiefs under both Republican and Democratic administrations. We are adamant that divesting our public lands from public ownership would be a grievous error. We encourage all Americans to support the public servants who work for you and, most importantly, the public lands that belong to all of us and define us as Americans.
There’s the “divesting” thing again. Some of us are still exhausted from the last decades of hearing about this.. for example this Center for American Progress Action write-up from 2015. It, of course, mentions the ever-unpopular Sagebrush Rebellion.
The idea that the federal government should transfer ownership of public lands to state governments or sell them off to private interests has percolated on the conservative fringe for decades. The concept briefly gained attention during the Sagebrush Rebellion—an anti-government movement in the West in the 1980s—but has not been able to overcome criticism that it is unconstitutional, fiscally irresponsible, and environmentally reckless.
Back to the op-ed:
This year started with the catastrophic fires in southern California. It is now only spring, and already we have an active fire season across parts of the southeast. Is this a time to dismiss thousands of trained firefighters? Most U.S. Forest Service employees have collateral firefighting jobs and are called on as fire season escalates.
We believe that the current administration’s abusive description of career federal employees is an unforced and, frankly, unforgettable error. These fired employees, we know from experience, represent the best of America. Many gave up other potentially financially lucrative jobs to serve the public interest, many were military veterans. To see them treated the way they have been over the past few months is incompetence at best and mean-spirited at worst.
We believe that the current administration’s abusive description of career federal employees is an unforced and, frankly, unforgettable error.
Is this really about FS employees or a more general concern about Administration statements? What exactly do the Chiefs mean by “unforgettable”? “incompetence at best and mean-spirited at worst”.
There was the random firing of some 3,400 probationary Forest Service employees, some with years of experience as seasonal firefighters, others with jobs ranging from managing prescribed fire and fuel reduction, timber sale layout, fish and wildlife habitat improvement to campground maintenance. This was followed by a court order to reinstate the fired employees, who were only soon to be fired again. Additionally, there was the buyout and retirement incentives of another 3,000 employees.
I am totally with them on the probationary employees, but on the other hand, the FS had hired more than they could afford, as we’ve described in other posts. So will future RIFs be “non-random?” will that be OK? Again, this takes a twist (one that I’ve heard before) about buyouts and incentives, which to me are a different kettle of fish. For one thing, they are voluntary. I don’t think that we can say “buyouts are disrespectful” when we didn’t say that for previous buyouts. In fact, some of us (including me) were told the FS would be better off if we would retire, and make room for fresh ideas and give a chance for the next generation to flourish. Kind of like overstory removal of trees with decreasing vigor.
While the exact numbers are changing daily, the chaotic approach resulted in many of the top leaders, including the Forest Service chief and another dozen top agency leaders to leave or be demoted. Further, major reductions in the workforce are expected. The administration has asked USDA to significantly cut more funding and people.
For me, if I had been SES, it would be all about pay retention, not demotion. GS-15 jobs can be more fun than SES, as far as I’ve observed. Not as much power, but not as much stress. And I would guess that there are many folks out there equally capable and desirous of being SES, given the chance. Unless things have changed, we always had pretty stiff competition for Forest Supervisors and above, and there are relatively few SES positions in the FS (and will possibly be fewer with consolidations).
This is occurring while a recent Executive Order calls for the immediate expansion of timber harvest from the National Forests and other federal public lands.
If the White House continues to dismiss the employees who manage the campgrounds, visitor information centers, trails systems for hiking, biking, horseback riding and motorized uses, facilities will have to be closed. The summer vacation season is just around the corner.
Permit holders for animal grazing, oil and gas leases, logging and mining activities will also be affected. It appears the intent is to create a number of crises for the millions of Americans who use the national forests and grasslands for their livelihoods and for their recreation.
How do we discern the intent of the Admin? If they want to reduce employees at the DOE, for example, does that mean that they want to create crises for users of energy? or CDC and public health?
And I believe the Secretary of Agriculture said that efforts to reduce would focus on middle managers (shades of Clinton Administration!) and administrative functions. I’m sure many folks including elected officials, who are probably giving their opinions to the Admin directly, don’t want any recreation, grazing, timber or other holdups.
