Your Public Land

[Nameless Range]

Are they reallyunderfunded? Or just inefficient, top-heavy, and operating in the 1980s, filing mountains of paperwork by hand, faxing things, and corresponding by passenger pigeon? But I do agree nonetheless we could give them more money without increasing spending. Plenty of places to cut and divert money from.

I believe the deferred maintenance backlog on Forest Service Lands is something like 10 Billion dollars. I have yet to hear a proposal for increasing timber harvest on Forest Service lands in a meaningful way that doesn't involve heavily subsidizing an industry, but I am open minded to anyone's input.

What specifically about the Forest Service is top-heavy and inefficient? Do you have actual examples other than their fleet of passenger pigeons? I don't think people have a good perspective on the costs of fire, and don't understand that no amount of timber harvest will save us from the costs of wildfire. As the west grows, a large portion of that development is subdivided land in the Wildland Urban Interface. As long as people keep building more houses in the woods, wildfire costs will continue to be high and eat a large portion of the Forest Service's budget. That's money that could be used on other forestry projects but is swallowed up. At least that's the way it seems.



Here is the Forest Service Discretionary Budget by Activity. I wish it had the last 10 years data on it.



I'm not saying anything about the Forest Service is perfect. But it sure seems like people chit on the whole institution and proclaim all sorts of buzzwordy adjectives without ever giving specifics. So, by "Shake Up", what exactly do you mean BHR?

 

[Straight Arrow]

That's money that could be used on other forestry projects ...

Those are then projects which do not get accomplished.

Last summer I stopped in a USFS office and described an extensive spotted knapweed infestation on National Forest. The USFS employee I spoke with was already aware of that weed problem, as well as many more. The noxious weed mitigation project was of importance but not possible due to resources committed to projects of higher priority ... specifically, it was fire season and all hands were on deck, some in Montana but also sent elsewhere as needed.

 

[Nameless Range]

Those are then projects which do not get accomplished.

Last summer I stopped in a USFS office and described an extensive spotted knapweed infestation on National Forest.

Good point. This is an interesting little flier created by the Center for Invasive Plant Management in partnership with the Dept. of Interior. An interesting fact from it:

Invasive and noxious weeds spread at a rate of approximately 4,600 acres per day on federal lands alone in the U.S.

That's another thing the FS of today has to deal with that they did not have to deal with as much 30 years ago. It's expensive too.

 

[BuzzH]

Nameless Range,

I was also going to post your bottom graph yesterday, but the problem is, MTGomer's comment on fax machines and passenger pigeons was enough for me to realize his mind was already made up. As the saying goes, "shallow minds, and shallow water, both freeze first"...

I was also going to mention that in the course of 15 years the percentage of the FS budget to fight fire jumped from 13% of the budget to 43 percent of the entire FS budget.

But, what good would it do?

The graph you provided also shows that in research and NFS funding both are essentially flat and are not keeping up with inflation.

Yet, at the same time that research funding is flat, there are many industry, state, local partners that are begging for research data...to the point that many pitch in funding.

Also, there is sharp increase in demands that have been placed on the USFS from fuels reduction to weeds to travel plans to more trails to maintain. That isn't even diving into the backlog of deferred maintenance, road remediation, etc. etc.

As long as I've worked for the FS since the late 80's there has been a mandate of "doing more with less"...30 years of that mind set. I'm done doing more with less, 30 years is enough...its time to do less with less.

Management costs money and its time that Congress starts funding management.

 

[MTGomer]

Nameless Range,

I was also going to post your bottom graph yesterday, but the problem is, MTGomer's comment on fax machines and passenger pigeons was enough for me to realize his mind was already made up. As the saying goes, "shallow minds, and shallow water, both freeze first"...

I was also going to mention that in the course of 15 years the percentage of the FS budget to fight fire jumped from 13% of the budget to 43 percent of the entire FS budget.

But, what good would it do?

The graph you provided also shows that in research and NFS funding both are essentially flat and are not keeping up with inflation.

