USFS faces bleak future

You are welcome and I agree about the last sentence.

Following along here. Being a wilderness enthusiast and also constitutionally suspect of moral panics, I thought I’d share what I thought was a very level headed and realistic view of the decade long machinizations of the USFS reorganization of this administration. This article is from a guy I follow, he’s a Trump supporter (gasp) in general AND ALSO extremely suspect of public land liquidation schemes ala Mike Lee, which I’ve found to be surprisingly prominent amongst western conservatives. He is a wildlife/biology professor at a western college and he assembled the most detailed view of the reorganization I’ve seen to date. Pros cons, everything with a ton of detail about the inner working of the service. I found it fascinating. Here is the link to his article on X, I hope you find some of it enlightening like I did:

https://x.com/i/status/2043725378553016705

(Matthew, let me know if posting links like this is against the rules and I’ll delete.)

What I noticed from the backlash to Lee’s failed attempt to add boneheaded land liquidation language to the BBB was watching almost every wildland enthusiast of every political stripe come together in unison against it. It made me really happy to see both sides come together for a fleeting moment in this rediculously charged timeline. There is a massive revivalist conservationist movement on the right side of  the isle. A key development when common ground is hard to find. Alas, as an old school western Democrat I don’t really have a home any more. I do crazy things like have friends from all stripes who hike, hunt and fish together, maybe even have a spirited argument or two over cold beers. A quaint notion I know.

IMHO, on its surface, I feel HQ the move to SLC makes a ton of sense if done correctly, but the devil is in the details. The Great Basin Coordination Center (multi agency wildfire coordination) is here, we have a ton of public lands and SLC is the most central jumping off point to all of our western forests with exceedingly easy access with our excellent brand new airport. SLC is an extremely blue island in a red/soon-to-be-puple state FWIW. I think it’s largely irrelevant but many folks don’t understand what SLC is. Its last R mayor was Jake Garn in 1974.

Long live wild places!

I’m not sure if I’m a very liberal conservative or a very conservative liberal or none of the above. More of a naturalist. I do think Robin Hood may have been a poacher, narcism is running our country and all this idealism on both sides is not practical or realistic. Live and let live or is it live and let die? Do what works. Follow science, follow nature, but not politicians.

https://x.com/i/status/2043725378553016705

Yet he would vote against his own interests. Posted on X, it seems just a bit disingenuous. All propaganda contains bits of truth for credibility. While relocation to Utah does make some sense, one has to consider the reasoning and the true goals behind it. Consider the source. One who values glamour over nature.

Forest service employees should be based on merit, not on ideology or willful participation in misdirected wars.

“Forest service employees should be based on merit”

Merit is subjective

One person will judge an employee good, another person will judge that employee bad

If the judger has a hidden agenda, like opposing people with green skin, they can make a merit argument for demoting the green skinned person. It’s not easy bein’ green.

HR departments like objective measures, like requiring a college degree.  It minimizes legal liability.

Difficult problem to solve

Good question really.

College proves that you’ve at least been emerged in the subject. Grades show a dedication and a willingness to learn. It doesn’t insure competence. It’s a start.

The article Dirt linked mentions trail building as a starting point working your way up through government rankings. Not an easy route. Difficult for inner city kids. Still leaves a lot to be judged.

Internet. Spreading broadband and free online education would have a huge impact. It could also go very wrong.

Contemplating the area under a curve. You can get closer and closer to where it’s good enough, or at least as good as humanly possible. I’d tell my crews to always strive for perfection, because somewhere down the line you’re going to ””’ up. Strive for perfection even if it’s unattainable.

Politically I’d tell the crew that whenever a customer walked by to stop, look at whatever chore they were doing and say ” perfect”.

Whenever you hear the words ‘common sense’ you know it involves a reduction in scientific oversight and analysis. 🧐

https://theclimateaccordingtolife.substack.com/p/permanent-statutory-authority-to

This story may be a little one sided, I’m not sure

Congress is currently considering a bill that will allow more forest harvesting with less review

The pretense is to reduce risk of forest fires.  It bypasses environmental laws and limits law suits.

It was intended for small areas next to human development but the forest service can use it for large areas even if there’s no fire risk, which is a subjective decision (the Chevron deference)

The article recommends that you contact your senators and urge them not to vote for it.

It’s useless to contact my senators on anything that opposes full scale corporate utilization of every square inch of land until nature is completely gone. However I have discovered that you can email other states’ senators by using a zip code from that area. If you put in your own zip, they have their websites set up to dismiss your contact. Which is honestly ridiculous because they are voting on things that affect everyone, not just “their people.”

there’s a senate race in Alaska that’s a little bit close.  Maybe the incumbent would actually listen a little

They don’t care. They’re bought and paid for.

Thank you Matthew and Ryan. I think that’s a good call. It’s still on us to be courteous toward each other and respecting differences of viewpoints.

Very true! And changing up the NFS will not cause the world to end.

Diverting the cash to a failed pool contractor isn’t  either, but there are better ways.

It’s not the reconstruction. It’s the crew. The talk doesn’t match the walk. They destroy things.

