6 ms·
US Forest Service firings decimate already understaffed agency
- gibbitz 2y agoThis has me thinking of graduating from an Art Masters program at the start of the Bush administration to find only 300 professorships available to some 30k applicants. I am a software developer now paying for my Arts education still, 23 years later. It's funny how the politicians say they're going to create jobs but usually due to their policies, jobs evaporate. When will we call bullshit on these claims? FDR understood that the only way for a government to create jobs was to hire people. Neo-liberal conservatives love magic thinking like creating jobs through giving money to the rich when just hiring poor people with that money is more efficient (and obvious).
- actionfromafar 2y agoThe neo-libs were wrong, but the neocons aren't doing this. This new breed of grifters only pay lip service to the neocon agenda. This time, it's about controlling from the top and cutting the tree of Liberty.
- onemoresoop 2y agoWhy were they wrong?
- actionfromafar 2y agoBecause you need gov regulation stepping in for some things. Behold the least bang-for-buck health system in the world.
- toss1 2y agoBecause while capitalism and "free markets" are excellent for solving some problems such as dynamic resource allocation, they are not only terrible at solving other problems, they actively make them worse. Start with any issue related to a commons — a "free market" will ALWAYS turn it into a Tragedy Of The Commons, literally destroying the thing that was most valued. Plus, the entire concept of a "Free Market" is nonsense. No markets are ever completely free — there are ALWAYS regulations, whether codified or informal, enforced by official agents or vigilantes, and penalties for violating those regulations. The arguments are only about what are the regulations (and really, who the regulations are designed to benefit). Capitalism & "Free Markets" are also extremely bad at providing for all members of society when they encounter accident, hardship, illness, or infirmity. Ultimately, overly free markets result in extremely unequal and unproductive societies, where a few people hoard approximately all the wealth and the rest of the population is barely functional. Fundamentally, all these types of theories are wrong because they assume a baseline of the benefits of a well-regulated society, with a social safety net. They assume their "free market interventions" will result in only improvements, when the actual result will be a highly stratified, mostly poor, and dysfunctional society. The remarkable thing about history is not only that we had great minds like Newton and Einstein, but how many similar-caliber minds lived their lives in subsistence mode — those "neo-xyz theories" ultimately ensure that 99.9% of all Newtons and Einsteins will never have a chance to achieve anything. [edit: cull stray words]
- psadauskas 2y agoA bit of a quibble, since you seem to be equating Capitalism with "free markets" (but you put free markets in quotes, so perhaps you're intending sarcasm). In any case, for others reading: A "market" is any place people come to exchange goods and services, and seems to be a sociological Truth. They appear in nearly every society, going back thousands of years, even before written history. A "free market" is an academic ideal, where every actor in the market is perfectly rational, has complete information, and is not under any sort of coercion. This is, of course, impossible to achieve in practice, similar to solving a high school physics problem and ignoring friction. Capitalism, then, is a tool for exploiting those imperfections for your own gain. Using your wealth or power to coerce others, acting on hidden information, preying on peoples' insecurities through advertising, and so on. Capitalism is explicitly opposed to a free market, and continuously tries to undermine it, for the benefit of the wealthy and powerful. The role of democratically-elected governments should be to represent the peoples' interests in the market, in opposition to the elites. Like you said, through regulations to protect the commons, prevent monopolies and other exploitation, and so on. The dilemma is that a weak government allows corporations and the wealthy to do whatever they want, and is powerless to stop it. A strong government can stop or slow their influence temporarily, but is also a jucier target for corruption. I don't know how we get to that, though. We've now had two generations awash in propaganda, that the free market is good and capitalism is synonymous with the free market, and that any problems you're facing aren't the fault of the wealthy and powerful, but are because of the minorities that can't defend themselves.
- soco 2y agoI'm confused, what are neo-liberal conservatives?
- tomrod 2y agoNeocons is the more common phrasing. Chicago school economics style policy (eg Milton Friedman), use of military force to police world, etc.
- stop50 2y agoThe theory expresses by an slim state that does only a few things, but does not interfere with businesses. "Trickle-down" is one "theory" of theirs: if you give money to the rich, directly or reducing taxes, the money lands in the end at the poor, but this "theory" has been disproven so often that you can't call it a theory anymore.
- tomrod 2y agoMy take is that the largest beneficiaries from the neocon era evolved into the network state oligarchs.
