Last Wednesday, I was driving home from the gym and saw our Volunteer Fire Department putting out a grass fire. Then Thursday, I spent some time as a volunteer cleaning a kitchen. Many of the other folks volunteering were in their 70’s, and certainly we weren’t as spry climbing on and off the countertops as younger folks would have been. And we certainly weren’t as knowledgeable or quick as professionals. Yet the job got done. Plus conversation was had, information exchanged and community bonds were formed. Some of the volunteers were talking about their (many) other volunteer activities. It made me reflect on the different framings of “what can we do about the reduction of Forest Service and BLM employees?”.
It appears that many people are leaving, some retiring, some due to future RIFs. I don’t know when this will be done, nor what gaps will exist, but there will be gaps. And field season is starting.
For those of us who can’t influence elections nor Congress, at least for me, putting positive energy into helping is better for my psyche than sending negative energy to the Admin. Plenty of folks are doing the latter.
And it kind of goes back to our previous discussion about “what is an emergency?”. There are certainly large groups of volunteers and others who help out during an emergency and do other things once the emergency is over.
If we looked at the actions of the Admin as something we can’t help (which is probably true in the short-term), how would we react? How did people react to wildfires and hurricane disasters? By trying to help. When the temporary hiring freeze was announced last fall, this Colorado Sun story had the vibe of “the Forest Service is in trouble, we (volunteer groups) have to step up.”
Volunteer groups that work with the Forest Service are braced for “some frustration and challenges upcoming for 2025,” said Doozie Martin, executive director of Friends of the Dillon Ranger District.
Forest Service officials have warned most of their partners to not anticipate big projects in 2025 as the agency struggles through the hiring freeze.
The 20-year-old Friends of the Dillon Ranger District regularly delivers about 1,000 volunteer days a year on 60 projects in the White River National Forest’s Dillon Ranger District, which accounts for about half the visits to the White River National Forest, the most trafficked forest in the country. The nonprofit last year provided more than 8,500 volunteer hours and collected 500 bags of trash on the public lands around Summit County and helped educate 1,516 local kids through its youth programs.
“We are lucky we live in an area where we get a lot of support from the community and that is not something I expect will recede,” Martin said. “Perhaps we will need to adjust our programming … but right now I still anticipate having our 1,000 volunteers patrolling the trails and reporting back to land managers. I think we can accomplish a similar amount to what we have in the past.”
And the question has been raised about who is going to pump the toilets.. which led to a link to this NPR story about the Bridger-Teton
But the federal government is limited by who and how it can negotiate contracts for work like pumping toilets. It was quoted about $120,000 for the job; Kosiba said that would have bankrupted the BTNF’s recreation budget.
“We’re talking no trails cleared. We’re talking no campground hosts,” he said.
The agency’s hands were tied. But that was not the case for Kosiba’s nonprofit.
For about five years, the BTNF has partnered with the ‘Friends’ group to help fill in the gaps, like pumping toilets. The nonprofit model is a relatively novel concept in the Forest Service and could be a key model for the agency going forward.
“We’re able to do collectively, far more than the agency [USFS] is able to do,” Kosiba said, adding that it is because of how the agency is funded, staff capacity and bureaucratic limitations.
The BTNF essentially granted funds to Kosiba’s group, which could then contract out with other private companies. They agreed to do the job at about a third of that $120,000.
Not a good argument for federal contracting regulations (I bet there’s a very interesting story there) but a great story about 1) seeing the need, 2) noticing what the agency isn’t funded to do and 3) filling the gap.
Maybe this is an opportunity for groups to get started and say “how can we help? What do you need?” And there are many retirees who would work for nothing in different kinds of jobs (for sure, we’d prefer to be paid, but if this is a crisis and they need us to get over this particular hump, then… Of course, there is the ACES program and NGOS have various hiring authorities and funding from donations and grants. And of course many retirees are still working on fires, as Mike pointed out.