Rural economies are intertwined with the uses on these lands, bringing millions of dollars to local economies.
Are these drastic actions the first steps toward crippling the agencies so they cannot carry out their Congressionally mandated mission? If so, they portend a cynical effort to divest and transfer federal public lands to the States and private interests.
Oh for Gifford’s sake! Here we go again with the standard privatization fear-mongering (as in above CAP 2015). States don’t want them, and the private dog (except for local housing) won’t hunt.
The national forests are public lands that are owned collectively by all U.S. Citizens and managed under the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act and a host of other laws. These laws allow for responsibly managed oil and gas development, mining, timber harvest, as well as recreation development, untouched wilderness, and many other uses. Most importantly, they are the backyard of families that camp, hike, bike, cut firewood, ski, float rivers, hunt or fish on their public lands without “no trespassing” signs.
More than 60 million Americans get their drinking water from streams that flow from the 193 million acres of national forests. Truly, we have a federal public land system in the U.S. that serves us daily and is the envy of natural resource professionals around the world for the benefits realized by our citizens daily. Divesture of these precious lands, that belong to all citizens rich and poor, would be an irreparable tragedy.
The first Forest Service Chief Gifford Pinchot famously wrote, “Where conflicting interests must be reconciled, the question shall always be answered from the standpoint of the greatest good of the greatest number in the long run.” We believe the greatest good is keeping the National Forests and all federal public lands in the hands of all citizens for future generations.
It seems like the Chiefs are saying “don’t get rid of employees who provide important services.” I think the Administration probably agrees with that. Legally, though, they have to follow OPM procedures for RIF and VERA, which means that the outcome can’t be precisely controlled, as many of us have experienced in the past. Fortunately for the mission, if particularly knowledgeable and useful people retire, they can and do come back as Reemployed Annuitants, contractors, hired by partners/grantees, or via the ACES program.
We all support the National Forests, I think everyone here can agree. And yet, the Forest Service apparently has more employees than it can afford. The op-ed is arguing against selling public lands, which isn’t on the table. The writeup sounds like it was mostly Dombeck and associates, and the others signed on. Wouldn’t it be interesting, instead to hear what their desired solutions would be, given the situation? Here are some possibilities.
(1) No one should be RIFed or take early out, despite the fact that FS is over budget.(Every position is needed? I would say I don’t agree with that.
(2) We recognize the problem, but think a better way to reduce numbers would be to…. Keep everyone red-carded who has been on say…more than three fires in the past three years?
(3) Increased the budget to cover the recent hires? Keep everyone red-carded who has been on say…more than three fires in the past three years?
(4) The Admin should stop disrespecting employees by making negative statements. I don’t think the Chief or the Secretary is, so .. they would have to be more specific. There are other ways of disrespecting, possibly including pulling purchase cards?
(5) Temporaries are very important to summer field work, so the FS should find the money to hire them, even if it may be too late.
Vinegar or Honey?
In contrast to the Dombeck et al. op-ed, on X this morning I saw an open letter to Secretary Wright from various energy groups who all benefit from the DOE Loan Programs Office:
As budget and staffing decisions are weighed across the Department, we encourage the administration to ensure LPO remains fully equipped to carry out its mission. The office’s ability to underwrite and monitor large-scale energy projects depends on specialized technical staff and institutional capacity. Without them, the federal government risks slowing or stalling the diverse mix of energy projects that serve national priorities, such as new nuclear energy development for powering AI data centers—undermining investment certainty and weakening American competitiveness.
….
These are precisely the kinds of projects the administration has championed: American-made, job-creating, pro-growth, and foundational to national strength and security.We respectfully urge you to preserve LPO’s robust financing capabilities. As your administration advances its energy and industrial agenda, maintaining the Loan Programs Office will be critical to delivering results.Thank you for your leadership and commitment to American energy excellence.
It’s quite a different tone (and audience) from the op-ed in the Denver Post. Recalling:
“Are these drastic actions the first steps toward crippling the agencies so they cannot carry out their Congressionally mandated mission?”
