The first Chief of the Forest Service with no experience working for the Forest Service gave a keynote speech at a policy summit for the all-GOP Congressional Western Caucus, a gathering of Republican members of Congress in Whitefish, Montana on August 19. I’m not sure how widely this has been reported but these excerpts are from reporting in the Missoulian., which is probably paywalled. (Indents are quotes from the Missoulian, quotes are the reported words of the Chief.)
… he left few doubts about the agency’s priorities under President Donald Trump.
“We’ve seen this happen throughout the West,” he said. “… We pulled back as an agency over time, and then what happens? The industry goes away. The jobs go away. The education declines. People become addicted to different things.”
“We’re going to manage for minerals management, we’re going to manage for active forest management, grazing management,” Schultz said. “We’re looking at recreation, how we encourage and increase access, even to the existing lands we have. I met with the recreation community, the motorized folks here just a few weeks ago.”
That’s (recent personnel actions) left the Forest Service with a 25% loss of permanent full-time staff who don’t primarily fight wildfires — 5,200 workers, Schultz confirmed in an interview outside the event. And he acknowledged that some of those losses include the types of expertise needed to plan and implement logging projects on federal forest lands.
“We did have people that had that expertise that left,” Schultz told the Missoulian. “They were close to retirement and they left, but what I’m excited about is the people that are here really want to be here, I mean there are a lot of dedicated Forest Service people.”
“In terms of the firefighting effort, we have 11,400 firefighters grade GS 9 and below that are currently on staff, which is what we’re supposed to have,” Schultz told the Whitefish audience on Tuesday. “So when you’re hearing people saying we don’t have firefighting resources, that’s not accurate.”
“There’s still going to be a footprint in Missoula, we haven’t decided exactly how that’s going to function yet,” he said. “… So it could be fire, it could be other things. We haven’t figured everything out there just yet.”
“If there is no certainty from government, industry cannot function,” he said.
It’s not clear whether the “firefighters” he referred to that are “what we are supposed to have” includes those regular employees activated for fires. I’ll only comment that the multiple uses of fish and wildlife and non-motorized recreation were NOT among the things “we’re going to manage for” (or apparently for “addictions” either). And it’s kind of laughable for this administration to talk about “certainty in government” being necessary (unless this administration plans on never leaving). Less snarkily, lack of certainty has always been an issue for federal timber supply and it would be interesting to see what they have in mind to change that. Not hard to believe they “haven’t figured everything out.”
Oh, and for employees who are “really wanting to be here,” see the new hiring questions (and trust that this Administration won’t use this as “an ideological litmus test on candidates” taking precedence over their professional skills).
I wonder how many permanent (highly-experienced) firefighters left the USFS, to go to other Fire Agencies. I do know that a lot of them, around here, went to work for CalFire.
Apparently, there was no mention of the missing Temps, too. Some (in Government) feel that their work isn’t important, and they aren’t needed, anymore. The USFS will just have to learn to ‘get by’ without those ‘warm bodies’.
He has given a directive that all fires WILL be suppressed as quickly as possible, PERIOD!
Individual Forest Supervisors are NOT following this ORDER , He needs to fire these Individuals for not doing what he has ORDERED them to do !
Change will be hard on some but the change is needed NOW if we are to save what’s left of OUR National Forests !
If he does not take a stand to these folks, then I ask the Secretary of Agriculture to remove and replace him.
Not exactly correct Capt. L. D.
Plenty of room within the chief’s intent to justify not fully suppressing a fire as quickly as possible.
Quoting from the chief’s letter of intent in May, pay close attention to the second paragraph and the handful of mentions of risk.
“Fire seasons have been trending longer with more extreme fire behavior, coupled with unprecedented demand for personnel and resources, which has required us to adapt over the past several years. With that in mind, we will continue to focus on safe, aggressive initial attack. We will make appropriate risk informed efforts to fully suppress small fires before they become large, complex incidents to ensure we can protect lives, property, valuable timber and natural resources. It is critical that we suppress fires as swiftly as possible to minimize the amount of fireline exposure and be ready for the next ignition. This means employing direct attack tactics when and where feasible to minimize fire size and time to containment when safe and practicable to do so. As always, we will use all available risk-management tools and deploy resources appropriately depending on resource availability, time of year, communities, infrastructure, natural resources, weather, drought and wildfire activity.
