5 ms·

> I don't think many Americans understand how 40 years or so of declining agency budgets have hollowed out the staffing of many government agencies. Can you pr

> I don't think many Americans understand how 40 years or so of declining agency budgets have hollowed out the staffing of many government agencies. Can you provide a citation for where you’re getting this data indicating that the USFS budget has been declining over time? Based on the data I found, the USFS budget has increased steadily from 2011-2024 [0]. The 2024 budget was $9.3b [1] versus $5.1b in 2011 [0]. The 2025 budget was cut from 2024, but still higher than the 2020 budget. [0]: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46557 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46557 [1]: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12396 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12396

binoct 2y ago
While that’s a large change, it’s worth keeping in mind more than half the difference is just inflation. $5.1b in 2011 is $7.3b in ‘24
alwa 2y ago
Doesn’t this mainly go to wildfire suppression, and in fact as wildfires have multiplied over that decade, hasn’t the service regularly raided its normal accounts in order to cover its bills for fire prevention and control?
- lazide 2y ago
  Notably, there has never been a sustainable level of fire fighting and forest management funding in the USFS as far as I know. We just didn’t have to care, but now it is starting to catch up with is.
Swizec 2y ago
> The 2024 budget was $9.3b [1] versus $5.1b in 2011 [0] For context: Just keeping up with inflation puts the 2011 budget at $7.1b in 2024. They also claim to have "13 billion dollars contributed to the U.S. economy by visitor spending each year"[2]. Investing $9b into $13b of revenue sounds like a great use of government funds to me. [2] https://www.fs.usda.gov/about-agency/newsroom/by-the-numbers https://www.fs.usda.gov/about-agency/newsroom/by-the-numbers
- sandworm101 2y ago
  >> Investing $9b into $13b of revenue sounds like a great use of government funds No. By math alone, it is a horrible waste. It would be a good investment if those funds generated economic activity resulting 9+b in tax dollars. But this is about parks, not simply stimulating the economy. The value of parks cannot be expressed in dollars.
  - meowster 2y ago
    How many people buy tents, hiking boots, RVs, etc to use at parks?
    - sandworm101 2y ago
      No doubt they spend lots of money, but if net economic activity was quantizable then we wouldn't need to spend tax dollars. We could charge use fees and have the RV producers and hiking boot makers contribute in order to safeguard their business. But parks have value beyond the economic. They are valuable as cultural centerpieces. They define national identity. Without Yellowstone, the US would be less of a country. Without Central Park, New York would not be as iconic a city. These things need to be funded without regard to economic activity. They are beyond math. References to economic activity in relation to parks can be dangerous. Once we see them as engines of economic activity, then we will seek to maximize that activity. A national forest should not be described as a source of timber fees and tourist dollars. Down that road comes drilling for oil in parks, more roads, more hotels and the inevitable conversion of wild fields into condos.
    - surgical_fire 2y ago
      This is so frustrating. Even if it makes financial sense, the fact that we can only quantify a public good in USD (or any other currency) is a tragedy. Not all things have a monetary amount associated to them, but they are still somehow valuable.
      - robertlagrant 2y ago
S201 2y ago
The overall Forest Service budget has indeed been increasing, but it's nearly all going to wildfire fighting. I recently wrote about the state of forest road funding and went in depth on this here: https://ephemeral.cx/2024/09/losing-access-to-the-cascades https://ephemeral.cx/2024/09/losing-access-to-the-cascades > Overall, in 1995 16% of the Forest Service budget was dedicated to wildfires. By 2015 it was 52% and by 2025 it’s projected to be upwards of 67%. Without large amounts of additional funding it is virtually guaranteed that the Forest Service’s budget will continue to be siphoned away by firefighting needs.
- potato3732842 2y ago
  >but it's nearly all going to wildfire fighting i.e. subsidizing states with antiquated "just don't touch it, but also fight every little fire" forest management policy
  - pvaldes 2y ago
    There is a, non trivial, crime factor in most wildfires.
    - potato3732842 2y ago
      There is a non-trivial crime factor in every crisis that provokes a large subset of society to flee. If areas were having small semi-annual fires cleaning out the brush rather than these once per several decades monsters there wouldn't be the need for people to flee and there wouldn't be the same crime impact. And routinely dealing with small fires would make all the organizations involved better practiced when the big ones some around.
      - pvaldes 2y ago
        Those areas would be burning exactly the same as before, starting in 20 places at 4 AM in the most windy night of the year. The criminals just would bring a can of gasoline.
    - 2y ago
ElectronCharge 2y ago
It's hard to imagine how these services are being cut when we're running a $1.8 trillion deficit this year. Clearly the priorities of our current FedGov admin are askew. One hopes things will improve after November 5...
- amanaplanacanal 2y ago
  Unlikely. It's easy to find out where federal spending goes as it is all public. The biggest outlays are for health care, education, and social security and other pensions. I don't hear much call for less spending in any of those areas from people who actually want to be elected.
  - prasadjoglekar 2y ago
    #3 biggest spend is net interest on outstanding debt. https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/federal-spending/ https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/feder...