“current administration’s abusive description of career federal employees is an unforced and, frankly, unforgettable error.”
Maybe the Chiefs would be more likely to have their ideas considered by the new Administration by taking a less histrionic approach, and dealing directly with the Administration? Or maybe they are and this is a two-pronged approach? It would be easy to imagine rewriting the DOE letter to incorporate their/our concerns. They/we could write one to the current Chief and relate our concerns to the Chief’s stated priorities of “safety, active forest management, fire management and recreation.”
If I said “respect is a two-way street” you might say “this Admin should not be respected because…”, but I am a pragmatist. As the old saying says, “you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.” I think the authors of the DOE letter are obviously interested in procuring flies (loans). Not so sure about folks using vinegar.
Who is to say that the Forest Service is “over budget”? I’d say that if they cannot function without firing/separating field-going employees, maybe they are still ‘under-funded’? IMHO, I think the Administration (and cronies) still want to abolish the Forest Service, and return those lands back to the States.
The FS was underfunded by their own admission last fall, when they decided they couldn’t hire temporaries for FY 2025. See my post here https://forestpolicypub.com/2025/03/13/history-of-recent-forest-service-employee-numbers-recap-and-context-opportunities-for-learning/
Whether that is still the case depends on someone understanding the 2025 budget. Problem with the States idea is that they don’t want the land and can’t afford to manage it. Probably the same with Tribes. States in general just want to be more seriously consulted and have their expertise brought to the table.
But time is the friend of truth.
With the Feds taking control of the firefighting, the States should be happy to outright control the ‘management’ of those lands, maybe for a profit. Of course, they would also want a chunk of the Forest Service budget, to go along with it.
I think we only need to look into Project 2025 to see what the intent is. (There’s a whole chapter on Forestry.)
Hi Sharon: I joined the Libertarian Party 45 years ago and was even an Oregon delegate to their national convention in Denver in 1980. My issue was privatizing federal lands, as was being promoted by the “Sagebrush Rebellion” at the time, but was disappointed to learn that much of the focus was on abolishing the penny. 45 years later, neither attempt has been successful. So, during the 2020 elections I quit the Party due to its ineffectiveness.
I can’t understand why you think the Tribes and states wouldn’t want title to federal lands adjacent to, and within, the reservations and counties. I’ve never heard that before, but given elected officials along the Pacific Coast the past few decades, I shouldn’t be surprised.
The only reason state and federal lands lose money in Oregon these days is because of onerous state and federal regulations supposedly based on “science” somehow. Pure politics. Mostly suspect models that their PhD operators claim can look into the future. And we pay for that nonsense. If the feds put the lands into trust accounts obligated to schools and local roads and government, I can’t see why they wouldn’t want these assets, or how they could possibly continue losing money. They did produce millions in net income for decades until the federal regulators and the environmental litigants took over, and maybe/hopefully things are changing back to professional management with the new administration.
It’s entertaining that this article is holding the former Chiefs to a higher standard than the current POTUS. It is true that the Chiefs did not provide details on what changes need to be made to improve the Agency, but they did speak in length to what should be preserved. What we have not heard from the POTUS or the Secretary, is a clear message on how the Agency can achieve their priorities with the organizational structure, funding, and resources that will remain in 6 months. But maybe your right, if only the Chiefs would have started their op-ed with a statement of how the POTUS has the physique of Paul Bunyan and brains of Gifford Pinchot, maybe they could have gotten an invite to the Oval. But let’s be honest here, the administration has no interest in hearing the opinions of any federal employee or expert, that’s what AI is for.
Sharon,
I absolutely disagree with your perspective that federal lands are not under threat. There have been open statements about selling them to reduce the debt. Look to Utah for their legislation regarding acquiring federal lands. There is absolutely interest in them for a wide variety of reasons. If given to the states, the states will not have the funds to manage them, and they will be sold to the highest bidder. There’s a whole series of podcasts regarding what has happened to federal land deeded to states historically done by Tandy Newberg. The podcasts are done state by state. They are worth a time to listen. I am very concerned about this as our many of the wildlife conservation groups in addition to our former line officers.
