Editor Chuck Sheley has compressed my current article, “Burned Out: Deadly National Forest Fires now Entering Towns” into a succinct one-page editorial for the current issue of Smokejumper Magazine. I will post the entire article, with color photos, map, and tables when I get my copy — it was supposed to arrive a few weeks ago, but western Oregon USPS is seemingly going through troubled times lately.
I posted this on a couple of forestry Facebook pages as two JPEGs, the Smokejumper cover and my editorial. Chuck did his normal great job of editing — he has been doing this for 25 years — but I didn’t want to try and re-create his edits from draft, so I’m also going to post as JPEGs here. The entire article is more than 3500 words, but Chuck catches the essence and key summary conclusion perfectly well. Details to follow [Here is the original post: https://forestpolicypub.com/2024/10/02/burned-out-us-forest-service-is-destroying-our-western-towns
Hi Bob, isn’t it time to get back to the basics of multiple use sustained yield forestry on our National Forests? As a retired timber sale project leader I was always questioning why the Forest Service felt the need to make excuses for timber management within those areas on NFs designated as suitable for timber management. Here on the Salmon-Challis NF there is less than 20% of the Forest designated as suitable for timber harvests, and I suspect after you delete RHCAs, arch sites, sensitive plant populations and the actual economically and physically possible areas to conduct harvest on there is probably closer to 10-15% available. Conducting timber harvests in those few areas will still accomplish fuels reduction, restoring resiliency, improving wildlife habitat and creating a mosaic of age classes to break up continuity of forest fuels without having to make any other excuse. Let the Forest Service get back to basics.
Hi Barry: Yep. Full agreement. Whether we look at the cultural vegetative mosaic created and maintained by American Indians over thousands of years, or the historical roads, trails, and settlement patterns that followed in those footsteps, modern land managers would certainly benefit by replicating — or at least considering — these past successes.
Wayne Giesy always figured that if 1/2 of a National Forest was devoted to maintaining desired “habitats” and 1/2 was devoted to societal needs (jobs, homes, fuels, etc.), that wildfire mitigation would be largely resolved. Over time, and given a subbasin scale on these divisions and some consideration for riparian vegetation, I agree.
I do think many of the arbitrary acronyms and detailed federal regulations have worked directly against these concepts, which are more landscape scale and far less government regulatory zoning. It’s definitely past time to get back to the 1897 Organic Act and Multiple Use/Sustained Yield planning, but first we need to clean up the mess the past 30 years have given us.
Thanks for the reply. You and I agree and now it’s up to the will of the public forcing their will on Congress and the Executive branch to make the course correction. Slim odds no doubt.
We’ve known all this for quite some time, now. Congress has consistently underfunded “active management”, in favor of “smaller government”. We continue to see that in the current Congress. Many often blame environmental lawsuits, instead. Yes, lawsuits have been a problem for salvage projects, but not really the case in thinning projects.
I have no faith that the Forest Service will be able to fulfill the false ‘mandate’ of Project 2025.
Bob, Whereas I understand your point, which you have brought up many times on this forum, concerning current forest management/wildfire issues. And, I agree with some of what you say, I have to take issue with the quote that starts, “Apparently to them, their career is just a job…”
I know this is edited and you were quoting a USFS retiree and that is his opinion, but it paints a picture that part of the wildfire issue is due to the USFS being filled with employees working for the agency because it is a secure (Secure? Really?) job with benefits rather than really caring about the resource. In my opinion, as another USFS retiree who still connects with several current employees, nothing could be further from the truth. I’ve never known, or currently know, anyone working in fire, forest management, range management, recreation, wildlife or any specialist, who didn’t care deeply about their work. Yes, there were a few who didn’t have the best work ethic, but they still cared about the resource. Dissing employees does nothing to prove your point, but rather is disrespectful and potentially creates hatefulness towards people working passionately for this country.
And on the lighter side, I want to point out it is “Smokey Bear”, not “Smokey the Bear”.
Hi Mike: The quote was from a high-level USFS retiree who was reflecting the opinion of several other Old Smokeys I have known through the years. It was my decision to not disclose his name after getting permission to publish. Then, another USFS retiree with sparkling credentials chose to keep this quote after major editing of my article. I’m not sure why you don’t think this supports (not “proves”) my point — and please note that it isn’t my point, but a direct quote of a highly respected retiree who thought the point was relevant. So I included it for that reason.
So far as Smokey Bear, I was in my 1st Grade class in Woodland, Washington in 1954 when we were all taught to sing about “Smokey the Bear, prowlin’ and a-growlin’ and a-sniffin’ the air,” so I’m blaming Mrs. Siegel for that misdirection.
Yep, I’m blaming others for these differences!
The reason I felt it was irrelevant is because the fire management issues are tied to policies, not employees who work for the USFS because it is a secure job with benefits. It doesn’t matter who said it or how high up in the organization they were as there are retired curmudgeons at all levels. Some of my favorite people are curmudgeons, although I prefer to have a more positive outlook on life.
As for Smokey, yeah, that song has caused a lot of problems concerning his name. It’s not Easter the Bunny either.
Hi Mike: As a devout and practicing curmudgeon, I have to say that many of us share your positive outlook on life, too. However, it’s your syntax that needs work. It’s THE Easter Bunny, not “Easter the Bunny” as you state. Conan the Barbarian would be another example of proper syntax.
So one retiree makes a global statement about other retirees…
I for one spend more hours than easily counted on FS stuff on this blog. Then there’s all the work people do at NAFSR (the retirees organization).. then there are many retirees who volunteer. Then there are the ones who contribute to the mission via ACES, and being hired or contracted through grants.
Signed .. one of “those” retired in the last 10-20 years.
I would add that many feel good about their careers and are still interested in what the USFS does, but volunteer for other entities. For example, I am on the board of directors for a local conservation group called the Headwaters Alliance. This group has pulled in grant dollars and organized industry and government agencies (including the Rio Grande NF) to clean up mining waste impacting waterways that enter the Rio Grande. Other friends who have retired from the Rio Grande NF are on other local boards and friends groups and some still assist with fires. Some provide comments as members of the public on environmental analyses. Many others are having happy, relaxing retirements traveling, gardening, watching grandkids participate in activities. There is nothing wrong with that either; it doesn’t mean they are disgruntled retirees.
Thanks, Mike, certainly one of the challenges of retirement is deciding how best to spend our time and give back, along with financial challenges, health challenges and all the other challenges that life throws at us.
Hi Sharon: In defense of the person I quoted, his perspective is shared by several other members of the Old Smokeys, and has been for a number of years. This is a select group, however, preoccupied with the great increase in wildfires since their retirements 15 and 30 years ago. Yes, it is a generalization, and yes there are certainly many, many exceptions — but this opinion is fairly common — however accurate or inaccurate — and bluntly stated by others as well. I think NAFSR was the organization he was referencing, but I’m not sure of what Chapter (or even if they have chapters).