Yet, at the same time that research funding is flat, there are many industry, state, local partners that are begging for research data...to the point that many pitch in funding.

Also, there is sharp increase in demands that have been placed on the USFS from fuels reduction to weeds to travel plans to more trails to maintain. That isn't even diving into the backlog of deferred maintenance, road remediation, etc. etc.

As long as I've worked for the FS since the late 80's there has been a mandate of "doing more with less"...30 years of that mind set. I'm done doing more with less, 30 years is enough...its time to do less with less.

Management costs money and its time that Congress starts funding management.

I just think that the position of; federal land is managed well but could
be managed better if we just throw more money at it is a pretty poor argument compared to; we realize there are shortcomings in the way land is managed but we will strive to do better and these are the ways we will do it..... the people that want to privatize the forest can easily and convincingly destroy the former argument. If that's the best we can do, message wise, it's going to be a long fight.
Claiming infallibility is laughable. I realize FS is a USDA agency and most my experience is with the DOI agencies. Am I completely off base to think a lot of the improvements that could be made in those agencies couldn't be made at the FS?

I do know two highly qualified and exceptional surveyors who took pay cuts to move back To the private sector to get out of the moral stifling bureaucracy, inefficiency etc at the FS.

I don't disagree that maintenance should be funded the way it needs to be, I just have trouble believing there aren't improvements that can't be made right now.

 

[hank4elk]

Well said guys!
I even call it the Forest Circus at times these days.
But I have also worked for, with,and alongside them since I was 21,40 yrs.
I have only seen their budgets slashed, in comparison of work load assigned overall.
I experienced it 1st hand working for a wealthy county.
Mandated mandates with out the funding.
Oh, you can't do that job for x amount? There, now you have more area & scope to cover,with even less $.
Need more empty job slots refilled to do the job properly,manpower? There,you have 2 more Parks to maintain & patrol,you get inmate workers & volunteers for help. Oh and your budget got cut another 10%.....
More with less was the motto of the non FS Park Ranger job the last 16 yrs I had it.

Oh and the business model of same situation is called raise the price,charge more,waste even more on top heavy managment over worker bee's & raise the price somemore.
That is not how government works.Government is not now or ever has been a business.But it sure is getting close,without the just raise the price,screw the customer clause.

 

[Straight Arrow]

... federal land is managed well but could be managed better ...

Gomer, you missed the point. Federal land is not managed well due to the lack of funding for many projects and goals, which if accomplished would allow the land to be managed much better. Weed control is merely one small example of work not being accomplished, primarily due to lack of resources ... money! ... thus the land is not well managed because the weed problem keeps growing, as the budgeted funding goes to higher priority uses (fire suppression mostly).

Another prevalent opinion and attitude is that regarding inefficiency and waste. Certainly those of us who have worked within the military and state and federal agencies consistently realize the potential for increased efficiency and improvements in the way resources are expended. But to naively assert that all the problems would be solved by improving efficiency and totally eliminating waste and that the means to that end is to starve the budget, reflects that prevalent tea party attitude that seems to even question the need for the budget at all. Furthermore, that attitude seems to ignore what those of us who have worked in private industry also realize ... and that is inefficiency and waste is not peculiar only to military or governmental functions. It's everywhere and constantly the motivation for improvements.
In government to meet the goals with the funding available and in private industry to improve the bottom $ line.

 

[BuzzH]

I just think that the position of; federal land is managed well but could
be managed better if we just throw more money at it is a pretty poor argument compared to; we realize there are shortcomings in the way land is managed but we will strive to do better and these are the ways we will do it..... the people that want to privatize the forest can easily and convincingly destroy the former argument. If that's the best we can do, message wise, it's going to be a long fight.
Claiming infallibility is laughable. I realize FS is a USDA agency and most my experience is with the DOI agencies. Am I completely off base to think a lot of the improvements that could be made in those agencies couldn't be made at the FS?

