Home  »  Notes From All Over
Furthur Responses to Barry Wynsma's Essay - Ned P. & Dick P.

Ned Pence writes :

Thanks for sending this to me. I don't know if I have met Barry Wynsma but his name is familiar. I have also read the article by Les Joslin in "Evergreen" . I believe that I met Les sometime. I can't remember when or where but remember hearing some good things about him.
 
I agree with most of what they say. The USFS that we all loved is no longer what it was and I believe it could well be too late for what was a great agency to recover to anything like it was. Les and Barry don't really cover what happened as well as my brother Carl and I did in the book LOST IN THE FOREST that we wrote. The gridlock that set in about 1985 continues and the leadership in the Agency does not have the expertise to change it. Twenty five years of gridlock may not be something that can be reversed. Chapter five of LOST IN THE FOREST covers the problem and future outlook of the USFS.
 
As Timber Staff Officer for the Stikine portion of the Tongass National Forest I have a good understanding of what happened. It is not politically correct to cover it as we did in LOST IN THE FOREST and the book has not been popular in Agency circles. We have now sold over 200 copies and it is popular with FS retirees and industry people that believe in active management. I can cover the dysfunction as follows:

1) The NEPA brought disciplines beside foresters and engineers into the agency. There is nothing wrong with the requirement for the interdisciplinary process and it should have had a good result. The problem is that the new disciplines often came into the Agency with very different values and little understanding of the Forest Service mission as required by the Organic Act of 1897 and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960. Some had no desire to learn the mission. Many could have adapted and been good employees if they had been provided. the training. Those who could not accept the agency mission should have been let go. Some had a difficult time understanding the line and staff organization of the Forest Service. It was not unusual to find that members of the Interdisciplinary Team actually felt they were in charge and not the line officer. Unfortunately some line officers did not understand their line authority complicating the environmental analysis process. All too often the training that was needed was badly lacking.

2) In 1970 President Nixon directed Equal Opportunity Employment in federal agencies. The Forest Service always followed direction with a can-do attitude. Again there was nothing wrong with the direction. The Forest Service was a white male organization and did need the required "diversity". The direction was not the problem it was how it was implemented. Women and minorities were obviously capable of doing the work and meeting the Forest Service mission. The problem became the rush to place women and minorities in line officer positions without the proper training and experience. By about 1985 the direction became women and minorities must be favored for promotion over qualified white male employees. There was little or even no consideration to providing the training needed and even worse to follow-up and determine how the promoted employee was performing and providing the needed training to help the employee perform. The promoted employee was left to sink or swim. Some managed to swim, many did not. The result has been obvious. Stating the problem was not politically correct and that remains the case. Les and Barry were still reluctant to state it as clear as I have.

3) The beginning of the end of the Forest Service started in 1993 with the Clinton administration. Vice President Al Gore was put in charge of reinventing the government. The emphasis in the Forest Service was to make the Forest Service a more environmentally correct agency. Foresters and Engineers were encouraged to retire early with early out payment. The expertise that left the Agency between 1993 and 1995 would take twenty years to replace if it is even possible. The old corps was lost along with the can do attitude. The result can be observed in the condition of the National Forests and the condition of rural communities that depended on multiple use.

Jim, in a nut shell the above is what happened. I could see it happening in 1990 when I got the opportunity to take my own early out. If I had waited three more years I could have been paid to leave early, but I often wonder if I could have survived. The situation I could see was sending me to an early grave.
 
Les Joslin's proposal for an academy that would provide the training that should have been provided starting in 1985 is interesting. However,who would staff the academy? I don't believe that current University professors are qualified. The old guard that once ran the Forest Service is pretty old to be of much use. At age 74 I can understand the "old" problem. Most of the old guard that provided the expertise I needed as a young forester are now dead. Certainly the current administration would not qualify, they are the problem.
 
It breaks my heart to have to state the obvious. I believe that with the $14 trillion nation's debt congress will eventually notice an Agency that costs a lot and accomplishes little. The Forest Service budget will be reduced to the point that it will not function as an agency. I believe that the national forest lands that have Wilderness qualities will become part of the National Park Service. The productive national forest land can be sold to help solve the nation's debt problem.
 
Jim I remember that you asked if LOST IN THE FOREST is in electric format and if we would allow some of it to be published in "Evergreen". I will talk to brother Carl and see if he agrees to sending you a computer disk. I think we have sold about all the books we can and perhaps you could restore some more interest. We are currently working on a sequel. Events have happened that will give me increased interest in completing it.
 
Thanks for what you do.
 
Ned Pence

Dick writes:

Barry’s is a thoughtful voice of experience. I would only comment that, rather than eliminate the Supervisor’s Office, defining roles properly between the SO and RDs would actually facilitate effective land management. As it usually is, however, the Forest Supervisor too often has abdicated his/her responsibility to the functional SO staff.

Sixty years or so ago the Forest Service defined the respective roles. The concept was that the SO would be the planning organization and the District the “doing” organization. This worked up to a point, but it evolved to where the SO staff had the planning authority and held the District accountable for implementation.

Morale always suffers when one group is held accountable without the necessary authority. Frustration results if the SO staff assigns programs and allocates resources, with the district being held accountable for results. The staff in this case is acting as a line organization. Instead, staff could serve a very useful purpose as a repository of experts for training specialists, either on the districts or those targeted for district work. The supervisor and rangers would negotiate program elements and the resources needed to carry them out. The staff would be the advisors in the process, not the directors.

Planning is in the picture, regardless of what we may think about it. But forest plans can be made by the Supervisor and staff. Project plans should be made by the Ranger and assistants on the ground – those responsible for implementation. This way, along with the responsibility for results comes the authority for implementation.

My experience was that, with properly defined roles such as above, District morale improved, although, to some and to a certain extent, SO staff regretted the loss of what line authority they once had.

Dick Pfilf

"We must always consider the environment and people together, as though they are one, because the
human need to use natural resources is fundamental to our continued presence on earth."
P.O. Box 1290, Bigfork, MT. 59911 • Tel: (406) 837-0966 • Fax: (406) 258-0815 • Email: