Something seems fishy

by Skip Kowalski, U.S. Forest Service (retired), Stevensville

The Forest Service is getting hit with some big changes – allegedly to become more efficient.  However, I’m not convinced the changes will make things better. Recent Administration actions to cut budgets; reduce professional Forest Service staff; replace them with political appointees; make timber, oil and gas leasing the agency’s highest priorities; and dismantle what has been known as the world leader in wildland fire doesn’t make sense. My professional experience leads me to suspect that it is an underhanded attempt to make the Forest Service look incompetent, provide the justification to turn management authority of federal lands over to the states and, once the states find they can’t afford them, put them up for sale. Since many of us take our National Forests for granted, we may not fully realize what we had until it’s gone.

A recent Shared Stewardship Agreement between Governor Gianforte and the Forest Service proposes to relinquish authority to manage (italics my words and emphasis) 200,000 acres of National Forest System lands in western Montana to be managed primarily by the State for the next 20 years rings some alarm bells.  Although the press release from the Governor’s Office touts the agreement as a measure to “dramatically increase the pace and scale of forest restoration, wildfire risk reduction, and sustainable timber production across Montana’s national forests and adjacent lands”, I find it puzzling why the Governor is so excited to take on such a costly responsibility.

Since the National Forests belong to all Americans and are funded and  managed on our behalf by the USDA Forest Service, why is the Governor commenting  that “this agreement will empower our state to take the lead in active forest management…” and why is the Secretary of Agriculture remarking  that “This agreement is exactly the kind of forward-leaning, state-driven leadership that President Trump and USDA have championed since day one”?  Somehow, I think that Theodore Roosevelt, Gifford Pinchot, and many current and retired Forest Service employees would disagree.

Given that the most pressing need for restoration and fuels treatment is to remove low value and non-commercial  trees and brushy fuels  in and around where people live in the woods next to the National Forest (the Wildland Urban Interface or WUI), why in the body of the agreement does it state : “The project should cover an area of approximately 200,00 acres or more on National Forest systems lands with a focus on areas with marketable timber to meet Executive Order 14225”?

From my perspective, this Agreement appears to be more about meeting a timber volume target and increasing state control of our National Forests than it is about restoring healthy ecosystems and reducing the risk to life and property from wildfire. If public safety and forest health were the real priorities, wouldn’t we be looking at spending money to treat “unmerchantable” vegetation in the WUI and not focusing on areas with marketable timber some distance from population centers? This solution doesn’t reduce the risk of catastrophic fire in the places where we live. 

I really hope that I am overreacting and that my assessment is unfounded. After all, there are some appropriate and valid reasons for the feds and the state to work cooperatively on critical natural resource issues. Nonetheless, as it currently stands something smells a little fishy.