Forest Service: Culture, History, Morale, Organization, Future

The discussion of the Employee Directory has taken us to some interesting places.  I’m singling out one of our Anonymous commenters who said:

“People are, and have always been, the most important part of the Forest Service, IMHO”
Some employees don’t want to be harassed endlessly by the public for the decisions and agendas of line officers, who flagrantly ignored the scientific opinions or input of their specialists/staff, or even just initiated a project that staff find out *after the fact* about. They’re people as well.

So I think there is one question- contacting the public- and again the employee locator is for people who already know the last name of the individual they’re looking for. I can’t speak for anyone else, but if I am looking for someone I will probably now try a couple of different possibilities, potentially wasting other peoples’ time.

Still, is being “harassed endlessly” by the public a new thing? What does it look like? Do people think getting rid of the Directory will help?

As you can imagine if you read The Smokey Wire (and I had pretty much the same views when I was working) I’ve had my input ignored quite a bit, from line officers and others at all levels. When I was asked what my leadership qualities were, I’d say “I lead in having most ideas dismissed by our Regional Forester.” Not to speak of political appointees, the fores supes, and representatives of the ENGO’s or ski associations (how dare I make suggestions at all?).

So I have six possible hypotheses for these differences:

a) Degree of ownership of project -things matter more the closer to the ground you are, you have more of yourself invested;

b) Proximity of Line Officer. you might expect to personally influence a ranger or supe, but not so much a DRF or RF,

c) Personality (of staff)– my two mantras “the pay’s the same” and “if you’re not the lead mule the scenery never changes.”

d) Personality (of line) some people have jerky tendencies

d)  Culture are there are cultural issues that have changed through time.. a change in backgrounds or other characteristics of line officers? a change in expectations of roles at work?

e) Under appeciation of technological expertise as evidenced by..

Please feel free to add your own.

I know there are many  TSW folks,  line officers and staff, who are working and who have retired.

Please tell us about your own experiences, maybe a specific story, and help us understand.

Here’s the final answer from the WO Press Office:

Regarding the employee directory, in addition to this administrative burden of maintaining this information taking away from key mission focused work federal Freedom of Information Act often require withholding employee rosters due to privacy concerns, those two reasons made the removal of this information, which is often inaccurate, a priority. As Mason stated in a prior message, those outside of the agency wishing to engage with agency staff should look to their local unit or established connections or listed contacts on agency actions for engagement.

It still seems to me that using the directory meant you already knew the last name.  There’s certainly a tension between transparency and privacy.  At the same time, it seems like it was something that made it easier for outside folks (who already know their last names) to interact with employees. Which we want, right?

The last time the Forest Service employee directory went down, in 2022, we reported it to them and they put it back online.

This time I received this email:

Subject: RE: [External Email]Broken links

 

Hello, the Forest Service made the decision to remove the employee directory. People looking for service can search by staff area and function versus specific employees. Staff areas and units are responsible for keeping their contact information up to date and shared inboxes staffed.

I think this individual is more sanguine than I about how some units are at keeping their contact information up to date.  Does this decision help with transparency and accountability?  How can the public hold units accountable for keeping their websites up to date and shared inboxes staffed?  Perhaps a “citizen complaint hotline”? Otherwise it’s not clear what accountability mechanisms there are.

The rumor mill says that perhaps this decision was a response to an unauthorized use of the stripped emails.  I completely understand that that would be a problem.  At the same time, this appears to be an example of the well-known organizational response of punishing everyone, including the innocent, instead of finding and focusing on the guilty.

The Press Office said they were getting back to me with a more in-depth explanation, so I’ll post that when I receive it.

Anyway, here is the new “contact us” site. It helps you look up a forest on the map and go to their website.  I think they’re trying to be super-helpful to people, and maybe they had focus groups of users help them to design it.  I know it’s not cool these days to make it easy to talk to a human being who knows stuff about the topic.. but still..

Above, one page of the newsletter.

The National Museum of Forest Service History had a terrific newsletter this month with a history and update on Forest Service Engineering.  They tend not to be in the news much, except for local papers, so shout-out to all FS engineers, current and retired! Not much drama, just doing their very important work, day in and day out.

Here’s a link to the newsletter.  There are great historic photos.  If you are interested in learning more about any of the topics, or prefer a different format, head to this link.

Feel free to share stories in the comments.

Thanks to the Old Smokeys’ mailing list for this.  I’m up for posting any Forest annual reports that folks send.  We’re always talking about things people disagree about, controversies and difficulties.   I can’t even get journalists interested in the Stanislaus success story.  I think it’s important to try to highlight all the great work that Forest Service employees are doing.

Here’s the link.  Lots of great work and great photos.  Thanks Deschutes (and for this publication)!

I don’t usually make donation requests for anything besides TSW, but this is an amazing opportunity for the Museum.  A group of  dedicated folks, current employees, retirees and a wide array of partners, have been working on the Museum since at least the 90’s and groundbreaking in Missoula is THIS spring (!).