And apparently grants are going forward, for example, I saw jobs advertised for a forestry stewardship program manager, a hydrology technician and a reforestation technician to help National Forests to be hired by the Great Basin Institute (the latter in cooperation with American Forests). And some of the recreation sites near where I live are handled by concessionaires. So each unit may end up having different needs with employees missing, and different ways to fill in the gaps.
Sure, all of us could call our neighboring district and ask what we can do, but figuring that out and training people up to fill the slots would be a body of work that they probably don’t have time for. And yet, I think that this is work that could be done by, perhaps, retired people with organizing skills. Via some centralized app, folks could find out about in-person and online, volunteer and paid (via NGO or States or ?) opportunities to help out the National Forests. Only some of us still want to do this stuff, but we don’t know how many of us are out there until we ask.
I wonder whether a group like the National Forest Foundation could develop an app with missing capabilities, and all of us who care, with whatever skills or financial capabilities, could see where we could contribute? Or other partners could use their donations (or grants if that would be OK) to hire volunteer coordinators to do the match-making for any gaps (including Regions and the WO). There are definitely work-at-home possibilities, at least in the documentation world, so that someone in DC could help out folks on the Nebraska, for example. And fieldwork sometimes has a fun aspect which might help people want to do it.
Maybe we’d like our volunteer work so much we would stay on past the crisis. Maybe we’d form new friendships and alliances which would open doors to future kinds of help and work and partnerships.
Some of these gaps aren’t even new. In fact, last fall folks were asking me to help out in some areas (via ACES) that had crucial gaps even before the current Admin cuts.
Not that volunteering is the only answer, becoming a reemployed annuitant or getting paid via ACES or grants, are always opportunities. And helping, of course, is not just for retirees. Many skills are not unique to folks who have been employed by the Feds.
For me, it doesn’t matter that the FS made a budgetary mistake (no temporaries this year) or whether the new Administration decided to go on a firing spree, for the purposes of contributing to the Forest Service mission when they are in trouble. The reality is that I could call my Congressional delegation, and they’ve already decided what they’re going to do. Senators- complain about it; Congressperson- not complain about it, based on their political parties. The only way I can see to help is.. to help.
Sure, all of us could call our neighboring district and ask what we can do, but figuring that out and training people up to fill the slots would be a body of work that they probably don’t have time for. And yet, I think that this is work that could be done by, perhaps, retired people with organizing skills. Via some centralized app, folks could find out about in-person and online, volunteer and paid (via NGO or States or ?) opportunities to help out the National Forests. Only some of us still want to do this stuff, but we don’t know how many of us are out there until we ask.
On a related note, I think the FS needs to decide what it wants to be when it grows up. For example, it looks like much reforestation work was farmed out to American Forests. Does the FS want to keep its own knowledgeable people? What kind of expertise does it want to keep in-house? What on-the-ground work should be done by employees versus contractors or grantees or volunteers? Right now I think it’s “whatever works wherever” and perhaps that’s fine. But first getting rid of temps for budget reasons, and now getting rid of people via various forms also gives the FS an opportunity to decide whether it wants to develop a vision of how it wants to work in the future.
What do others think?
In Colorado, don’t forget Volunteers for Outdoor Colorado with a 30+ year history of working with land managers to put trained volunteers on the ground. VOC supported two FS volunteer coordinator offices on two Forests and is a trusted partner of federal, state and local land managers. VOC.org
Thanks!
Volunteers can fill certain gaps, but labor unions/labor contracts/labor politics aren’t going to allow actual staff positions to be moved to volunteers. So there will be a limit to how much volunteers can lessen the impact of the current situation. I’m not saying “don’t bother”, I’m saying “keep your expectations low, and go volunteer”. Hopefully vols will be able to help in significant, meaningful ways.