- mapt 2y ago"Neoliberalism" is Reaganomics, a series of beliefs about the world: * The government is generally the problem [with our economy], not the solution to our [economic] problems. * Low taxes, low regulation, and low barriers to trade favor positive-sum economic development. * The market will perform most regulatory tasks for us out of enlightened self interest. * Ricardian specialization in international trade is to the benefit of all. * Money made by the wealthy will trickle down to everyone else's quality of life. * The Laffer Curve is self evident and we are self-evidently always on the right side of it; Cutting taxes will increase receipts. Conservatism is highly compatible with this worldview, but it was embraced by liberals as well after the country re-elected Reagan in a landslide. Clinton's "Third Way" portrayed itself as an alternative to traditional Republican and Democratic concerns that was socially progressive but promoted a slightly softened version of this economic theory. Some version of or equivalent to the Third Way has basically been in control of the Democratic party ever since due to its superior ability to fundraise for campaigns, due to the slow death of the labor movement, and due to the death of the dream of international communism among fringe intellectuals. In an attempt to differentiate itself, conservatives tilted hard, hard right on social politics (if not always policy), and brought the economic policies to an extreme that would have been nonsensical a generation earlier. Most people who didn't spend the last two or three decades living off of returns on their investments, have been frustrated with the failed promises of neoliberalism, and it is losing traction with liberals; Or rather, [neo]liberals are losing traction with the electorate.
- actionfromafar 2y agoTrusk going like a wildfire.
- clumsysmurf 2y agoDon't need Forest Service if you plan on selling the Forests ... "Trump Quietly Plans To Liquidate Public Lands To Finance His Sovereign Wealth Fund" https://www.americanprogress.org/article/trump-quietly-plans-to-liquidate-public-lands-to-finance-his-sovereign-wealth-fund/ https://www.americanprogress.org/article/trump-quietly-plans...
- actionfromafar 2y agoA firesale, would you say. :)
- citrin_ru 2y agoThe US is lacky to keep large forests on public lands (unlike the UK and many EU coutnries). When most of the land is privately owned it's etremely difficuls to reverse deforestation.
- api 2y ago... which in turn could be invested in his and his cronies' ventures, then carried away to private enclaves in the Middle East and elsewhere. The country is being outright looted. Also in what universe does it make sense for a country with both a trade deficit and a large domestic spending deficit to have a sovereign wealth fund? A sovereign wealth fund makes sense for countries with large fiscal surpluses.
- kylehotchkiss 2y agoIn a more fair world, states would buy this land and keep it as parks (and find their own ways to make revenue from campsites etc)
- fuzzfactor 2y agoAccording to recent executive orders, it looks like there are plans to sell to overseas interests, but only those who would be able to pay much more than states or domestic entities. Seems like Trump is setting himself up to sell to the highest bidder on a case-by-case basis, according to which foreign parties he likes at the time, with no opportunity at all for any that make him whine.
- hjgjhyuhy 2y agoI doubt the billionaire tech bros now controlling the US mind forest fires, and loss of natural habitats. They want the country to collapse, so they can build their own network states. https://youtu.be/5RpPTRcz1no https://youtu.be/5RpPTRcz1no
- nec4b 2y agoWhich tech bros? Aren't most tech companies owners against current administration? Hardly anyone donated to the Trump campaign in the elections.
- rozap 2y agoWhat?
- petre 2y agoMaybe they'll mind when their house burns down and their insurance policy goes up.
- gryfft 2y agoTheir "house"? Their ""insurance policy""? Do you know what a billionaire *is*?
- drweevil 2y agoThis x 1000. This is one of the cognitive problems we're facing. All too many people think that these billionaires are like the rest of us, just with a bit more money. These people do not experience the world as we do. At all. And they do not care how we do. We are mere counter ants to them. In their quest for more "efficiency" (i.e. becoming even more wealthy, faster) they don't gaf how many lives and careers they destroy.
- tasuki 2y ago> All too many people think that these billionaires are like the rest of us, just with a bit more money. Hey, I think that! > These people do not experience the world as we do. They have the same senses: sight, hearing, smell, touch, ... They're subject to the same problems as all us: mental problems, health issues, death, ... Yes, having infinite money can solve quite a few problems, but it also introduces new ones! > And they do not care how we do. We are mere counter ants to them. I'm sure some don't. And I'm also sure others do. It's disingenious to put all billionaires in the same bucket.
- rtp4me 2y agoWhile I recognize these are federal lands, I wonder if the states will pick up the slack to keep the parks open. In the end, Trump wants the states to do more with less federal government involvement, thus, I am not surprised at the force reduction. And, the layoffs seem to be happening for a while now (way before Trump).
- relaxing 2y agoStates can’t just take over Federal land. That’s like saying Microsoft is going to step in and keep Google Hangouts running.
- rtp4me 2y agoYes, I understand. But, why can’t states help provide funding for the people who take care of the land? The states wouldn’t take over the land, just help maintain it. Volunteers, non-profits, etc could certainly help out here.
- post-it 2y agoThe feds aren't just going to let the land sit unbothered. They're going to sell it off and/or allow resource extraction. Nothing a non-profit can prevent.