binoct 2y ago

While that’s a large change, it’s worth keeping in mind more than half the difference is just inflation. $5.1b in 2011 is $7.3b in ‘24

alwa 2y ago

Doesn’t this mainly go to wildfire suppression, and in fact as wildfires have multiplied over that decade, hasn’t the service regularly raided its normal accounts in order to cover its bills for fire prevention and control?

lazide 2y ago
Notably, there has never been a sustainable level of fire fighting and forest management funding in the USFS as far as I know. We just didn’t have to care, but now it is starting to catch up with is.

Swizec 2y ago

> The 2024 budget was $9.3b [1] versus $5.1b in 2011 [0] For context: Just keeping up with inflation puts the 2011 budget at $7.1b in 2024. They also claim to have "13 billion dollars contributed to the U.S. economy by visitor spending each year"[2]. Investing $9b into $13b of revenue sounds like a great use of government funds to me. [2] https://www.fs.usda.gov/about-agency/newsroom/by-the-numbers https://www.fs.usda.gov/about-agency/newsroom/by-the-numbers

sandworm101 2y ago
>> Investing $9b into $13b of revenue sounds like a great use of government funds No. By math alone, it is a horrible waste. It would be a good investment if those funds generated economic activity resulting 9+b in tax dollars. But this is about parks, not simply stimulating the economy. The value of parks cannot be expressed in dollars.
- meowster 2y ago
  How many people buy tents, hiking boots, RVs, etc to use at parks?
  - sandworm101 2y ago
    No doubt they spend lots of money, but if net economic activity was quantizable then we wouldn't need to spend tax dollars. We could charge use fees and have the RV producers and hiking boot makers contribute in order to safeguard their business. But parks have value beyond the economic. They are valuable as cultural centerpieces. They define national identity. Without Yellowstone, the US would be less of a country. Without Central Park, New York would not be as iconic a city. These things need to be funded without regard to economic activity. They are beyond math. References to economic activity in relation to parks can be dangerous. Once we see them as engines of economic activity, then we will seek to maximize that activity. A national forest should not be described as a source of timber fees and tourist dollars. Down that road comes drilling for oil in parks, more roads, more hotels and the inevitable conversion of wild fields into condos.
  - surgical_fire 2y ago
    This is so frustrating. Even if it makes financial sense, the fact that we can only quantify a public good in USD (or any other currency) is a tragedy. Not all things have a monetary amount associated to them, but they are still somehow valuable.
    - robertlagrant 2y ago

S201 2y ago

The overall Forest Service budget has indeed been increasing, but it's nearly all going to wildfire fighting. I recently wrote about the state of forest road funding and went in depth on this here: https://ephemeral.cx/2024/09/losing-access-to-the-cascades https://ephemeral.cx/2024/09/losing-access-to-the-cascades > Overall, in 1995 16% of the Forest Service budget was dedicated to wildfires. By 2015 it was 52% and by 2025 it’s projected to be upwards of 67%. Without large amounts of additional funding it is virtually guaranteed that the Forest Service’s budget will continue to be siphoned away by firefighting needs.

potato3732842 2y ago
>but it's nearly all going to wildfire fighting i.e. subsidizing states with antiquated "just don't touch it, but also fight every little fire" forest management policy
- pvaldes 2y ago
  There is a, non trivial, crime factor in most wildfires.
  - potato3732842 2y ago
    There is a non-trivial crime factor in every crisis that provokes a large subset of society to flee. If areas were having small semi-annual fires cleaning out the brush rather than these once per several decades monsters there wouldn't be the need for people to flee and there wouldn't be the same crime impact. And routinely dealing with small fires would make all the organizations involved better practiced when the big ones some around.
    - pvaldes 2y ago
      Those areas would be burning exactly the same as before, starting in 20 places at 4 AM in the most windy night of the year. The criminals just would bring a can of gasoline.
  - 2y ago

ElectronCharge 2y ago

It's hard to imagine how these services are being cut when we're running a $1.8 trillion deficit this year. Clearly the priorities of our current FedGov admin are askew. One hopes things will improve after November 5...

amanaplanacanal 2y ago
Unlikely. It's easy to find out where federal spending goes as it is all public. The biggest outlays are for health care, education, and social security and other pensions. I don't hear much call for less spending in any of those areas from people who actually want to be elected.
- prasadjoglekar 2y ago
  #3 biggest spend is net interest on outstanding debt. https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/federal-spending/ https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/feder...