And never a word about the lost opportunity accounting line designating the lost revenues from grazing reductions to allow feral horses and donkeys to tear up the water holes, over graze the meadows, and thus less game and money to maintain water resources. Or selling timber and having more people living permanently, locally with the forests and volunteering to help the community because the USFS and BLM have a carpetbagger revenue stream that takes care of their needs and wants. Losing the Ranger Station is another loss. A local ‘brain drain.’ Fewer customers and a death knell to schools that are the epicenter of rural community.
There is a choice to devotes budget money to June LGBTQ month, with materials advancing social issues, not picking up garbage, pumping the pit toilets, keeping camp grounds open past Labor Day if the immediate area is not on fire again. USFS was, is, and will be a social change agency with land and its resources in the second chair. Social change has yet to extinguish a fire, repair a bridge, comfort a neighbor, support the local school, respect the customs and culture of the local land owners, workers, and residents.
Volunteers are a poor source of expected action to carry out agency mandates. I admire the volunteers that keep horse trails open only to be admonished for road apples. I still bristle over the Sisters District Ranger putting the trails supervisor on paid leave while his pedophilia charges were adjudicated, with no USFS apology to the volunteering boys and young men abused on volunteer trail maintenance treks. I abhor the thousands of users who grind trails to ditches as do abusive entitled mountain bike riders, neither who have time to fix a broken place, and instead detour around it, and pickup drivers who do the same.
Of course, rural federal lands Oregon, 61% of the State, have suffered from 35 years of almost no “in lieu” 25% of the gross revenues from renting, leasing, selling federal materials and rights, that stayed in the county of origin. Timber sales paid the county, sent more to the US Treasury than timber sales cost to create and administer, and 25% of 0 is still zero. 35 years of zero is a hardship retirees have not suffered. Not in the rural Oregon counties where household incomes from government jobs are over double that of private incomes. Certainly not in the counties where prescribed fire (as in ‘unplanned ignitions used as prescribed fire,’ or the “Hot Shots are doing burn outs of areas of unburned fuels inside the fire containment lines” after another USFS presser reports “the fire has laid down and is burning in a pattern of partial burns, hot spots of complete burn, and islands of unburned in a mosaic of diversity and enablement of future recovery.” Running for office?
Fire is a local USFS opportunity to use the emergency to “return” the District landscape to a sense of normalcy. Like grade gravel roads for the first time since the last overhead team size fire. Like get all the culvert basin ends cleaned out. Or BAER teams buying $120/pound “native seeds” grown three states away to reseed the fire trails constructed. Establish new GPS monuments where witness trees were burned and killed, the survey more than a century old. For civilian loss? Nada. Zip. Hermit’sPeak-CalfCanyon was pure political electioneering, not a legal obligation. $5.45 Billion to “Compensate victims of material loss,” and $1.5 of that for people who lost nothing but suffered discomfort. Never a legal obligation. Mid term electioneering. An insult to every victim of federal fire who never got a more than FEMA three figure finger in their eye. Sovereign immunity, Supremacy Clause, Federal Tort Claims Act “discretionary function exemption” paragraph. The government that can give you all you want also can take all that you have. “Take” is protected. “Give” needs a majority vote in both the House and Senate, and POTUS signature, and if not, by a veto, and that can be overridden in the Congress by a super majority vote in both entities of the Congress.
Shutting off the revenue stream, the removal of accumulated dense fuels, and then decrying USFS needs unmet due to budget constrictions is disingenuous and frankly, heartless. Locals live with the impacts of fire, not people in urban population centers, the majority in Congress and public opinions. Add the losses of homes, jobs, livestock, local tax base, lives, and whole and parts of rural towns and the volunteer issue is a groin kick. Any log cars on the Yellow line? None here, either. Bare earth, bereft of trees, of green timber, is but potential for others half a century or more in the future. Each fire denies a resource for next year, and guarantees nothing for the future. The history of fire is reburns until enough fuel is spatially missing to deny fuel for the next reburn. That is “sold” as “natural and beneficial.” Sidewalks don’t burn, only the cardboard and blue tarps and tents on them. Our future?