I do know two highly qualified and exceptional surveyors who took pay cuts to move back To the private sector to get out of the moral stifling bureaucracy, inefficiency etc at the FS.

I don't disagree that maintenance should be funded the way it needs to be, I just have trouble believing there aren't improvements that can't be made right now.

Yes, you're off base.

Even when the facts are presented on funding, you still choose to ignore them.

Do some research and look at how local districts have seen their budgets slashed. Look and see how many fewer employees they have from various hiring freezes, RIF's, people placed on WRAPs, etc. How many unfilled positions are on the org. charts? How many districts have "zoned" employees doing to the job of 2-3 employees?

An agency doesn't go through 30 years of doing more with less, downsizing, and facing budget reductions without piling a metric shit ton of work on what remains of their skeleton staff.

The work load has increased, the demands on the Agency to provide everything for everybody has increased...but what hasn't increased is staffing and funding.

Sorry Gomer, but unlike you, I'm not forced to guess about the reality of what's going on...I live it, every day.

Like I said before, its a waste of time to point these things out to you...your mind was already made up and no amount of facts presented is going to change your mind on passenger pigeons, fax machines, and now apparently 2 disgruntled surveyors...

 

[Carnage2011]

Those are then projects which do not get accomplished.

Last summer I stopped in a USFS office and described an extensive spotted knapweed infestation on National Forest. The USFS employee I spoke with was already aware of that weed problem, as well as many more. The noxious weed mitigation project was of importance but not possible due to resources committed to projects of higher priority ... specifically, it was fire season and all hands were on deck, some in Montana but also sent elsewhere as needed.

I will be the first to admit that I don't know much about logging. However, I own a fairly good sized noxious weed spraying business and I can tell you that the Forest Service is completely inept when it comes to spraying. I have a contract with them that involves a huge tract of land. It was set up by a grazing association and funded by them as well. The USFS showed up last year while i was up there and asked where they could help. I pointed them to a campground that needed some Spotted Knapweed and Houndstongue sprayed. They had a truck with 250 gallons of water and they headed down the road to where i told them to go. I watched their spray program for about 5 minutes and thought about telling them to leave. Here is the process:1-One guy gets out and sprays a single plant with a handgun. 2-Another guy comes and stands over the plant and marks it on a GPS. 3- They repeat this process for every plant they spray. 4- They missed 60-70% of the weeds.

That day I personally went through 1050 gallons of water and treated 84 acres by myself. They went through 100 gallons of water that day and didn't finish the campground which was maybe 5 acres. The following week I re-sprayed the campground as most of the weeds they sprayed didn't die, and they had missed so many it was embarrassing.

They may not have enough money to spray all of their weeds, but they could damn sure do a better job with what they have. I think the USFS should contract out all of their weed spraying and just have someone within the agency oversee the projects. I can tell you that it would be much more productive.

 

[hank4elk]

Maybe they should not move heavy equipment state to state, without decontaminating each one,to save the forest & therefor spread weeds.
Maybe states should fund their own firefighting ?
Maybe the western states should get the funding Congress has promised many,many times over the years to offset lack of tax base?
Maybe your a Libertaran and just do not believe in government.Just free enterprise.

 

[TheTone]

Maybe they should not move heavy equipment state to state, without decontaminating each one,to save the forest & therefor spread weeds.
.

We better start asking the same as every other forest user; including the grazers and loggers. I have yet to see a private timber company or our state lands department do anything with the massive weed patches they own. I can give the FS and BLM credit for at least trying.

 

[Carnage2011]

We better start asking the same as every other forest user; including the grazers and loggers. I have yet to see a private timber company or our state lands department do anything with the massive weed patches they own. I can give the FS and BLM credit for at least trying.[

Prior to a logging project the USFS does a weed seed inspection of the equipment. So if loggers are bringing the seeds in it may be due to the lack of detail in the inspection. I don't believe in participation trophies.....I don't give credit for "trying".

