Forest Service under threat?

[cal30_sniper]

What I haven't seen discussed here is how the move out west might impact funding for the USFS. Keeping funding flowing into a federal govt agency requires an obscene amount of in-person interface to support/counter all the pork-barrel schemes pushed by Congress as well as the internal hallway politics within the upper echelons of federal departments. The strong possibility is that pulling USFS leadership out of DC will likely severely hamper their ability to keep funding flowing to meet service functions and initiatives. The world runs on greenbacks, and this move is likely intended to strike severe blows to the USFS by hampering their ability to compete for the funding needed to carry out their mission and initiatives while fending off commercial interests eyeing their (our) lands for profit.

You don't have to support or agree with this model of government to realize that it is the model of government we function under, and no 4 year term by a President that can't stand for re-election is going to monumentally shift that. Moving USFS west is a move that is more likely structured to damage the agency under the pretense of a "smart move" than it is actually intended by our executive branch to foster any real improvement in how federal business is executed.

This could be viewed as akin to a political velvet-dagger or Trojan horse: the message is so clearly aligned with the best interests of the agency's work (by being closer to the land they manage) that you'd have to be a "fool" to argue otherwise. This keeps the political base cheering (and donating, not even considering what's being lobbied by commercial land developers and resource extraction interests) while hopefully attracting support from moderate non-partisan voters also since it's constructed to make "common sense". As with many other things, following the money may lead to a different conclusion than following the political talking points.

 

[Gila]

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".

That was 25 years ago…today it is actually a plan put into play by the United Nations and the Biden administration. It is called the “30/30 Framework”. In the USA it is an effort to “re-wild” 30% of all of the land both public and private by the year 2030. Roadless areas, wilderness areas and wilderness study areas fall into place within the Framework. Apparently as a campaign promise, the Biden-Harris administration implemented the 2024 Public Lands Rule, also known as the Conservation and Landscape Health Rule, which established “conservation” as an official use of public lands, equal to other uses like hunting, grazing and energy development.

The Rule paved the way for the re-wilding NGOs to obtain forever conservation leases on large tracts of land both public and private. Once they obtained these leases, they could sell biodiversity credits on the open market. Any “human disturbance” such as extraction, cattle grazing and hunting is a dis-qualifier for a Biodiversity Credit. The price of a biodiversity credit per acre goes up for each ESA listed species such as Grizzlies and Wolves. The more apex predators the higher the price. Grazing Bison instead of cattle on the landscape is also a bonus for a biodiversity credit. The current Administration immediately rescinded the Public Land/use Rule of 2024 and pulled us out of the UN sanctioned Framework.

Most recently there is an MOU between the USDA and DOI to encourage grazing on public lands. I think that moving the NFS hdqtrs to Utah would accomplish draining the swamp in DC and allow the NFS to be closer to the lands they manage. All net positives to hunting I should think.

https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-15/cop-15-dec-04-en.pdf

 

[Ozarkansas]

It is called the “30/30 Framework”. In the USA it is an effort to “re-wild” 30% of all of the land both public and private by the year 2030

the 30/30 framework was about “conserving” 30% of all land in the U.S. by 2030, either through easements, use restrictions, or outright ownership. It was never about rewilding. they never even defined what “conserved” meant, but based on their literature it is implied they included well-managed working public and private lands

 

[Gila]

the 30/30 framework was about “conserving” 30% of all land in the U.S. by 2030, either through easements, use restrictions, or outright ownership. It was never about rewilding. they never even defined what “conserved” meant, but based on their literature it is implied they included well-managed working public and private lands

Read the framework from the link I posted please. In this country a biodiversity credit precludes human disturbance to return biodiversity to the landscape. Remember that in many countries, land is owned by governments and monarchies. Also in some countries foreigners can only lease property. This subject is probably better discussed in a separate thread. Defenders of Wildlife are biodiversity credit “brokers” who sell those credits on a private int’l market. That group is a “re-wilding” group, definitely not a conservation group. This is what the farmers in India think about the 30/30 framework:

Understanding Biodiversity Credits – A Factsheet

Download pdf This factsheet was created with the intention to support: Organizations, researchers, scholars, activists, communities and individuals To learn, share and act on the threat that biodiv…

navdanyainternational.org

 

[Customweld]

Well, there goes this discussion. Thanks for the debate fellas. This one has done left the rails.