Wow, Just a bit of emotion there John. I skimmed quickly to see if you said anything positive about recent years. I missed it if it’s there but my sense is mostly complaints.
I can understand your frustration but let’s face it; the challenges the FS, and country, is facing now are much bigger than one agency, let alone one NF Supervisor can completely solve. So are the problems you described.
I’ll probably come back w/ more comments on the main post.
I’m a former USFS forester; been around the agency since 1973 and was RIF’d by Sen. Hatfield in 1986 when his Timber Buyout Bill let timber companies off the hook for sale contracts after they bid high before the housing market declined.
Don’t volunteer, the public needs to witness the impacts of FS job cuts to acurately gauge the situation. Regarding timber, I worry about the local sawmills and markets….another casualty of globalization. Not saying global trade is in itself bad, not at all. But serious, adult talks in govt and town halls needs to take place regarding domestic economies and manufacturing. Current admin is doing it like its a reality TV show, unfortunately. Boomers need to spend their time thinking about how to improve the economy and civics for the younger generations instead of cleaning public land stuff. Let some goood stuff trickle down for once.
I agree, 100%. I am a retiring early for a service employee not because I want to, but because my position will probably be RIF’d. If former employees want to support their communities and do some things that will ultimately help their local national forests here are some ideas: support your local schools and help kids learn about the natural environment around them, run for local office and help influence local government which supports local national forests, find ways to help your local real estate agents understand what it means to sell a home in the WUI, help influence your local elected officials to develop community ordinances that require defensible space, write your elected officials in Congress to encourage them to support reform of ESA, NEPA, FLMPA, etc.
Looking for a few more try these. if you own property and have a house or are part of an HOA, make sure you have defensible space and you are speaking up about defensible space in your neighborhood, don’t go around mud holes on forest roads, and create more erosion problems, think about where you ride your mountain bike on trails and don’t go around mud puddles cause you don’t wanna get dirty – you shouldn’t be out there if you don’t want to get dirty in the first place, and last, but not least next time you see somebody you know works for the forest service, the park service, the BLM, or state or county land, managing agencies, thank them!
F for T- I also retired early against my preferred intentions, through a process so sordid I don’t want to think about it, and much more personal than being RIFed or thinking you might be. I think it’s about what you feel called to do, have the talent and skill to do, and are mentally and physically capable of. For example, politics and I are a big no. Many of us don’t live in the WUI. My Congressfolk will vote for their party no matter what I write in. We retirees are already darn careful about making work for others. Thanking folks who are working is alwyas a good idea.
Sharon, I hear ya about having representatives who may ignore your input.
>>>>>>>> That’s why I always encourage folks to reach out to friends & family in other states and ask them to contact their reps. I do this particularly when I know people in a red state and it would be helpful to have Republican reps hear from their constituents. Similar situation if someone lives in red area but can engage friends who live in blue area.
Even though it can be frustrating it’s valuable to send input to people whose view is opposite yours. They need to know that you disagree w/ them.
Thanks for keeping this blog going!
Fully agree with the above posts.
Let’s not forget there’s limited purchase card abilities, so best show up with all your own tools and supplies. Also the managers are going to be pretty busy doing more with less, so don’t expect any support there. As far as I know, no one has prevented anyone from cutting roads and trails open on their own dime. No one wants to hear how great things used to be either.
On a some level it is pretty insulting to my fired and forced out coworkers that some retiree thinks they can just come waltzing in and fill the vacancy. Just another reminder that most folks don’t support appropriate compensation that allows workers to enter their community. Plenty of talent and skill didn’t entitle coworkers to a house, or as it turns out, a job. Just as it doesn’t for a calling either.
Go recreate as you normally would, or stay home.
You can be insulted, but I did not say that retirees could “come waltzing in and fill a vacancy”. I said that there were probably specific tasks that retirees could help with. And what is “appropriate compensation”? And how would you know that “most folks” don’t support it.