 

[tjones]

Maybe states should fund their own firefighting ?
.

How would this be possible?

 

[TheTone]

I don't believe in participation trophies.....I don't give credit for "trying".

I guess I would say hiring a contractor, such as yourself, to spray they are doing something. Again I have yet to see a timber company or my state land department do the same. Paying money to kill a weed would effect the bottom line which is about making money by a system of plant trees, cut trees, sell trees, attempt to graze anything not a tree, repeat

 

[BuzzH]

I think you missed the point Carnage.

I'm good with the weed inspections on logging equipment, but how do you go about forcing a neighboring private land owner that logs his private to inspect logging equipment for weeds? How about state agencies?

Do we set up toll gates, inspectors and car washes to inspect passenger vehicles using the National Forests? ATV's? Motorbikes?

How about cattle and sheep grazing? Going to inspect them for weed seeds before they're turned out on the Forest?

Guess what, all those things transport and spread weeds on the National Forest...I want all these inspections. I don't want to pay anyone to do those inspections of course, we need to continue to down-size the FS work force, and the last thing I want to do is to give out trophies for trying. Oh, and we need to reduce the over-all FS budget too. Labor, fuel, herbicides, those are all free.

 

[Carnage2011]

I think you missed the point Carnage.

I'm good with the weed inspections on logging equipment, but how do you go about forcing a neighboring private land owner that logs his private to inspect logging equipment for weeds? How about state agencies?

Do we set up toll gates, inspectors and car washes to inspect passenger vehicles using the National Forests? ATV's? Motorbikes?

How about cattle and sheep grazing? Going to inspect them for weed seeds before they're turned out on the Forest?

Guess what, all those things transport and spread weeds on the National Forest...I want all these inspections. I don't want to pay anyone to do those inspections of course, we need to continue to down-size the FS work force, and the last thing I want to do is to give out trophies for trying. Oh, and we need to reduce the over-all FS budget too. Labor, fuel, herbicides, those are all free.

Buzz,

I understand your point of not having the budget to do everything that they are asking. All I'm asking is that the money that is available be used correctly. Fuel and Herbicides are expensive and the price is not going to change. Labor.....that's where I believe we can do a better job. I watched those 3 guys "work" all day and get nothing done. Those 3 guys combined probably cost as much as I do for an hour of work. However, I'm using my equipment and getting 12-15x the production.

As far as your point about neighboring landowners having weeds. That's always a battle. Large ranchers go through the same thing. So it's not something that is unique to the USFS. I understand though that the money is not there for the Forest.

I'm not trying to be an @ss, but I just want some accountability. If I don't have enough money to spray my land I develop target areas. I spray the roads, the borders and the bad infestations. I start on the SW corner and work NE, because the wind usually comes out of the SW.

 

[Carnage2011]

Quoted the wrong piece.

 

[Carnage2011]

I guess I would say hiring a contractor, such as yourself, to spray they are doing something. Again I have yet to see a timber company or my state land department do the same. Paying money to kill a weed would effect the bottom line which is about making money by a system of plant trees, cut trees, sell trees, attempt to graze anything not a tree, repeat

I understand what you're saying. I just want some accountability.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Forest Service is completely inept when it comes to spraying ....

I believe you, but once again, proper training costs time and money. Likely those nimrods you have quickly criticized actually are educated and trained to do something completely different. A worthy public service opportunity would have evolved with just a few words of wisdom from you, as an experienced, educated noxious weed mitigation professional.

 

[hank4elk]

We better start asking the same as every other forest user; including the grazers and loggers. I have yet to see a private timber company or our state lands department do anything with the massive weed patches they own. I can give the FS and BLM credit for at least trying.

Ditto.
I was being sarcastic.
I've seen how many hurdles have been thrown in the way of them doing their job under Federal Laws written & enacted by Congress,while other entities go right by the process.
How many here have steam cleaned & pressure wash their toys before taking it to a new area?
How are states going to take care of the lands? At all? Fight fires?