Forest Service under threat?

[Auchey11]

Trump Administration Orders Dismantling of the US Forest Service - WhoWhatWhy

The headquarters is going to Utah. Every regional office is being shuttered. The research program is being destroyed.

whowhatwhy.org

Is this a done deal or can people still voice opposition?

 

[solarshooter]

When the forest circus can have two adjoining ranger districts with nearly identical terrain and resources yet have VASTLY different rules and regulations based on politics....it's broken and time for a reset. Take any forest service land in Washington and compare it to it's neighbors in Idaho. Look at road maintenance, land access, animal numbers and quality and amounts of logged land.

Idaho logs more, has more animals and better access. Washington has timber so thick a dog has to back up to bark and sunlight hasn't touched the barren land under the trees in 50 years. The management sucks and needs overhauled.....badly. it's only good if you like fighting fires.

But it's not a reset or anything constructive. They fired 15% of employees a year ago and made big budget cuts. They are closing 57/77 research facilities. They are closing all 9 regional offices - some states will get offices but some will not. All of this chaos will cause further exodus of employees. The baby is being thrown out with the bathwater, and there is no plan to replace or repair.

And you are totally ignoring what's really going to happen, which is the sale and loss of access to public land.

 

[CJ19]

first off, the article linked is very poor. There are plenty of better articles and opinions on this topic from right, left, and center perspectives than whatever that article and source is.

what journalisms the first paragraph is....

"At the end of March, with the subtlety of a wrecking ball and the morality of a foreclosure notice, the Trump administration announced the most devastating attack on the US Forest Service in the agency’s 121-year history. Not a budget cut. Not a policy shift. Not a “reorganization.” An execution."

I fully understand making an argument for the forest service should remain in DC and there is a rational argument to be made. Instead of rational argument, we get whatever that article and the "the FS will cease to exist if it moves to UT" sky is falling posts. Can anyone actually explain to me why moving USFS to Utah instead of CO or MT etc is bad? I understand the conspiracy crowd here think that its another sky is falling moment because its Utah. There is literally no explanation as to why Utah is a bad destination other than "omg muh mike lee". Please help me understand why the FS cant operate in UT but could in some other western state.

 

[timbernomad]

I keep typing up long responses and then deleting them. I'll just say this: I think it's a bad move. A lot of things will be disrupted in the short term, and I doubt this will be an improvement in the long term. But it's not the end of the world. The agency is not being dismantled. I doubt any of these changes will have a direct impact on anyone's hunting season this year or for the next few years to come.

 

[MTBackroads]

No one that lives near USFS is upset.

 

[Harvey_NW]

And you are totally ignoring what's really going to happen, which is the sale and loss of access to public land.

Is it, though? Or is this just a shift from the unproductive agency back to a common sense business approach of logging and creating revenue, while actually managing the forests?

I can tell you, having hunted and recreated in Gifford Pinchot NF most of my life, the way they have "managed" it in the last 20 years is a slap in the face to what him and Teddy established. The forest is so thick and densely overgrown, the elk have migrated off the mountains and down into the foothills and towns, the blacktail are essentially non-existent where they once thrived in clear cuts or thins that let it breath and generate some new growth. The Wenatchee NF is an overgrown tinder box that portions of it end up being devastated to moon dust every summer by mega fires.

I don't know if moving the office to UT and having a board of appointees run it is the right decision, but from what I've read into, the motive is to get some actual logging and management going again, and I couldn't be happier about the idea of that.

 

[solarshooter]

Is it, though? Or is this just a shift from the unproductive agency back to a common sense business approach of logging and creating revenue, while actually managing the forests?

I can tell you, having hunted and recreated in Gifford Pinchot NF most of my life, the way they have "managed" it in the last 20 years is a slap in the face to what him and Teddy established. The forest is so thick and densely overgrown, the elk have migrated off the mountains and down into the foothills and towns, the blacktail are essentially non-existent where they once thrived in clear cuts or thins that let it breath and generate some new growth. The Wenatchee NF is an overgrown tinder box that portions of it end up being devastated to moon dust every summer by mega fires.

I don't know if moving the office to UT and having a board of appointees run it is the right decision, but from what I've read into, the motive is to get some actual logging and management going again, and I couldn't be happier about the idea of that.

Yes the forests are incredibly dense on the west side. I would have no problem with selective thinning. I think clear cuts are not the solution though, since they are the cause of the overgrown understory. And my main gripe with logging of public lands is the closures to access that come with it. So I agree there's room for improvement but the implementation I've seen is worse than just leaving the woods alone and open for access, in my opinion.