Melanie, I guess we’ll have to wait and see. It probably makes sense for some of us to focus on what might happen in the future, while others of us work on things currently happening. I am just drawing a line between what has been talked about for the last 30 years or so and what has happened. I also don’t think the feds would be successful at giving the land to the States (who don’t want it) and then the idea of pass-through to private. Think California, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, New Mexico. Like I said, I just don’t see it. But we can agree to disagree 🙂
There are several public land states who want federal land. In 2024, UT filed an original action in the U.S. Supreme Court (skipping lower level courts) to obtain 18.5 million acres of BLM land. Idaho, Wyoming, Alaska and the AZ legislature filed in support of UT as did IA and a collection of other non public land states including the Dakotas. The Court in a short order rejected the original action, but UT can refile in the lower courts. In 2025, the WY legislature narrowly rejected a resolution to Congress for all federal lands in WY exclusive of Yellowstone National Park. Do such actions make legal or financial sense? Unlikely, but many states have a fallback position of gaining management authority over these federal resources ( oil and gas, coal, timber, grazing etc.)
Thanks for the information, Rebecca!
Hi Sharon,
I agree with most of your comments. I like your “oh for Gifford’s sake”! Great line.
I sky is not falling on FS land–and the sky is blue as ever, with nice shades of green (trees) holding the sky up.
I looked up the Denver Post…here are all the former Chief’s that signed the editorial.
“The six authors of this column served as U.S. Forest Service chiefs between 1997 and 2025. Mike Dombeck (1997-2001), Dale Bosworth (2001-2007), Gail Kimbell (2007-2009), Tom Tidwell (2009-2017, Vicki Christiansen (2018-2021), Randy Moore (2021-2025).”
I wish they would write an editorial on all the public forest lands that have been burned down in the past 35 years.
They should also note that timber growth on the western National Forests is now NEGATIVE.
We are burning down more volume than we are growing. The last RPA assessment stated that for the Rocky Mountain forests. My opinion, in the next RPA assessment that statement will also extend to the Pacific coast states.
There needs to be a discussion on whether it is good policy to burn our public forests.
Vladimir – –
That would be nice if Tidwell, Christiansen and Moore made apologies for their lack of urgency in suppressing fires, especially after the passage of the FLAME act.
Biden, Vilsack and Moore never apologized to the people of New Mexico for causing $5.5 billion in damages and the loss of three lives from the Hermits Peak/Calf Canyon “good” fire.
Sharon,
I first saw the Chiefs’ Op Ed posted by a retired line-officer on social media early this a.m. I too thought it reflected a heavy dose of Dombeck’s influence. I think their missive would have more credibility if they had included a substantive reflection on any efforts by leadership over the last 35 years to streamline the agency’s “regulatory compliance industrial complex” and refocus those fiscal and staff resources back down to the Ranger Districts to increase the pace and scale of “dirt on the boots and tires” forest health, wildfire mitigation, and recreation projects.
Well, there was Process Predicament which aimed to reduce unnecessary analysis, I think that that was under Robertson. Then there was Transformation, and as far as I’ve been told decreasing the number of Regions was an idea on the table. That was under Tidwell, if I recall. It was precisely designed to focus on the Districts and pare down ROs. Sadly I can’t find any documentation from that period other than what I stored myself.
https://forestpolicypub.com/2025/04/01/guess-the-year-planning-combo-across-regions-analysis/
https://forestpolicypub.com/2024/09/24/2007-forest-service-transformation-effort-addressed-similar-concerns-to-those-of-today/
https://forestpolicypub.com/2025/02/24/forest-service-transformation-whatever-happened/
I think Randy Moore was in charge and I wrote and asked him what happened but I’m sure he was too busy to reply.
That would be an interesting set of essays. What did they try? And why didn’t it work, in their opinion?
I will ask them for submissions to TSW.
Great idea!