 

[Ozarkansas]

Read the framework from the link I posted please. In this country a biodiversity credit precludes human disturbance to return biodiversity to the landscape. Remember that in many countries, land is owned by governments and monarchies. Also in some countries foreigners can only lease property. This subject is probably better discussed in a separate thread. Defenders of Wildlife are biodiversity credit “brokers” who sell those credits on a private int’l market. That group is a “re-wilding” group, definitely not a conservation group. This is what the farmers in India think about the 30/30 framework:

Understanding Biodiversity Credits – A Factsheet

Download pdf This factsheet was created with the intention to support: Organizations, researchers, scholars, activists, communities and individuals To learn, share and act on the threat that biodiv…

navdanyainternational.org

Okay I read it, while the 30/30 initiative under Biden aligns with “Target 4” of that document, it still doesn’t address “rewilding” at all.

Regardless, neither the 30/30 initiative nor whether or not the UN wants to steal our land with biodiversity credits has much bearing on the USFS’s reorganization in this administration

 

[CJ19]

Okay I read it, while the 30/30 initiative under Biden aligns with “Target 4” of that document, it still doesn’t address “rewilding” at all.

Regardless, neither the 30/30 initiative nor whether or not the UN wants to steal our land with biodiversity credits has much bearing on the USFS’s reorganization in this administration

there are like 3 pages in this thread about forest management using wilderness or roads via USFS which is directly applicable to meeting the 30/30 initiative.

 

[Gila]

Okay I read it, while the 30/30 initiative under Biden aligns with “Target 4” of that document, it still doesn’t address “rewilding” at all.

Regardless, neither the 30/30 initiative nor whether or not the UN wants to steal our land with biodiversity credits has much bearing on the USFS’s reorganization in this administration

it does have a bearing if one of the reasons for the move is to drain the DC swamp of public land use ogres.

Edit: the UN’s definition of re-wilding is: “natural ecosystems”

 

[solarshooter]

Right on cue:

Senate Republicans send Trump resolution to lift mining ban near Boundary Waters Canoe Area

Congressional Republicans are sending President Donald Trump a resolution for his signature that would lift a federal ban on mining near Minnesota's Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness.

apnews.com

 

[Gila]

Right on cue:

Senate Republicans send Trump resolution to lift mining ban near Boundary Waters Canoe Area

Congressional Republicans are sending President Donald Trump a resolution for his signature that would lift a federal ban on mining near Minnesota's Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness.

apnews.com

i hope they don’t screw it up, I used to fish there with my cousins when I was a kid…Fishing the Bronze backs was quite the experience!

 

[elkhunter505]

What I haven't seen discussed here is how the move out west might impact funding for the USFS. Keeping funding flowing into a federal govt agency requires an obscene amount of in-person interface to support/counter all the pork-barrel schemes pushed by Congress as well as the internal hallway politics within the upper echelons of federal departments. The strong possibility is that pulling USFS leadership out of DC will likely severely hamper their ability to keep funding flowing to meet service functions and initiatives. The world runs on greenbacks, and this move is likely intended to strike severe blows to the USFS by hampering their ability to compete for the funding needed to carry out their mission and initiatives while fending off commercial interests eyeing their (our) lands for profit.

You don't have to support or agree with this model of government to realize that it is the model of government we function under, and no 4 year term by a President that can't stand for re-election is going to monumentally shift that. Moving USFS west is a move that is more likely structured to damage the agency under the pretense of a "smart move" than it is actually intended by our executive branch to foster any real improvement in how federal business is executed.

This could be viewed as akin to a political velvet-dagger or Trojan horse: the message is so clearly aligned with the best interests of the agency's work (by being closer to the land they manage) that you'd have to be a "fool" to argue otherwise. This keeps the political base cheering (and donating, not even considering what's being lobbied by commercial land developers and resource extraction interests) while hopefully attracting support from moderate non-partisan voters also since it's constructed to make "common sense". As with many other things, following the money may lead to a different conclusion than following the political talking points.