The National Museum of Forest Service History is close to finalizing our Capital Campaign to build the National Conservation Legacy Center in Missoula, Montana. Once it is built, the Center will be a one-of-a-kind, world class destination. It will showcase America’s conservation history – the U.S. Forest Service, its people, partners, and legacy.

If you’ve ever thought about donating, now would be the time, because donations will be matched (individual or corporate!).  Please forward this post to anyone who might be interested..

BIG NEWS! Donor has offered us up to $500,000. IF WE CAN MATCH IT!

Our highest priority continues to be completing the Capital Campaign for the National Conservation Legacy Center (CLC), the flagship building on our Missoula campus. We will break ground this spring but still need to raise funds to ensure all costs are covered for both the building and exhibition.  Here’s the website.. the video of the Museum is above.

MORE ON THE BIG NEWS: At the end of December, one of our long-time donors, offered to help us finish the capital campaign. He and his wife will donate up to $500,000 by matching every new cash donation (both individual and corporate) we can raise by June 30,2024. In essence, any new capital campaign cash donation we receive by June 30,2024 will be doubled! Our very generous donor has provided us a tremendous opportunity to complete the capital campaign!

With apologies to Les and to readers, Les had sent me a series and I got them out of order.  He recently sent me the correct order, so here goes…-Sharon

By Les Joslin

I often reflect on the variety of people and predicaments experienced during my Green Lakes Trailhead summer duties. A few anecdotes make one believe just about anything could happen there. That, of course, meant volunteer information specialists and I had to be ready for just about anything.

A Couple Wilderness Old-Timers

On July 7, 1995, Forbes W. “Buck” Rogers of Spokane, Washington, and John Barton of Bend, Oregon, visited the Green Lakes Trailhead Information Station. Mr. Barton had been the Sparks Lake recreation guard in the summer of 1964 and Mr. Barton the first Bend Ranger District wilderness guard in the summer of 1965. I enjoyed their stories of those days, particularly when Buck told me part of his job in 1964 was to bury the garbage visitors left behind in the Green Lakes basin—before the Wilderness Act of 1964 had been signed that September, and John told me part of his job in 1965 was to dig it up and pack it out. In those days, they told me, the parking area and trailhead were across Fall Creek from their current location, and both had stayed in the old Fall Creek Guard Station cabin just a few hundred yards north of the current trailhead. We ambled up that way, poked around in the pumice, and actually found a small piece of green-painted wood from the structure.

A Shooting Incident

On July 29, 1995, I heard gunshots to the west of the Green Lakes Trailhead Information Station. Within a couple of minutes, visitors drove in and reported a man indiscriminately shooting at the Devil’s Garden not far west of my location.  I reported the incident to Central Oregon Dispatch, and within fifteen minutes a Forest Service law enforcement officer arrived, arrested the person at gunpoint, and took him to the Deschutes County Jail.

A Fire on Devils Hill

My daughter Wendy, who served 17 days as a volunteer wilderness information specialist in 1996, was staffing the Green Lakes Trailhead Information Station on July 26 when a violent lightning storm ignited a fire on Devils Hill just over a mile to the northwest. In response to her report of the smoke to Central Oregon Dispatch, she watched eight smokejumpers jump the fire about 30 minutes later. I often wonder if this experience influenced her toward studying forestry at Oregon State University.

A Los Angeles Times Writer

On August 23, 1996, John McKinney, Los Angeles Times hiking columnist, visited the Green Lakes Trailhead Information Station. He was researching his book Great Walks of North America: The Pacific Northwest, published by Henry Holt and Company in 1997, for which I provided him information and photographs and in which he profiles my wilderness service and my wilderness education project. “When hikers meet a helpful wilderness ranger, it adds to their experience and makes their trek all the more special,” he quoted me.

A Controversial Fee Program

In 1997 it fell to me to help implement the Pacific Northwest Region’s controversial Trail Park Pass program mandated by the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act of 1996. By that act Congress permitted—and, for all practical purposes, required—federal land management agencies to charge fees to cover recreation facility operation expenses previously covered by appropriated funds. In the Pacific Northwest Region of the National Forest System, wilderness visitors in “participating national forests” paid a parking fee at wilderness trailheads.

Public protests resulted and cost my project some good trailhead volunteers. I couldn’t blame them for not wanting to be targets of the more vitriolic protesters. Others stuck, helped explain that Congress had required the Forest Service to charge user fees in lieu of reduced appropriated funds to maintain recreation facilities including wilderness trails, and we sold $6,337 worth of the passes at the station that summer. Those receipts increased to $7,975 in 1998 but decreased to less than a third of that sum in 1999 as more visitors purchased annual passes prior to visiting and day passes became available at self-service pay stations. Although the public increasingly accepted the fees, protests continued as the system evolved pursuant to subsequent acts and programs.