Sharon – –
Process Predicament was Dale Bosworth. F. Dale reduced the manual and handbook directive system from 18’ tall to 11’ tall by using smaller font size on the DG! And for a time had a unified budget until Wilderness wasn’t funded.
Thanks Joe!
Why would Wilderness be funded? The law says it is to be “untrammeled by the hand of man” or something close. How do you spend money on Wilderness and leave it in its “natural state” under the lie that man never used it or products from that described area? My father was born in the same county the oldest organic material tool of indigenous folks found in North America. Paisley Caves atlatl, 16,500 years old. Used to launch a arrow/lance at megafauna.
PCT has reflectors nailed to trees above snow level to reflect lights at night. 2500 or more permits issued to hike the total trail this year. A virtual fecal freeway. But limits on who can use R-6 wilderness areas: 6 day use permits for every 1 overnight permit. If I remember there is a charge for the permit.
I think divesting federal lands is literally “on the table” when an amendment to the budget bill to take it off the table was rejected by the Senate.
My buyout came with an understanding that my position would have to be eliminated (and don’t all RIFs work that way?). That seems to speak to how “respectful” the agency is towards your work. (I did get a little redemption when my boss tried to get me to change my mind.)
Of your possibilities above, I like #4, #5, and some version of #2/3.
We need the temporary employees who do so much essential on-the-ground work, and bringing them back would be comparatively low cost.
When downsizing an organization, it’s always better to treat workers with dignity and respect and to focus on why you are retaining rather than separating.
Telling people you are eliminating them because they are lazy and unnecessary is mean-spirited and likely inaccurate or exaggerated.
Telling people the organization must shrink to balance its budget, and to ensure the organization meets its mission you are prioritizing x capabilities (e.g., red card and history of wildland fire support), you can tell someone they are being eliminated because they didn’t bring x to the table and in this difficult time you need x. The end result may be the same, but rather than attacking the individual’s value or work ethic, the decision is based on their lack of x.
Kevin, I totally agree with you on the messaging. However, I think we need to look at who is doing the speaking. I don’t think Chief Schultz feels that way, based upon what he has said. And the Secretary
“These are challenges and conversations we cannot avoid — and we do not wish to. We will be at the center of both, and we will meet them both with the professionalism and patriotism that is the foundation of this Department and its mission.
Both those qualities were on stark display in the past several weeks — in the firefighters of our own U.S. Forest Service who answered the call to defend Americans and American homes in the face of a literally hellish natural disaster. The bravery, steadfastness, and selfless service of our men and women who stood against the flames is an example to us all.
They lived our principles of service, risking their lives to do so — and we must give no less, each in our own sphere.”
To me, any Admin is a bunch of different people with different interests vying for power. We can choose which of them we listen to. I would not be listening to whomever is saying the “lazy and unnecessary” part.
Personally, I feel that the Forest Service needs to learn how to get by without using Temps. It continues to be a poor way to treat essential employees. either their job duties are ‘permanent’ in nature, or they aren’t. That should be the yardstick to measure by.
Hi Jonas: This process creates too many “second-class citizens” when skilled, full-time workers are needed. The same holds true for much of USFS labor contracting. Short-term USFS reforestation and wildfire contracts over the past several decades have functioned as taxpayer-funded incentives for illegal immigration, due to the nature of the organization and its funding. The same might hold true for USFS janitorial and landscaping contracts, so far as incentivizing Spanish language work crews, but my guess is that they are longer-term contracts, allowing for assimilation into local communities. We need skilled, full-time, English speaking workers to get our damaged public lands back into safer and more productive conditions. It worked before, and with good results — not what we have now. Opinion, based on experience and observation.
I did not intend to highlight the “temporary” aspect of those employees but the essential functions they perform. Whether temporary or permanent, seasonal or year-round, we cannot manage and protect our forests without boots on the ground.
In today’s world, NO ONE wants to be a Temporary Employee, anymore. It’s a dead-end job for only half of the year. And did I mention the pay is very low? Is THIS how to run the government, “like a business”? I will not recommend a career in the Forest Service, right now, unless you’re a firefighter.