Someone who sees the true point of this. If you want to know the priorities of this administration, just look at the itemized budget request they put out this past week and see all the zeroed out conservation items. While the vast majority of those will be funded, it tells you everything you need to know about this administration’s thoughts about conservation and in particular the research side of it. An example is certain federal agencies are being given their full budgets as congress is appropriating money but many are offering incentivized retirement packages for folks. That paves the way for large scale exodus by senior researchers. Then because most of the money in those budgets are for personnel and the federal government is on a hiring freeze for many full time positions, they can’t actually use the money they’re appropriated. So all the while, the legislators and administration can claim these programs are not being defunded, but they are being hamstrung because of the system combined with the hiring freeze. If you work anywhere near the conservation portions of the federal government, it very easy to see and track the vacancy rates in federal, conservation-based departments are skyrocketing due to the uncertainty of job security on the federal level. Boils down to: we are losing expert scientists and have no way to hire new people into these positions for the time being. Thus, certain programs begin to appear to run inefficiently when in all reality it’s a forced inefficiency.

All this to say, my level of trust that this administration is doing this purely because of “common sense” is about the same level of trust I have in a fart after eating at Taco Bell.

 

[CJ19]

Someone who sees the true point of this. If you want to know the priorities of this administration, just look at the itemized budget request they put out this past week and see all the zeroed out conservation items. While the vast majority of those will be funded, it tells you everything you need to know about this administration’s thoughts about conservation and in particular the research side of it. An example is certain federal agencies are being given their full budgets as congress is appropriating money but many are offering incentivized retirement packages for folks. That paves the way for large scale exodus by senior researchers. Then because most of the money in those budgets are for personnel and the federal government is on a hiring freeze for many full time positions, they can’t actually use the money they’re appropriated. So all the while, the legislators and administration can claim these programs are not being defunded, but they are being hamstrung because of the system combined with the hiring freeze. If you work anywhere near the conservation portions of the federal government, it very easy to see and track the vacancy rates in federal, conservation-based departments are skyrocketing due to the uncertainty of job security on the federal level. Boils down to: we are losing expert scientists and have no way to hire new people into these positions for the time being. Thus, certain programs begin to appear to run inefficiently when in all reality it’s a forced inefficiency.

All this to say, my level of trust that this administration is doing this purely because of “common sense” is about the same level of trust I have in a fart after eating at Taco Bell.

@Customweld this topic was a disaster and never on topic since the first ragebait was posted in post#1. Allegedly it was about moving the FS to Utah but no one can be sure.

In response to this post.
We are talking about this same stuff agaiinnnnn. "Expert scientists" is a good one though. I see Jason is here. He will be familiar with the resident senior union FS leader on HT who routinely brags about not working, doing union stuff instead of work, then hunting over a 100 days a year on the subsequent comp time then posting pictures bragging about those extravagant trips and tags hunted on weeks of comp time. Sorry. Many people thought these agencies needed cleaning after reading stuff like that and see what the swamp the conservation lobby industry has been leeching off of.

We are told "expert scientists" are being fired yet the union president laborer with 30 yrs in is still getting over 100 days of comp time a year which is not an isolated occurrence i am sure. The way many agencies are being cleaned is a direct result of the legal framework those senior people including union all of whom have seniority set up the system for how personnel issues are handled.

10 years ago Ryan Zinke and others who were willing to work with the conservation agencies and industry were appointed. Rather than take that opportunity to find some compromises in order to benefit the public, the conservation industry and lobbyists chose political war. Well they all wanted to play politics and they got politics. Now they are mad. The conservation swamp industry made this bed. Now it looks like they will have to go to Utah to sleep in it. Here are some examples from DOI:

BHA Responds to Zinke Accusations of Disloyalty Within Interior Staff

News for Immediate ReleaseSept. 26, 2017Contact: Katie McKalip, 406-240-9262, [email protected] BHA Responds to Zinke Accusations of Disloyalty Within Interior Staff MISSOULA, Mont. – In response to yesterday’s speech by Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke before the National Petroleum...

www.backcountryhunters.org

‘What Happened to Ryan Zinke?’ BHA Launches Ad Campaign

News for Immediate ReleaseAug. 2, 2017Contact: Katie McKalip, 406-240-9262, [email protected] ‘What Happened to Ryan Zinke?’ BHA Launches Ad Campaign Public lands sportsmen and women hold the interior secretary accountable for conservation promises, spotlight administration’s...

www.backcountryhunters.org

This thread was never about the proposed moved. It was just another complain about politics thread starting with an article directly from conservation lobbyist buddy "journalist". The forest service move has nothing to do with the mine in MN. Whether that mine is good, bad, or somewhere in the middle.

