Letter to Barack Obama and the Transition Team 11/15/08
Re: US Forest Service and other Natural Resource Agencies
From: John Grove, U.S. Forest Service (retired), Darlene L. Grove, Community, Organizer, Citizen Activist.
We are writing to express the concerns of many Forest Service retirees, present employees who serve in positions on the ground, and their families.
The Forest Service needs new leadership: leadership that deeply believes in protection of the watersheds of our nation and our other natural resources on public lands. Leadership that will appoint knowledgeable, dedicated and truthful people. Leaders who will increase the budgets and staff of Ranger Districts and Supervisor’s Offices—those who do the on-the-ground work on our forests and rangelands.
The Bush Administration has systematically and insidiously worked to centralize, urbanize, minimize, privatize, and demoralize the Forest Service.
~ Natural resources management must happen on the ground where the resources exist. Yet centralization increased the Washington and Regional Offices while depleting the Supervisor’s and Districts of staff and funds. For example, all accounting and human resources for the entire agency were moved from local offices to a national office in Albuquerque. The result has been increased bureaucratic red-tape and innumerable problems with paychecks, hiring, travel and relocation services—services that were once provided efficiently at the local level.
~ Further, through continuous budget cuts, the administration forced the agency to combine Districts or Forests, consolidate offices, eliminate housing for employees, and stretch the responsibilities of many positions over two or more Districts. In seeking efficiencies, in some cases the administration combined functions of different land management agencies, such as the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management—which led to conflicts in missions, and a loss of local understanding and control over issues. In short, centralization, staff cuts and reorganization has hampered the agency’s ability to manage our public lands, disrupted families and weakened the economy of towns served by Forest Service offices. Most importantly, jeopardized needed work on the ground.
~ The administration urbanized the agency by centralizing positions or contracting with people who live and work in cities. Managers and contractors operating at a distance cannot be expected to understand the workings of the agency in the field, its employees, or the needs of rural communities—knowledge that is only gained by living and working on the ground itself.
~ The administration minimized the agency by cutting its budget and staff in a consistent fashion, which has crippled the stewardship of our natural resources. They encouraged contracting and privatization when the tasks would better be done by trained Forest Service personnel and existing employees familiar with the local resources, issues, needs and solutions. In a time of increased fires, they depleted fire budgets, reduced critical firefighter training, eliminated seasonal fire crews and left vacancies unfilled. Some services were contracted, resulting in excessive expenditures such as “24 hr pay” (also known as “portal to portal”), for private or local teams and equipment. Forest Service crews are only paid while on shift. The majority of professional federal firefighters are within five years of retirement, and we now have a shortage of young trained professionals to move up the ladder.
~ Sadly, the administration demoralized many sincere professional land managers within the agency by changing the mission of the Forest Service to one of exploitation instead of protection and wise use. Unjustified efforts to change laws, regulations and processes have wasted money, staff time, and delayed necessary projects. Such efforts have also caused distrust and criticism from the public. The administration substituted political dogma for science and marginalized professionals who placed resource protection above exploitation.
We are hopeful that with new leadership, the Forest Service can move forward in conservation, protection and wise use of our natural resources. We urge the Transition Team to seek advice and information from staff on the ground at the District level. They are the ones who can explain how things should function, what the needs are, and suggestions for change. Yet with the current low morale and fear of reprisals for expressing opinion within the agency, this must be done in an open, encouraging and non-threatening manner.
In addition, there are conservation leaders in every region on the state and local level. We would be glad to offer names or suggest some very objective and sincere conservationists. A kitchen table discussion with someone from the Transition Team would be much appreciated.
John and Darlene Grove
PO Box 77
Stevensville, MT 59870
406-777-2423
skippy < AT > cybernet1.com