Nameless Range
Well-known member
While the future of Montana Hunting hangs in the balance I know there are bigger fish to fry, but I wonder about things and have no one but this forum to wonder them to.
I’m sure I am not the first person to ask this, and if I recall correctly the concept has a sordid history, but is the separation of the USFS and BLM as distinct entities necessary and inefficient? Could they be merged?
Last night a group I am a member of was listening to the representatives of a search and rescue outfit try to come up with solutions to a problem area in our county. Half this area is BLM, and the other half is USFS. Ultimately, nothing effective will come of this unless both of those agencies work together, and even more, until one of them comes up with a travel plan. Trails know no bounds, and to 95% of public land users BLM, USFS or other, they don't care and it doesn't affect their use. To them, they are on Public Land.
This is the mission statement of the Bureau of Land Management:
The Bureau of Land Management's mission is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations
This is the mission statement of the United States Forest Service:
The mission of the Forest Service is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations.
They have identical mission statement, which I of course, know do not tell the whole tale.
I know damn well they do things differently. I can think of dozens of problematic specific issues that would arise, based on past organizational structures, functions, and process, and I know how they came to be from very different lineages, but if we were starting over, why would they be separate entities? If today, the concept of public lands were invented and on offer, I do not think we would be create two separate entities to manage them.
So much of the issues within these agencies are a result of underfunding or at the very least, resource constraints. The more I interact with and speak with folks from these agencies, it couldn’t be more obvious. I’m not on the attack, but one some level I despair a bit about how inefficient and needlessly difficult some things are.
And yes, I know it would be a monumental overhaul, requiring billions of dollars to align Forest/Resource Management Plans, etc. This is not me wondering about something I believe to be feasible or even personally wish to be, but it is me wondering.
I’m sure I am not the first person to ask this, and if I recall correctly the concept has a sordid history, but is the separation of the USFS and BLM as distinct entities necessary and inefficient? Could they be merged?
Last night a group I am a member of was listening to the representatives of a search and rescue outfit try to come up with solutions to a problem area in our county. Half this area is BLM, and the other half is USFS. Ultimately, nothing effective will come of this unless both of those agencies work together, and even more, until one of them comes up with a travel plan. Trails know no bounds, and to 95% of public land users BLM, USFS or other, they don't care and it doesn't affect their use. To them, they are on Public Land.
This is the mission statement of the Bureau of Land Management:
The Bureau of Land Management's mission is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations
This is the mission statement of the United States Forest Service:
The mission of the Forest Service is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations.
They have identical mission statement, which I of course, know do not tell the whole tale.
I know damn well they do things differently. I can think of dozens of problematic specific issues that would arise, based on past organizational structures, functions, and process, and I know how they came to be from very different lineages, but if we were starting over, why would they be separate entities? If today, the concept of public lands were invented and on offer, I do not think we would be create two separate entities to manage them.
So much of the issues within these agencies are a result of underfunding or at the very least, resource constraints. The more I interact with and speak with folks from these agencies, it couldn’t be more obvious. I’m not on the attack, but one some level I despair a bit about how inefficient and needlessly difficult some things are.
And yes, I know it would be a monumental overhaul, requiring billions of dollars to align Forest/Resource Management Plans, etc. This is not me wondering about something I believe to be feasible or even personally wish to be, but it is me wondering.