 

[2531usmc]

The constant blending in of esoteric right wing talking points is troubling, but not surprising. We are talking about eviscerating the USFS. Which is being done by the current Admin. Why is any of what you brought up here relevant to that discussion?



The notion that an ecosystem that has been around far longer than humans "requires roads" to be "managed" in order avoid catastrophic and total self destruction is obviously flawed. But based on other statements, I'm not even sure we would agree on how long humans or the earth have been around... but that's a separate topic.

Either way, the important thing to understand is that MANAGED forests need to be managed. Heavy logging/clear cutting destroys the natural cadence of forest/tree life cycles. The dense understory everyone is complaining about is because of 200 years of heavy logging. Not sure how much time anyone on this thread has spent in old growth forests (the few small groves that still exist, thanks to extensive protections, which I'm sure this admin would love to revoke), but they don't have dense understory and don't require roads and 10000s of man hours every year to stay that way. They also don't experience massive forest fires.

Clear cutting and heavy logging destroys the canopy and allows for the growth of dense understory. Eliminating clear cutting and doing selective thinning and prescribed burning is the best way to manage these young forests back towards their original densities and cadences. But it requires skillful assessment, more manual cutting, and removal of slash, which makes it much less profitable. Considering the voracious greed of this administration, I have no confidence that this type of thoughtful management is what they have in mind.


Strong disagree. You DO need to be fit, capable, prepared, and knowledgeable to experience nature to it's fullest. The increasing prevalence of obese, unhealthy, stupid people does not mean that I should tolerate more and more roads and wheelchair ramps being built in the woods. You really want a bunch of fat idiots in motorhomes driving through your favorite hunting areas throwing beer cans in the woods? You enjoy ATVs and SxSs ripping by you on roads 100yds apart in every direction? The BEST hunting areas are roadless or near roadless. I've seen excellent hunting develop in areas after roads and bridges wash out, and I've seen great spots get ruined when an overgrown road is cleared or subtle trail gets found and added to a map.


Exactly, my point, it's low now but going to increase. Access will decrease.

So what you’re really saying is that the forests should be tailored to you….right?

Other Americans are unworthy?

 

[elkhunter505]

@Customweld this topic was a disaster and never on topic since the first ragebait was posted in post#1. Allegedly it was about moving the FS to Utah but no one can be sure.

In response to this post.
We are talking about this same stuff agaiinnnnn. "Expert scientists" is a good one though. I see Jason is here. He will be familiar with the resident senior union FS leader on HT who routinely brags about not working, doing union stuff instead of work, then hunting over a 100 days a year on the subsequent comp time then posting pictures bragging about those extravagant trips and tags hunted on weeks of comp time. Sorry. Many people thought these agencies needed cleaning after reading stuff like that and see what the swamp the conservation lobby industry has been leeching off of.

We are told "expert scientists" are being fired yet the union president laborer with 30 yrs in is still getting over 100 days of comp time a year which is not an isolated occurrence i am sure. The way many agencies are being cleaned is a direct result of the legal framework those senior people including union all of whom have seniority set up the system for how personnel issues are handled.

10 years ago Ryan Zinke and others who were willing to work with the conservation agencies and industry were appointed. Rather than take that opportunity to find some compromises in order to benefit the public, the conservation industry and lobbyists chose political war. Well they all wanted to play politics and they got politics. Now they are mad. The conservation swamp industry made this bed. Now it looks like they will have to go to Utah to sleep in it. Here are some examples from DOI:

BHA Responds to Zinke Accusations of Disloyalty Within Interior Staff

News for Immediate ReleaseSept. 26, 2017Contact: Katie McKalip, 406-240-9262, [email protected] BHA Responds to Zinke Accusations of Disloyalty Within Interior Staff MISSOULA, Mont. – In response to yesterday’s speech by Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke before the National Petroleum...