 

[riversidejeep]

Yes the forests are incredibly dense on the west side. I would have no problem with selective thinning. I think clear cuts are not the solution though, since they are the cause of the overgrown understory. And my main gripe with logging of public lands is the closures to access that come with it. So I agree there's room for improvement but the implementation I've seen is worse than just leaving the woods alone and open for access, in my opinion.

In the USFS that I've been in from the continental divide to the pacific ocean when the loggers are active they may close an area for the time they're working but even then roads are cleared in the evening and weekends. When the logging is done the roads are left in much better shape than they were before. You sure it was F/S property and not private timber company that closed access ?

 

[IdahoBeav]

When the logging is done the roads are left in much better shape than they were before.

This cannot be overstated. Most of the logging roads in the PNW were built in the early-mid 20th century, and the timber harvest was far and away the priority over building a quality road. They would bury stumps and slash in the subgrade below the road. If they could be in and out before the wet season, they would often skip on putting in culverts at drainage crossings. The culverts they did put in and that the FS put in years later are often rusted, plugged, and sometimes washed out. On FS logging contracts, the roads are getting sunken grade sections excavated, backfilled, and compacted with structural fill. The culverts are getting pulled and replaced with proper diameter, bedding, and backfill. Narrow sections of the road are widened, and the road gets bladed, added top course, and compaction.

Logging FS land is an all around win.

 

[solarshooter]

the roads are left in much better shape than they were before.

This is not something I need or want, to be honest.

You sure it was F/S property and not private timber company that closed access ?

I've seen both. Sometimes the logging is parallel with open access, sometimes areas are leased or sold and effectively closed to the public. Full private is usually the worst though, you're right. My concern is that the agency will be directed to go this route rather than parallel open use. Clearcutting is so prevalent because it is the most profitable. And the priorities are very obviously being shifted towards profitability.

 

[RockAndSage]

the roads are left in much better shape than they were before.

This is not something I need or want, to be honest.

Let's take a step back from the USFS HQ relocation issue, and look at this one - managed forests vs wilderness/national park/national monument designations.

Right now, across the EU, Australia, Canada, NZ, etc, there is a movement that essentially believes the only good Earth is one untouched by human hands. It's very much a pseudo-religion - "Rewilding" is code-word for this, and it's backed by the Soros network, along with literally hundreds of NGOs associated with "Agenda 2030". Anything from predator reintroduction, to bike lanes, to anti-hunting, to gun control, to banning wood stoves, to making it financially impossible to pay for "code" standards when building a cabin or home on unincorporated lands.

Google "wolf reintroduction" and "Agenda 2030", or anything else you can think of that's a leftist cause and Agenda 2030, and you'll see it's tied into 2030 in one way or another. With proud Boards of Directors that are all deeply networked leftists tied to each other personally and professionally. They literally want people out of rural areas, packed into dense, vertical urban centers, using public transportation, with a disarmed populace. It is that stark, and that simple.

Anything discussed on Rokslide that we value as a freedom, they are opposed to.

In the US, they salami-slice these freedoms away with seemingly justified, good ideas, that always point in the same direction: lands untouched by human hands, with people packed into dense, vertical urban centers, and a disarmed populace.

Forests need to be managed. That requires roads.

Unmanaged "wilderness" is nothing more than a tectonic firebomb waiting to go off. That's the tradeoff with anything designated wilderness and untouchable by human management.

Managed forests...even the roads are firebreaks, completely separate from using them to selectively log and manage for healthy forests.

Separately, people need roads to get deep into places to enjoy our public lands heritage. This includes the old, the young, and the infirm. We can't limit public lands to wilderness because it feels good for some - people shouldn't have to be fit and young to experience the depth and breadth of their beauty.

Public lands aren't "spoiled" by roads and selective logging, any more than deer herds are spoiled by selective hunting.

We must constantly guard against any ideology that treats humans as the problem, or that sees the only good lands as those untouched by humans. Those ideologies and political initiatives are legion, and they all lead in one direction: populations controlled by empowered bureaucrats, who see themselves as above and wiser than everyone else, unaccountable and immensely powerful.

 

[riversidejeep]

Let's take a step back from the USFS HQ relocation issue, and look at this one - managed forests vs wilderness/national park/national monument designations.

Right now, across the EU, Australia, Canada, NZ, etc, there is a movement that essentially believes the only good Earth is one untouched by human hands. It's very much a pseudo-religion - "Rewilding" is code-word for this, and it's backed by the Soros network, along with literally hundreds of NGOs associated with "Agenda 2030". Anything from predator reintroduction, to bike lanes, to anti-hunting, to gun control, to banning wood stoves, to making it financially impossible to pay for "code" standards when building a cabin or home on unincorporated lands.