With our current fire conditions, we need to use our firefighting capacity as efficiently as possible. There may be very limited opportunities for in-season prescribed fire or the use of natural ignitions to safely reduce future wildfires outlined in the Interagency Standards for Fire and Fire Aviation Operations (Red Book).”
https://www.fs.usda.gov/inside-fs/leadership/wildfire-letter-intent-2025
r one anon:
Capt. L.D. is wishing the letter actually expressed intent. What Schultz has added his signature to is “gov’t speak,” on the one hand and on the other hand. If a leader is going to express intent, don’t have health and safety and/or human resources management draft the letter, write your own leaders intent letter and sign it! Schultz signed a malleable letter of intent, drafted by staff.
A leader’s intent letter is direct and to the point. Capt. L.D. is correct, wildfires are to be suppressed. That is statute, both authorizing and appropriating. The “red book” does not supersede law. The Organic Administration Act (1897) requires the Secretary to “… make provisions for the protection against destruction by fire…” and the current appropriations as all recent year appropriations including FY 25 legislates, “for necessary expenses for forest fire presuppression activities on National Forest System lands, for emergency wildland FIRE SUPPRESSION on or adjacent to such lands or other lands under fire protection agreement, and for emergency rehabilitation of burned-over National Forest System lands and water…” Emphasis is on Suppression
The Schultz letter addresses none of the legislative requirements incumbent on the agency. Weaving in “potential operational delineations,” a failed Pentagon gambit from the loosing war effort in Iraq, further dilutes the “leader’s intent” memo. The leader’s intent memo itself is a derivative of the Pentagon, but the Schultz letter fails on all four points. These are: intent; task; purpose; end state. And Schultz purportedly has a military resumé in the Air Force.
So, that is why Capt. L.D. is confused, but not terribly so. He expects, as I do, for wildfires to be suppressed!
A friend recently applied for an FS job. He said that while the preamble to the questions said that answers were optional, the form marked the response boxes with red asterisks, indicating that they were mandatory.
Hotshot Wakeup posted the four questions recently (apologies if these have already been posted here):
“Here are the 4 questions, word for word:
How has your commitment to the Constitution and the founding principles of the United States inspired you to pursue this role within the Federal government? Provide a concrete example from professional, academic, or personal experience.
In this role, how would you use your skills and experience to improve government efficiency and effectiveness? Provide specific examples where you improved processes, reduced costs, or improved outcomes.
How would you help advance the President’s Executive Orders and policy priorities in this role? Identify one or two relevant Executive Orders or policy initiatives that are significant to you and explain how you would help implement them if hired.
How has a strong work ethic contributed to your professional, academic or personal achievements? Please provide one or two specific examples and explain how those qualities would enable you to serve effectively in this position.”
In my view three of the four are pompous but probably harmless. The third question sure smells like a litmus test, but if I were applying for a federal job now I’d google the EOs, find one of the less offensive ones, and make up some BS answer around it.* I can almost applaud OPM for transparency here – other administrations prioritizing political loyalty probably would have avoided stating that in writing.
*No part of this comment constitutes legal advice.
Have any other administrations prioritized political loyalty in new hires? I’m not sure commitment to an executive order is necessarily the same thing as “political loyalty,” but I am pretty sure that’s why that question is here. They have to be sneaky about it because of federal personnel laws. While it’s hard to find specific wording that directly says this, here is the Google AI summary that I think does capture the spirit:
“Federal hiring laws prohibit hiring based on political affiliation by making it a prohibited personnel practice to discriminate for or against an applicant due to their political views, and by generally requiring competitive, merit-based hiring processes to ensure fairness.”
Is commitment to an administration policy a “merit” or a “political view?”
First, I want to make clear, I don’t support those extra questions.
Mostly because they will generate more AI induced bogus writing into the universe and waste everyone’s time.
Any of us could take any admin and write that stuff.
Maybe some of us can’t work for both kinds of Admins, and it seems like it might be good to weed those folks out upfront rather than making them and their coworkers suffer.
