WILD BILL

You Gotta Feel for the Forest Service

By Bill Schneider, 9-07-06

Last week, I posted an article about the Western Slope No-Fee Coalition (WSNFC) spearing the Forest Service for "secretly" working on a plan that could result in the closure of thousands of recreation sites. The FS, at least the folks in the Northern Region office, don't quite see it that way, but nonetheless, a no-holds-barred debate broke out in the comments section of that article. A few people defended the agency, but most were quite critical.

After reading all those comments, I sat back and said to myself, "You gotta feel for the good folks in the Forest Service." In past columns, I've been critical of the FS, too, but one comment started me thinking that I haven't had this quite right.

Kathie hit me in a soft spot when she said, "Everybody's mad at the Forest Service. Be mad at the administration and congress instead. If budgets emphasized recreation instead of resource extraction, and the current administration's huge drive to privatize all government functions ceased, guess what would happen with Forest Service campgrounds? They would be well maintained and staffed, that's what. Griping at the Forest Service serves little purpose. They (FS employees) can only do what their budgets allow them to do."

I don't know Kathie. She is one of our anonymous but engaged readers, one of the people who make NewWest.net special. She might be a FS employee or be close to one, but no matter. She's dead on.

Kathie, I completely agree. I happen to know a lot of people who work for the FS and most are as hard working and conscientious as you can be. And they don't deserve to continually take the rap for their political bosses back in the Beltway.

This time, the focal point of the criticism was the Recreation Site Facility Master Planning (RSFMP) process. About five years ago, it seems, the Bush administration ordered all 155 national forests to, in short, study the "sustainability" of developed recreation sites and take some action if a site didn't pay for itself. The WSNFC interprets this as a process sure to result in the closure or privatizing of thousands of recreation sites. Or, perhaps, "demonstrating" them, which in Beltway speak for charging fees to make sure the campground or picnic area pays its way.

Each time something like this comes up you must be able to walk down the halls of any FS office and hear a loud sucking sound. That's the energy and enthusiasm being siphoned out of FS employees. These are the people who know from Day One that they'll get speared as soon as the public spotlight finds the new policy, and they know that in the end, after controversy erupts, years of hard work will go down the drain.

Another great example was the recent effort by the Bush administration to sell off parts of our national forests to fund rural schools. Everybody in the conservation community and probably every FS employee knew that plan was doomed from the minute it slinked out of a Beltway conference room. Yet, FS employees had to spend two years inventorying lands that might be sold, enough land to meet the financial goals of the policy makers, and then try to convince the public this was a good idea.

The Beltway Boys might as well issue FS employees new uniforms with targets painted on them and hold a teleconference to shout "charge" as they send them out of the trenches into a public battle where they face certain failure and frustration.

So, with RSFMP, public land sales, and many other ill-conceived, if not stupid, policies made by invisible people with no connection to the land and people their dictates affect, we should not blame the people charged with trying to implement these impossible missions. They're like any other employees, public or private, following marching orders from above and spending budgets as directed.

Criticizing a FS line officer is like yelling at the supermarket clerk for not accepting your personal check. That person didn't set the policy.

With the exception of the highest echelon of the FS, the employees have no opportunity to influence policy. And the higher-ups focus on their careers and become--almost unintentionally, perhaps--political drones.

Last December, I was a guest on a NPR debate over public land sales, and one of these good folks from the FS was also on the program. He did his best to explain the program, but I could tell he didn't even believe it himself. And he didn't want to be there. One thing he said was that if enough people sent in comments opposing the public lands sales, it would matter. I don't blame him for saying that, but my response was, "Do you really think the Chief of the Forest Service is going to call up the White House and say nobody likes this idea, so I guess we won't do it."

The end result of these exercises in futility is a lot of bruised egos and black eyes and disenfranchising among the ranks of the FS. And are we surprised that employees lose that fire in their bellies with a steady diet of barbs over policy they not only didn't create but undoubtedly, do not support in many cases? Plus, continuing charging into certain defeat diverts them from doing work that can really make a difference in improving the management of our public forests.

The RSTMP is another illustration of an agenda that's out of touch with the feelings of most Americans. It starts in the White House and is implemented by the political appointees running the Department of Agriculture. Sadly, the responsible politicos remain hidden while the frontline in the FS has to take another public whipping when the policy makers should be the ones in the stocks in the town square.

I doubt people in the FS are surprised the RSTMP has erupted into controversy. The people working on it know how controversial messing with people's outdoor fun can be. Here, in Montana, for example, we tell an old joke, sort of, about guys running into a burning house to rescue valuables, leaving money, art, and jewelry behind while barely escaping the flames with the moose permit.

To me, the RSTMP issue is all about visibility. Calling it a secret plot might be an overstatement, but clearly, the FS has made minimal if any effort to inform the public on what is going on. Some forests have even finalized and started implementing the plans with no public knowledge or input, let alone any congressional review or approval.

Why is this? I'll guess that everywhere in the FS are people who know how contentious this will be. A few of them may have sent recommendations upstairs to make more public information efforts, but they were probably slapped down because the Beltway wanted to keep the spotlight off of this project. And once more, the policy makers are not those who pay the price for their politically motivated decisions that affect all of us who value our public land.

With RSTMP, it might be too late to avoid a bloodletting because in the absence of communications, many people fear conspiracy. It's not too late, though, for the FS bosses to learn from it and look at other programs. It shouldn't be that hard to spot the next spear coming.

Even with public input (See The Absurdity of Public Involvement), programs like RSFMP will still be controversial, but at least people have a chance to vent, In the end, politics dictates that the agency will go ahead as planned even in the face of 90+ percent opposition, but even this is preferable to proceeding behind the scenes with the full knowledge that the vast majority would oppose the action, which is what happened with RSTMP.

The solution? I'm still thinking we should make a tectonic move and eliminate the FS and the Bureau of Land Management and re-create two new agencies, one focused on outdoor recreation and free of internal conflicts with resource use and the other committed to resource extractive uses of our public land. For more on this, refer to a column I wrote on the idea.

I'm not going to hold my breath until the U.S. Senate agrees with me and does this, but in the meantime, we can take in easy on FS employees. Put yourself in their shoes before you throw the next spear.

Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.