The US Forest Service is proposing vast reductions in the areas protected from motorized vehicle use.

https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2026/sep/11/us-forest-service-eyes-revision-of-rule-governing-/

Please contact your government representatives and let them know how you feel a bout this.

From that story Paul, I can’t really figure out what the proposed change is. It sounds like:

1. roads, trails, etc. will be assumed to be open to motorized use unless specifically closed (the opposite of now) and

2. new closures could not use “minimal impact” as a criterion to prohibit motorized use. I can’t figure out what they are supposed to use in its place.

I’ve submitted comments to the USFS, but it’s an utter waste of time to contact my delegation; they do not give one rat’s @55 what I or anyone else thinks about this or any other issue, sadly. My only hope is to vote them out and hopefully vote in people who care a wee bit what their constituents think.

I must admit I have never understood the love of motorized recreation. Is that a class thing? I don’t mean to be snobbish, but I really don’t know why it’s fun. I just know that having ridden both motorcycles and snowmachines (snowmobiles for the lower 48ers) I don’t enjoy it at all. I do like having snowmachine support for winter camping! but I can’t fathom why roaring around on machines with deafening engines, spending huge dollars on the machines, fuel, and upkeep, and inhaling the exhaust is fun.

I saw some 4 wheelers once tearing up a hiking trail I was on, doing circles in the mud, thoroughly coating themselves and creating huge permanent ruts in the trail. It was funny at the moment, which I guess it was to them too; they looked like pigs happily rolling in the mud. So I guess being coated in mud is entertaining on an on-going basis? It wasn’t the thrill of speed, because they were well mired. Then we backpackers had to bushwhack around the wallow for several miles, because the trail was permanently obliterated. They saw us, but they sure didn’t care about us or the fact that we were walking down what was once a trail. I don’t suppose they contribute to trail maintenance. I can’t understand harming someone else’s experience to improve my own. I think selfishness is a primary American value, core to our identity as a nation.

A few years ago a section of a very popular trail in interior Alaska, the Pinnell Mountain Trail, was massively destroyed by a bunch of hunters on 4 wheelers. The terrain is very soft wet tundra, very vulnerable even to boot prints and turns to mush under heavy traffic. They left carcasses and trash everywhere, in their goal of getting caribou meat and “living the Alaskan lifestyle.” It has taken many volunteers since to repair the damage to a beautiful unique area.

I do understand using a 4 wheeler on a solid trail to access a good camping spot or a cabin, especially if you’re not physically able to do it with human power. I think there can be shared respectful use. But how do you regulate the stupid, selfish ones? It’s best if the specific user group regulates itself, when possible.

The desire to destroy is so completely beyond my ken. I like to find common ground if I can, but in this case I simply cannot.

This is what Pinnell Mountain Trail looked like after hunting season, 2020. This went on for miles, along with carcasses and trash. Some hunters described the hunt as a war zone, 4wheelers and guys with guns everywhere. I’m not anti-hunting but this could bring me closer to being a vegetarian.

Motorized recreation speaks to the instinct to control and dominate nature – rather than respect and adapt to it. In the city I hear tons of cars rumbling by with engines that roar with a deep low frequency that can be heard blocks away. Motorbikes are often more of a nuisance with a sound that can only be described as intentionally obtrusive. It appeals to a certain type of male who relies on getting attention for how disruptive he can be – irrespective of whether people react positively to him. This is paradoxical since there’s almost no one around to take notice when they make all this noise riding through a forest road.

Unfortunately, many of the places I go backpacking are also frequented by those who equate riding a super loud motorbike along a forest lined road with getting into nature and freedom itself. With no buildings to absorb sound, they can be heard even a mile away. It’s a perverse outcome to see woodsy roads in nature being traversed by exceptionally loud vehicles. I can’t imagine being friends with someone rides one of these auditory abominations. At least a rock band at an outdoor concert is performing something that theoretically sounds pleasant – albeit very loud. But it’s not usually in a pristine location spoiling the sonic serenity which is a huge reason for being there in the first place.

Backpacking is the antidote to this aural assault. If we pack light enough, and are willing to hike far enough – we should be able to get away from these unwanted sounds. But the push for short term profits and ever growing mechanized access has no concern for long term preservation. It is a constant tug of war. Yesterday’s pristine land is today’s edge of development and tomorrow’s town center. What goes up must come down. If we don’t limit our numbers – nature will do it for us eventually by unpleasant means not of our own choosing. Some nefarious people even seek to accelerate this process via eugenics, mind control, and using forest fires as a weapon of war.

Repealing the roadless rule is about much more than just the process of repealing regulations. It is about which segment (s) of the population have a say in how OUR public lands are managed. I encourage everyone to reach out to your representatives and to any members of congress (since they all are our representatives) and let them know how you feel we should be managing our public lands. Allowing access to currently roadless areas will be a Pandora’s Box.

I’m reading Herbert Stoddard’s autobiography.His description of Florida in the first decade of the 20th century is remarkable. Florida was mostly forest! Pine forest, and cypress groves in the wetter areas. Forest from end to end. Hard to imagine. He saw the end of it all coming, and coming fast. It’s an old story, to be repeated until everything is fully “developed.”

When a real estate developer says

Skyscrapers, coast to coast made of American steel.