I don’t exactly understand your argument. All I was saying is that helping is a thing people could do (and actually are doing in many places, via ACES and volunteer groups) that will help the FS get over the hump of discovering what the needs are and rehiring/contracting/granting. You seem to be saying “don’t help” and I’d like to understand better why you feel that way.
Thanks for the engagement Sharon. Certainly didn’t intend to ascribe waltzing to your comments, it is a reflection on my past experiences with retirees.
In my past, opening up to volunteer retirees (citizen science) has led to extended disagreements on study design, protocols, study location, hours volunteered, training attendance. Obviously, these past groups also meant well but they failed to recognize the need for consistency and funding or time constraints to the project. And ultimately still decided to do it their way (because of their vast, although tangential, experience) resulting in poor data collection.
I agree there are some tasks retirees could help with. Locally there could be use for historic restoration/preservation work. However there could be no expectation to support that.
I think an honest conversation around just compensation would require a new post. Have I conducted a scientific poll on compensation, of course not. But it doesn’t seem like much of a leap (to me) to take the remarks people make at face value, identify the groups those people belong to, apply that sentiment to the group, and further apply that to voting outcomes. Maybe not exact, but offers some expectation of the public. Sometimes you get surprised, but not often.
To your final comment, my argument is mostly venting frustration with the situation and not really a well constructed argument. I understood what you were saying, and you were correct that I’m saying ‘don’t help’.
Mike’s comments in his second paragraph regarding the voting ramification articulate my thoughts fairly well. I’m not anti-volunteer, we host multiple service program crews for the season, local organization interns for the summer, partner with numerous local interest groups for weekend or week-long activities. All of these are long term existing partnerships and require significant support. Plugging in a retiree here and there isn’t going to alleviate the burden.
A final frustration, I needed people to advocate for our forests and employees when they had the opportunity back when they worked at the RO and WO. Maybe some did, maybe many tried. That’s the help I needed.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I think we are thinking about different things when we mean volunteers, I’ll explore that in another post, since this is a good discussion. As a former RO and WO employee, what do you mean to “advocate for forests and employees”? I thought that’s what we were doing.
Re: different types of volunteers. That makes sense to me! I can only speak to what I’ve seen. I’ll keep an eye out for the post.
Re: RO WO advocacy. I have no doubt that that RO WO employees think they’re advocating, but there’s a disconnect somewhere and the relationship often feels adversarial. I think this conflict had come up on Smokey wire in the past. I suspect much of the RO and WO’s successful advocacy goes unnoticed through continuity of work or ‘business as usual.’
One specific instance of RO failure that I saw was concerning firefighter pay back when legislation first passed and there was a lengthy period of uncertainty regarding implementation. During our annual forest fire program review, the staff from the RO
(including the regional fire director) hosted a ‘stump the chump’ (their name) session. Obviously the big question was is the region going to qualify for the retention incentive. Tough question for sure.
But the follow up of, ‘in what way is the region supporting qualifying for the incentive’ was answered with a goofy smile, a shoulder shrug, and a response of ‘out of our hands.’ Further followed up with ‘does the region support their employees receiving the incentive.’ And again, no answer. So, sure, maybe it was out of the regions hands, or maybe the region didn’t want to pay its employees more. But it would have been nice if they said they were making an attempt.
It left a bad taste for about 200 employees. 195 of which this would be their only interaction with the regional fire director for years. I know it was my last.
I expected these responses when I first read Sharon’s initial post. Volunteers have always been an issue with some employees because of the belief that if the work can’t get done with the paid employees then it shouldn’t be done. I never agreed with that sentiment which is why I “volunteered” to oversee the volunteer program on the forest I worked. There are many reasons to have a robust volunteer program that goes beyond just getting some work done on the ground.
All that said, we are in a different situation now. The recent cuts and planned future cuts go too far not only because of how many have and will lose their jobs, but because of how it is being done. I care deeply about the resource, but the resource will recover. Let the voters see the ramifications of their actions.