Here’s what Deputy Chief John Crockett had to say about the meeting:
*******************
Perhaps the most important component of creating a shared understanding among many is building community. Last week, that’s exactly what we accomplished at the National Active Forest Management Meeting.
The meeting’s objectives included giving line officers an overview of agency priorities for increasing timber production and reducing wildfire risk, creating a shared understanding of success, and exploring approaches and tools for achieving management goals.
For the first time in 25 years, forest supervisors were together on site to hear directly from agency leaders as a cohort. They were then given the opportunity to participate in small group discussions with leadership. The meeting also incorporated partner perspectives by bringing in representatives from the National Forest Foundation and Society of American Foresters, among others. Topics covered ranged from understanding updated guidance provided by executive orders and memos, to achieving multiple mission objectives while prioritizing timber, and encouraging partner participation in the National Active Forest Management Strategy.
None of these objectives could be met without a foundation of trust, and that trust was built through the week’s practical, solution-focused panels. Panelists highlighted specific projects, steps they took to deliver results on time and on budget, and lessons learned. Attendees asked targeted questions, compared approaches, and shared field-tested practices.
We heard from many attendees that listening and learning from one another across disciplines was key. As White Mountain National Forest Supervisor Derek Ibarguen noted, seeing “how different people have innovated to tackle projects was inspiring,” but equally important to him was learning whom he could call for assistance.
Eli Ilano, Deputy Director of Natural Resources, felt that peer learning had a positive effect—”instead of lectures, people were able to engage with one another both formally and informally” to build networks. He noted that informal sharing helped people see their commonalities, an idea echoed by Scott Tangenberg, Acting Forest Supervisor for Cleveland National Forest. Tangenberg felt that those who may have begun the week thinking their forest challenges were unique began to realize there was more that united them than separated them.
Throughout the week, discussions allowed us to align around our fiscal year 2026 agency priorities, which Chief Schultz announced in last Friday’s Inside the Forest Service. There, participants discussed approaches and were given practical tools for improving efficiencies for timber harvesting, permitting, post-fire recovery and shared stewardship. Foundational to the week’s success was its format and topics. Discussions were led by panels that coupled line officers with subject matter experts and provided specific, distinct perspectives on myriad topics. Participants also split into small groups for breakout sessions, rotating from one session to the next so that each participant learned about each topic.
While talks centered on our agency priorities, other themes that emerged from the week included the need to strengthen shared stewardship, focus on the day-to-day services we provide the public, and address fuels, grazing, and other challenges directly. We aim to lead through transition by staying engaged and helping our teams navigate change, empowering employees, and modeling accountability by demonstrating effective leadership through partnership and follow-through. We also commit to achieving results and building relationships—fostering trust inside the agency and with the people we serve, while supporting one another as a community of leaders.
More importantly, I believe this week was just the first step. As one participant said, “Building communities of practice is critical to success.” We will continue to develop this community by offering ongoing opportunities to engage with one another, both formally and informally, on topics affecting the agency and its people.
We built a shared understanding of current priorities last week. Now, we want people to implement them on the ground and share what works. The meeting organizers intend to solicit feedback from participants to allow for continued discussion and the development of future sessions.
I’ll close with what Chris French said when asked for a quote about this event: “Long overdue and inspiring.” I hope this is the first of many such events that build a shared understanding of our agency’s future.
**********
I’ve heard some things as translated from Supes to others.. nothing too different from what we have been hearing. I’d be interested in what others have gotten through the grapevine.. each person has different experiences and focuses on different things, and that’s just the attendee, not the people listening to what the Supes coming back have to say.
So it’s a bit like the game of telephone but nevertheless…
Here is one of those “rules” your Mamma taught while growing up; “ if you don’t have anything good to say, don’t say anything at all”! Well, “never has so many words been used to say so little”! Good grief…..
Word on the street was that the assembled failed to understand basics about forests and forestry , markets, access to producers, end-users, etc. That Georgia, followed by the Carolinas, Mississippi, Alabama, etc. were the nation leaders in production was news to them. It is a perfect storm – an evil, idealogue administration leading a largely clueless band of civil servants.
That’s disappointing to hear but not necessarily surprising. Having worked in Regions, 1, 2, 3, 6, and 8, many think the Forest Service only exists in the West. In fact, Region 8 often leads in timber volume sold and in fuels treatment acres. I checked the 2025 Cut and Sold report and the Ouachita, Ozark, Kisatchie, Florida Forests, Mississippi Forests, South Carolina Forests, all did well. Altogether they sold over a million ccf.