Google "wolf reintroduction" and "Agenda 2030", or anything else you can think of that's a leftist cause and Agenda 2030, and you'll see it's tied into 2030 in one way or another. With proud Boards of Directors that are all deeply networked leftists tied to each other personally and professionally. They literally want people out of rural areas, packed into dense, vertical urban centers, using public transportation, with a disarmed populace. It is that stark, and that simple.

Anything discussed on Rokslide that we value as a freedom, they are opposed to.

In the US, they salami-slice these freedoms away with seemingly justified, good ideas, that always point in the same direction: lands untouched by human hands, with people packed into dense, vertical urban centers, and a disarmed populace.

Forests need to be managed. That requires roads.

Unmanaged "wilderness" is nothing more than a tectonic firebomb waiting to go off. That's the tradeoff with anything designated wilderness and untouchable by human management.

Managed forests...even the roads are firebreaks, completely separate from using them to selectively log and manage for healthy forests.

Separately, people need roads to get deep into places to enjoy our public lands heritage. This includes the old, the young, and the infirm. We can't limit public lands to wilderness because it feels good for some - people shouldn't have to be fit and young to experience the depth and breadth of their beauty.

Public lands aren't "spoiled" by roads and selective logging, any more than deer herds are spoiled by selective hunting.

We must constantly guard against any ideology that treats humans as the problem, or that sees the only good lands as those untouched by humans. Those ideologies and political initiatives are legion, and they all lead in one direction: populations controlled by empowered bureaucrats, who see themselves as above and wiser than everyone else, unaccountable and immensely powerful.

Very well said, It seems a lot of people confuse USFS multiple use lands with Wilderness lands and put them in the same basket. Wilderness may be managed by USFS but is off limits for roads and any mechanical tools etc. There are millions of acres of wilderness set aside for the granola crunchers already, they just want more at the expense of the common Joe that wants to cut firewood , hunt a few turkeys / quail, bucks and just plain recreate in the woods without having to hike.

 

[Chris in TN]

Let's take a step back from the USFS HQ relocation issue, and look at this one - managed forests vs wilderness/national park/national monument designations.



We must constantly guard against any ideology that treats humans as the problem, or that sees the only good lands as those untouched by humans. Those ideologies and political initiatives are legion, and they all lead in one direction: populations controlled by empowered bureaucrats, who see themselves as above and wiser than everyone else, unaccountable and immensely powerful.

You knocked that one out of the park, sir.

Kudos. Well stated.

 

[Pony Soldier]

When I got out of high school, I worked as a seasonal USFS employee. We planted trees, did thinning, cleaned trails, put firelines in around timber sales.

The only permanent employees was the ranger and an admin. My dad and uncle did the same in the 30s. We all did tours of duties on lookouts.

In the 70s they started hiring more permanent employees. More people, less work in the forest and lots of paperwork.
Recreation specialists, studies, endless public meetings, forest plans that no one followed. Government bullcrap.

I watched sales that provided habitat abandoned and were replsced with coastal type clearcuts of thousands of acres, multiple drainages. Ecosystems totally destroyed.

I spent 6 years on the BLMs resource advisary counsel. The BLM enhanced habitat. The USFS created jungles you couldn't walk through.

I Was scheduled to be on the resource advisory counsel for the FS. The DC office hasn't been able to make a decision in three years.

It' s time to start over !

 

[wowzers]

I think we’re in real danger of clear cutting the whole National Forest system moving at a blistering pace like this.

Approximately 73 percent of the 191 million acres of national forests are considered forested. Of that forested land, 35 percent is available for regularly scheduled timber harvest and about ½ of 1 percent of those trees are harvested in any 1 year. The remaining 65 percent of the forested land is designated for non-timber uses, such as wilderness and other areas set aside for recreation, or cannot be harvested due to environmental conditions, such as steep slopes and fragile soils.

Today

www.fs.usda.gov

 

[wowzers]

Yes the forests are incredibly dense on the west side. I would have no problem with selective thinning. I think clear cuts are not the solution though, since they are the cause of the overgrown understory. And my main gripe with logging of public lands is the closures to access that come with it. So I agree there's room for improvement but the implementation I've seen is worse than just leaving the woods alone and open for access, in my opinion.

As I pointed out above, half a percent of the 35% of available ground for logging is cut each year and you feel like you’re being denied access? That leaves you around 192 million acres of just FS ground open. How much would you consider to be sufficient?