www.backcountryhunters.org

‘What Happened to Ryan Zinke?’ BHA Launches Ad Campaign

News for Immediate ReleaseAug. 2, 2017Contact: Katie McKalip, 406-240-9262, [email protected] ‘What Happened to Ryan Zinke?’ BHA Launches Ad Campaign Public lands sportsmen and women hold the interior secretary accountable for conservation promises, spotlight administration’s...

www.backcountryhunters.org

This thread was never about the proposed moved. It was just another complain about politics thread starting with an article directly from conservation lobbyist buddy "journalist". The forest service move has nothing to do with the mine in MN. Whether that mine is good, bad, or somewhere in the middle.

I was using an example to just frame why I believe this move is not for “common sense” reasons based on this admin’s overall position on conservation. If the people you’re talking about are bragging about comp time and all that, and are abusing the system, they should be fired. Every person that I know of that has taken these incentivized retirements or just left the agencies for a different job were great folks that worked their tails off and cared about what they did.

So regardless, similar with the BLM move, people cannot just uproot their lives on a whim sometimes. We’ll see what comes out of this but I do not trust it to be for the good of the agency.

The last thing I’ll say is as someone who has been training to be a scientist for a while, the loss of trust in science and research is troubling to me. Calls for science-based wildlife management are thrown from the rafters from all sides of the spectrum, and I hardly ever see true science being followed unless the science aligns with the social sentiment.

 

[Customweld]

In response to this post.
We are talking about this same stuff agaiinnnnn. "Expert scientists" is a good one though. I see Jason is here. He will be familiar with the resident senior union FS leader on HT who routinely brags about not working, doing union stuff instead of work, then hunting over a 100 days a year on the subsequent comp time then posting pictures bragging about those extravagant trips and tags hunted on weeks of comp time. Sorry. Many people thought these agencies needed cleaning after reading stuff like that and see what the swamp the conservation lobby industry has been leeching off of.

We are told "expert scientists" are being fired yet the union president laborer with 30 yrs in is still getting over 100 days of comp time a year which is not an isolated occurrence i am sure.

I am familiar with that cull. I've had him on ignore over on MM for the better part of 15 years. He is the prime example for why disdain is leveled down onto federal agencies.

 

[Weldor]

I'm always trying to figure out on these threads when people say "can't just relocate people". The feds are your employer, you don't think that your employer has a right to move? Remember you are an employee. Not trying to start an argument, just the entitlement of that statement amazes me.

 

[elkhunter505]

I'm always trying to figure out on these threads when people say "can't just relocate people". The feds are your employer, you don't that your employer has a right to move? Remember you are an employee. Not trying to start an argument, just the entitlement of that statement amazes me.

Well of course they have the right to do it. But some people truly cannot uproot their lives because their spouses are tied down to places or various other reasons. So if they quit and leave, right now you cannot replace them because the federal hiring freeze. Entitlement has nothing to do with it, it’s just the reality of life situations combined with a hiring freeze.

 

[Weldor]

So you are saying that they can only work a federal job? If there is a hiring freeze and they leave is that not what the FS wants? to reduce head count?

 

[elkhunter505]

So you are saying that they can only work a federal job? If there is a hiring freeze and they leave is that not what the FS wants? to reduce head count?

No of course not. They could work anywhere else. They’re trying to reduce the head count and where they’re doing it is in places the administration doesn’t see value. What I’m meaning is that when those people who have knowledge of the system choose to quit because they don’t want to relocate, we are losing generational knowledge and expertise while at the same time not being able to replace them with someone new who can bring new ideas. So even if the Forest service in this scenario is not cutting jobs, they’re indirectly doing it under the guise of a “common sense restructuring.” Just the reality of the situation given the data we have about the BLM restructuring.

 

[Sccritterkiller]

Well of course they have the right to do it. But some people truly cannot uproot their lives because their spouses are tied down to places or various other reasons. So if they quit and leave, right now you cannot replace them because the federal hiring freeze. Entitlement has nothing to do with it, it’s just the reality of life situations combined with a hiring freeze.

Sounds like a Tuesday in the private sector.