Evergreen had a piece today by Jim Petersen called “the Death of the Forest Service.” Apparently,
Here’s the backstory as we know it
A draft copy (RYA25627 4 KV) of Senator Lee’s proposed legislation arrived in our inbox on January 3.
The original reportedly circulated on October 9, but it wasn’t shared with us at that time.We don’t know who is sharing it now, but it appears to have come from someone within the Senate Legislative Counsel.
The five-page draft—which appears to be a work in progress—is titled:
Reorganization of the Forest Service Under the Department of the Interior
That title is misleading.
This is not a reorganization
There is nothing in the draft that suggests a reorganization.
The proposed legislation would simply transfer the U.S. Forest Service—and the nation’s 193 million-acre federal forest estate—from the Department of Agriculture to the Department of the Interior.
That’s not reform.
It’s a jurisdictional shift with serious consequences.
Reorganization of the Forest Service Under the Department of the Interior
Why this keeps coming up
Senator Lee is among several U.S. Senators on both sides of the aisle who—for very different political reasons—want to eliminate the Forest Service.
- “Progressive” Democrats favor letting “nature” take its course in federally owned forests, no matter the consequences.
- Republican budget hawks see consolidation as a way to cut federal spending.
Both arguments miss the reality on the ground.
********************
As usual, I think it’s more complicated than that. As we’ve discussed before, Interior has a long history of wanting to acquire the FS. I think Democratic-funded and leaning organizations like Megafire Action have other motivations, not sure what they are. Usually, increasing efficiency is not a specific D goal, but who knows? And/or their desired NGO appointees would have more direct control? Anyway, I am wary of impugning motives to anyone on any side.
The Hotshot Wakeup also had (admittedly hearsay) that there was a bipartisan push of some kind to move the FS and put its wildland fire folks in the USWFS, but it was held up by a particular person of influence.
I personally am not a fan of moving. I think at least we need to see the USWFS past its growing pains, and how it settles in, as well as the coordination efforts with fire folks in the FS. And reinvigorating ideas of Service-First could take both agencies a long way. Nevertheless, with all due respect to Jim Petersen, I don’t think moving would be “Death.”
*************
On to Andy Kerr, who sees the FS through the old “timber wars” lens and wrote a post approving the “death” of the Forest Service:
|
See Public Lands Blog post: “While It Has Never Been Worse . . .”
|
Any other recent write-ups on this idea?
“death”, “kill”? What’s the purpose of the hyperbole? The LC literally preserves every single aspect of the USFS–e.g., “all functions, powers, duties, personnel, records, property…authorities, rules, regulations” and on and on–except which department will oversee the agency.
“[t]here is nothing in the draft that suggests a reorganization”. Huh? The word “reorganization” is literally in the LC title and the legislation is, by definition, “the action or process of changing the way in which something is organized”.
“[t]hat’s not reform [the transfer]”. Nowhere in the legislation was “reform” even mentioned, nor was any part of the legislation expressed or implied as having the purpose of reformation.
“[t]he only way to reduce the taxpayer share of land-management costs is to sell land…”
“…publicly owned lands that belong to all Americans…”
“federal agencies are not permitted to improve habitat on federal land…”
All false statements.
“…publicly owned lands that belong to all Americans, not just elites living in gated communities and high-rise condominiums on the coasts”.
A strawman logical fallacy that’s totally irrelevant to the initial premise of the article, as are the discussions of serial litigators, ESA, collaboration, NEPA, election fraud, and etc. It’s the proverbial spaghetti tossed against the wall to see if something sticks.
“With all federal land-management agencies consolidated in one department, there would be no checks and balances”. What checks and balances exist now between the BLM and USFS? Surface minerals administration and wild horse management? Since the LC assures retention of every aspect of the USFS right down to the green uniforms and logo, again excepting department administration, is this much fear really that warranted and if you are that threatened by something that really just appears to not deliver the changes that you’d really like to see in the USFS, why not construct an argument against it that actually relates to the proposed transfer, such as cost or facilities or chain of command, and not just red herring arguments focused on immaterial agency failings?