When Forest Supervisors started to be from lots of other professional areas besides Foresters, it is not surprising that their level of knowledge of timber harvesting is not that high. I want to say that I have worked with Forest Supervisors that were not Foresters and did have a good working knowledge of timber, but they had to put some effort into it and they did.
When the Chief came out with his message that they were going to get back to basics, I thought “oh boy, what a great message, never heard that one before.” It would be really good to get a good take on what happened in that meeting.
Dave, I think we are seeing the evolution of our concerns with all that experience walking out the back door in the FS! A few good leaders are still around, but other than a select few, none left in the WO.
These remarks remind me of the curtain climbers who hung onto the shoulders of older, experienced leaders, mimicking their words but having no clue what they meant. Then, polished consultants told how everyone should talk; lots of futuristic “organic” (my favorite) discussions.
RLT’s and even some FLT’s considered strategic discussions and decisions as a job well done! Most Sups and Deputies would drive back home asking what the heck did we even do? Strategic discussions are fine but a little tactical influence keeps moving the “stick” down the road……
With all due respect to Dep. Chief Crockett, I read nothing that was innovative or that has not already been said before. I am sure many of the Smokey Wire participants heard these words or concepts many times before. Seems like “insanity” is being practiced – keep saying the same words and concepts and expect a different outcome.
So I’ve never been a Forest Supe, nor a District Ranger. But what happens, in my experience, with meetings with my peers, be they NEPA meetings, planning meetings, silviculture meetings or genetics meetings.. in person meetings.. is that I form relationships with individuals, peers.. and not very often for me.. higher-ups.. that would otherwise not exist.
Trust is a funny thing. Based on those experiences, I would call peers (again, not so much superiors) for advice – people who otherwise I wouldn’t know about or be impressed by their way of thinking, apparent networks, or whatever.
I think that that may be the point, not so much “info imparted” (I’m sure that occurs) but human networks developed and strengthened.
And I believe that networks of specialists and rangers and whatever peers are equally important to strengthen.. in person.
I totally agree. When I started working at the SO level on three Forests, I got to know lots of people from the other Forests. We worked together on a number of things, and it was good building that camaraderie. Unfortunately, when I moved to Region 2, it was right before the crackdown on travel spending in 2011. I never really got to know my peers on the other Forests. The whole time I worked in Region 2, I think we had one all-forest timber meeting. We had annual meetings with the timber purchasers that I went to a couple of times but that’s not really the same. I’m sure things are even tougher now on spending travel dollars.
I certainly don’t begrudge the Forest Supervisors getting together. I’m sure something good came out of it, even if it was just building relationships. It would be nice to get an accurate assessment of it though.
Well, I don’t know what an “accurate assessment” might look like… other than copies of agendas and powerpoints. Imagine Jon and I attending a Planning Rule Implementation Meeting… we would likely come away with different takes on the meeting..
That was a poor choice of words on my part. I guess several viewpoints would be nice but almost impossible to get. No attendee is going to give an unvarnished take other than in a private conversation. And even then, that person’s perspective is probably different from other attendees, as you point out. Getting Crockett’s overview provides some idea of what went on but of course he’s giving the company line. It was probably foolish of me to think that we would could find out what really happened there. Hopefully it was worthwhile and something positive comes out of it.
I’m hesitant to comment this. Semi-related, I’ve been hesitant to comment on issues of communication plans/public outreach.
Summary of the agenda
Days included morning socializing sessions followed by plenary and breakout sessions. Forest Supes were presenters on some topics. There were also a few evening receptions/gatherings.
Day 1 – remarks from Chief Shultz, outlook from Chris French, ‘Leading in a New Environment,’ EO’s and Memos, Budget and Workforce, Shared Stewardship
Day 2 – Breakouts on Timber x2, Permitting, Roundtable with the Chief
Day 3 – Know your markets and Industry Partner, Partner Participation in NAFM Strategy, Trending Topics (Grazing, Fuels, post-fire, energy and minerals)
Day 4 – Plenarys on Leading in Transition, Inspiring a Cohort, Getting to Yes, Staying Engaged
I think it is unlikely you will see slides as Forest Supes didn’t receive slides that they were presenting on prior to attendance.
Re: your last paragraph…nothing like controlling the message.