Reference to top down management 

• The management today is still top down, at least as far as I can determine from the district people I talk to. Rangers have to depend on Supervisor’s Offices for funding, approval of projects, most temporary hiring authority and must deal with “stove piping” of functional programs such as law enforcement and in many cases fire control.

• The statement that the FS is still a decentralized organization is hollow for reasons mentioned above and because district offices through out the national forest system are closing because of budget reductions. In many areas rangers are now charged with managing districts so large there is no ability for the ranger to get to know the people in communities. Rangers also are limited in their authority to build local programs without “big brother” clearance from above. There is also a problem of finding people to fill ranger positions with skills in forest management and the personality to be effective working and living in rural communities.  Good effective rural oriented rangers still exist, but they are harder and harder to find.

• Another issue not mentioned in the speech is the lack of rangers with forest management training and experience.  For what ever reason the Forest Service appears to frequently fill these key line positions with people of questionable forest management skills, little understanding of the national forest mission, limited inter personal communication skills and little” boots on the ground” and calloused hands experience.

• While I am critical of the speech and its “Alice in Wonderland” description of the FS commitment to rural communities, it is important to point out there are still many top notch District Rangers and Forest Supervisors in the Outfit. However, I am hearing these remaining competent people are increasingly frustrated by the FS’s continued slippage into a bureaucratic morass of paper and computer programs for doing business and a fondness for top down control.

Challenges to Conservation

• While the resource problems mentioned are probably correct, there is little visible leadership from the FS to meet the challenges. Many of the problems could be addressed if forests and districts were staffed with competent forest managers, technical support people and the latitude to deal with the problems on a local basis in cooperation with state, local and community leadership.

• Given the financial problems faced by the United States, it is naïve to think the identified resource problems will be solved by increased federal monies. A more realistic and effective approach is to allow local line officers wide discretion  to analyze local resource problems and formulate workable plans to deal with the problems of most threat to local forests. Not a perfect solution, but probably realistic in the day of declining budgets.

• The Forest Service must also re-establish its ability to work with media, especially at the community level. This means fighting off the “political commissars” in Washington, which will be no small task. Currently the Service is better known for its silence than for its advocacy for forest management.

Place Based Conservation

• I agree with the philosophy, but in order to work the FS has to have people and financial resources on the ground to turn the philosophy into accomplishments. This comes back to the need for trained, skilled and experienced FS people in the communities with the authority to make things happen. And there has to be serious work to reduce the monstrous costs of managing paper and computers, and emphasis on providing direct benefit to the people out in the woods.

• Success also requires a program review system that finds and shares good work with other units as well as correcting performance issues, hopefully in a positive way. However, when there is a problem of bad performance that can’t be fixed positively, then the system has to be able to remove the bad actor quickly.  Such a review system is a rare find in today’s FS.

• There is also the reality of rural communities not inclined to get involved in all of these wonderful conservation ideas. The FS needs to understand this reality and be ready to back off until the community changes, and also participation  has to be a community decision, not the FS pounding square pegs into round holes.

• Drop the “All Lands” terminology like a not potato. It is term with negative connotations second only to Salazar’s “Wildlands” fiasco.  While I think most rural communities would agree coordination and cooperation between the Forest Service and locals is a good idea, the implication of “All Lands” is the “Fed’s” calling the shots, which is not a good idea.

Partnership Challenges and Opportunities

• Again, the philosophy is fine, but the real world isn’t like the philosophy. First defending the proposed planning rule as a step forward is like selling snake oil at the carnival, and just about as phony. The proposed planning rule, as analyzed by knowledgeable, experienced veterans of the planning battles, is a piece of junk. The rule does not reflect legislated mission or help the management of the national forests. It reads like it was cobbled together by people committed to stopping resource use of the public’s land.

• Collaboration as currently structured is as unrealistic as the draft-planning rule. I have watched several efforts to use collaboration on forests in two regions to work through conflicts.  People against management play the collaboration game by sounding nice, but continually saying no. And when they say “yes” it doesn’t mean “yes.” It generally means, “ see you in court.”  The obstructionists have learned to play the collaboration game with great skill and much success.

• Collaboration also wears out both the Forest Service people and the citizens who want to be involved and are willing to work for reasonable solutions. The Quincy Library Group in Quincy, California can document the cost of collaboration to people and budgets after almost 20 years of trying to be positive and reasonable. The obstructionists more often than not either stop or delay forest management projects to the detriment of the national forests and the communities. And of course, if they go to court often come home with bags of taxpayer money thanks to loopholes in the Equal Justice Act.

• Collaboration only works when all participants have chips on the table, and the anti’s seldom do.  Collaboration also allows the anti people to push the Forest Service into legal corners by pushing for concessions the FS can’t make.  The bottom line, people with selfish agendas ruin collaboration, creates conflict in communities and do harm to the forests.

Building Relationships

• A great closing with good philosophy that would be of great value to the national forests if it worked, but it doesn’t. It won’t until there is a clear message from Congress telling the public what the national forests are for and providing legislation that gives the Forest Service and the general public relief from the well funded, skilled and committed obstructionists.  The wildland philosophy advocated by Edward Abby and his associates is still alive and well. It drives many of the obstructionists who believe in “re-wilding” the public lands.

• Finally, it is time to stop the “happy talk.”  The national forests are in deep trouble, their values to the American people are being lost at an alarming rate, and the Forest Service is not telling the unvarnished truth to the public that it can’t stop these losses with its current direction and configuration. These absolutely critical resource lands are being abused and destroyed because of public neglect, agency malaise and political chicanery.