I doubt that the HR folks or the hiring officials care about the questions (see.. “waste of time”).
And the thing about “competitive” and “merit-based” .. I think we’ve all seen a variety of authorities in prior Admins of both colors that don’t seem to be either. And what is a “political” view? If I support timber management does that make it political because the current parties have decided to take different stands on it?
Jon said:
“Have any other administrations prioritized political loyalty in new hires? ”
Yes, all of them. (Or, at least in my lifetime, which to be fair spans only part of the FS history.) Anyone who thinks that FSups on the Tongass or on R1 or R6 have always been selected solely on the basis of management excellence hasn’t been paying attention. And don’t talk to me about the Regional Foresters.
The difference between the current regime and earlier administrations is that loyalty demands now go much farther down the command chain. Why should a hydrologist on the Flathead need to bend the knee before any presidential administration? Water flows the same no matter which party is in power.
I was referring to “new hires,” which I assumed was the focus of this policy more than internal transfers (but maybe I’m wrong). That means I was talking more about how this administration is unique in its politicizing jobs farther down the command chain (so maybe we end up in the same place).
Yes we do! Sorry for the mix-up
” thumbs up” to you, Jon…I too sarcastically chuckled at the “government certainty” comment from Chief Schultz. I also picked up on his mentioning of the motorized recreation community, which tells me that this community’s lobbyists are succeeding.
There is no doubt in my mind that “managing the extractive resources” will translate into the maximum production attained within budgetary and staff constraints. I guess “multiple use” in the Chief’s mind is that he is directing the agency to emphasize more than just a single resource.
As I have said so many times before, “the Chief’s priorities do not change the mission of the Forest Service.” Every new Chief has their focus, and that’s fine.
What frightens me is not a new Forest Service Chief. It’s the Administration. It’s mean spirited and punitive. Anyone who speaks up with an alternative view, is out. I have never seen the like, to this extent. I am ashamed and deeply embarrassed.
The Forest Service has a direct and indirect role on the management of about 80 percent of America’s forest (and forests are more than just trees). We should be proud of our role with the National Forests and Grasslands. Let’s not forget the 138 million acres of urban forests. Oh my gosh, the stewardship potential of the Forest Service is unmatched. Regardless of the Chief’s priorities, that stewardship clout is foundational. I just hope the current Administration sees this potential; it impacts so many lives.
When I substitute teach in Middle School, I always place RKP on the front whiteboard; be respectful, kind, and as productive as you can be.
I hope the Chief’s priorities include these. We are becoming bullies. With RKP we can accomplish so much more.
The “ones left are there because they want to be.” If true, let’s treat them with the R and K they deserve so they can continue their journey of land care and public service.
Very respectfully,
Michael said:
“What frightens me is not a new Forest Service Chief. It’s the Administration. It’s mean spirited and punitive.”
True. FS employees have always been buffeted by political winds, and those pressures have sometimes been much uglier and more personal than generally acknowledged. But now it’s a good deal worse. I would probaby advise aspiring forest management professionals to seek employment in the state or private sector. There is no way I would have said that 10 years ago.
I wouldn’t advise young professionals to avoid civil service. For one thing, as Andy pointed out, State salaries are lower. State folks have to put up with political stuff as well, think of Colorado DPW wildlifers who didn’t want wolf re-introduction. As to private, it seems like some NGO funding is drying up and who else wants to hire folks like us?
This Admin, too shall pass. It reminds me of the musical Avenue Q and how it was cool then to make fun of Prez Bush.. they had a song “it’s only for now” and one of the lines was “George Bush…is only for now.”
Sharon – –
There is more to the private sector forestry/conservation than NGO(s). It is called entrepreneurship!
Consulting forestry and conservation services is burgeoning across the US, especially in the predominately private forest land states and in highly regulated states such as California. Jobs pay big and even hourly pay exceeds $150/hr.
Unless you are a GS – Fantastic you will not make that money with the Feds, States or NGO(s). Plus you are building wealth and assets while providing a service that is needed and valued by the client.
This is the future and it has arrived!
Joe, I was thinking more of wildlife biologists, archaeologists, fish bios, hydrologists and so on. Not sure what kind of opportunities there are for them as entrepreneurs..
And I was thinking more of the interior west, so thanks for reminding me about other parts of the country!
Sharon – –
Conservation is not one dimensional from the foresters. The other natural resources specialists are needed too and in my projects highly valued, compensated and sought after. The economy is large enough to support the suite of conservation professionals. They are especially needed in highly regulated states to interface with the regulators.
It’s worth a side-note that this Admin is doing unprecedented (some probably unconstitutional) things to keep it from passing; we’ve not been here before. Even if it does pass, a long-term effect this Admin might be having now is discouraging people from pursuing professions and careers where government is a major employer after seeing so clearly how their performance could be viewed through a political lens.
I’m certainly concerned about recreation access. That’s my thing. Administrative changes over the past 20 years have resulted in closures to about 2,000 miles of backcountry trails in R1 alone. At least 400 of those miles were used and cherished by mountain bikers. I hope there are positive access changes on the way.
Your comments are right-on Jon!!
None of the Chief’s comments should be surprising. Any senior official in the current administration simply must fall in line if they want to keep their position. It’s a matter of survival. Although many of us would hope for a more balanced multiple-use/sustained yield approach to all ecosystem services, we simply are not likely to see it during this presidential term.
Jon, here’s a question for you and anybody else who cares to weigh in: given the reality that the Forest Service can’t satisfy all the multiple use objectives on any given acre of National Forest, what percentage of our National Forests would you not object to being dedicated to sustained-yield forestry with the sole focus of providing wood products for public consumption?
Barry
About 360 billion bf of timber has been logged from the national forests since 1910. Unlogged national forest acres average 16.5 thousand bf. Thus about 22 million national forest acres have been logged in the last 115 years. Generally speaking, those are the acres that have been already “dedicated to sustained-yield forestry” to date.
The Forest Service has deemed 49 million national forest acres capable of sustained timber production. With 22 million acres already logged, Barry’s question becomes how many of the 27 million unlogged capable lands should be put to the saw?
So based on your numbers 49 million acres of the 193 million acres of National Forests are designated as capable of sustained yield forestry, which amounts to 25% of the National Forests. You figure 22 million acres, or 45% of those acres have already been logged (multiple times I assume seeing trees are a renewable resource), which leaves 27 million acres or 55% of capable lands currently unlogged. The currently logged 22 million acres constitutes 11% of our National Forests. In comparison there are 37 million acres currently designated as wilderness which constitutes 19% of our National Forests. So, I wonder why some folks seem to object so much about allowing for active forest management on a small portion of our National Forests, I sure don’t.
The book answer would be to use the forest planning process to determine the land “suitable” for “timber production.” This doesn’t necessarily mean “sole focus” on wood products; probably all forest plans have suitable timber lands with restrictions to promote other values.
My personal view is that every forest should take a serious look at an alternative that limits suitable acres to lands accessible by existing roads (which should represent the best growing sites and most economical lands, and likely have had previous logging – see Andy’s comment), and excludes those accessible lands where there would be restrictions on timber harvest to promote or protect other resources (since projecting long-term volume for restricted lands is unreliable, and logging unsuitable lands to achieve other purposes can be an option).
While it seems to be true that Schultz never worked as a summer temporary (can’t find a bio that goes back that far) Silcox only had worked as a temp one summer.. https://forestpolicypub.com/2025/02/28/outsider-vs-career-appointee-for-chief/
Another piece of info missing… did Schultz talk to other recreation groups interested in access? Or only “motorized groups”.. there has long been an R-hook and bullet connection, which is not “motorized.” And let’s face it, it could be that some recreation groups have traditionally been allied with D, including moving tradeshows out of R states, donating to D campaigns, having their corporate officials as Secretaries of Interior.. stating that tampering with the Roadless Rule will cause the extinction of species and suchlike. There’s another layer to all that that might be exploring…
Anyway I bet this Admin is talking to TRCP.
Here’s another story about the Chief’s activities, in which he went to a meeting with Boundary County Idaho officials. https://bonnersferryherald.com/news/2025/aug/28/commissioners-usfs-leadership-meet-on-countys-forest-management-priorities/