- relaxing 2y agoSo Bill says “We’re not taking over Hangouts, we’ll just fund enough FTEs to take care of it.” Think Sundar says yes?
- insane_dreamer 2y ago> if the states will pick up the slack to keep the parks open maybe so, but then states have to raise taxes to pay for it the fed gov gets to say "look at all the money we saved you"!! (actually they're putting the savings to border security, but anyway), but in the end taxpayers don't actually pay any less that's besides the fact that these are federal lands, not state lands; and that centralized management is generally more cost effective
- nxobject 2y agoA great loss to the outdoors industry, and anyone who cares about being able to escape civilization and enjoy communing with the nature we have left. America will never have "right to roam" that European countries have, but National Forests and other BLM lands that let you pitch anywhere are a workable substitute.
- technothrasher 2y agoThere is actually no trespass law in Massachusetts for unimproved land, even if posted with signs. So we theoretically have "freedom to roam" in wilderness areas, even if privately owned. However, nobody I've ever talked to seems to know this, including various police officers, and so there seems to be a 'folk law' understanding that you cannot freely roam in such places.
- dTal 2y agoSide note: Call me a treehugger but the use of the word "unimproved" to refer to the last remaining shreds of wildlife not yet paved over and replaced with Starbucks strikes me as the most dystopian fucking shit.
- fragmede 2y agoYeah, I'd call it unspoiled or pristine instead of unimproved.
- nkurz 2y agoCan you point to a source for your belief? Maybe I'm misinterpreting you, but it seems legally improbable.
- noahjk 2y agoThe large swaths of seldom-used private land in the US really grind my gears. It’s the perfect example of the “I’ve got mine” mentality that a lot of Americans have. Visiting Europe, where most private land has access ways (and I believe laws regarding shared use, in some cases) gives feelings of respect towards both neighbors and the earth, which should (in my and woodie guthrie’s opinion, at least) be a shared experience. I’m not sure if it’s at all related to the first point, but in America, it would probably be more common for visitors (or ‘trespassers’) to leave someone else’s land worse than they found it (when compared to the shared respect generally found in Europe). Speaking in broad strokes, of course.
- lenerdenator 2y agoThe behavior of gutting major institutions for profit will continue until a negative stimulus is introduced.
- fuzzfactor 2y agoThis is the USDA. If it gets out-of-hand very much further, the appropriate stimulus would be thousands of farmers descending upon Washington with pitchforks in hand.
- lenerdenator 2y agoHopefully saner minds prevail before that happens. I mean I'm not confident they will, but it'd be nice.
- mrguyorama 2y agoThe farmers voted for this AFTER Trump's first term left them fucked from retaliatory tariffs.
- coldtea 2y ago[flagged]
- 510_ANT_75 2y ago[flagged]
- refurb 2y agoI mean this is a quote from the person fired. I’d say the same thing about my job if I were fired but honestly nobody would probably notice after a bit.
- chasd00 2y agoThat’s from someone who was let go. Not exactly an unbiased source.
- coldtea 2y ago>Did you read the article? Yes, doesn't mean the laments of some third party organization (Reynold's) are gospel
- rtp4me 2y agoAccording to the article, “the administration maintains they have not fired positions essential to public safety”. I guess it depends on whose viewpoint is used to determine public safety.
- orwin 2y agoMy pet theory is that US 'unknown' federal land (i.e not Yosemite park) will be sold to special interest groups to pay for new tax cut on land ownership. [Edit] polymarket bet on if federal land will be sold/auctionned within 2 years? Anyone?
- Clubber 2y agoI recall Trump suggested in his last term that he could sell federal land to pay off the debt. There's a whole lot of federally owned land out there. 600 million acres or around 27% of all US land. https://ballotpedia.org/Federal_land_ownership_by_state https://ballotpedia.org/Federal_land_ownership_by_state
- iseeapattern 2y agopeople like to disguise false accusations under "pet theories" and "predictions"
- orwin 2y agoIt's very much not a "false" accusation, it is an real accusation and i'm not hiding it? Unless i misunderstood english (which is very much possible), saying "my pet theory" is equivalent to saying "i'm inclined to believe", i.e not a belief i hold strongly, but a belief nonetheless? I don't see what is hidden, is it how i turned my sentence that bothered you? Was it bad english (which is totally possible, i'm not a native speaker)? Or you disagreed with it, and you chose to do moral criticism rather than criticize the logic?
- Amezarak 2y ago> to pay for new tax cut on land ownership. There is no federal tax on land.
- prawn 2y agoI don't think it will prevent this from happening, but one interesting thing is that two quite different (political) sides appreciate and make use of BLM land. The US does a pretty decent job of accommodating quite disparate groups: dedicated off-road vehicle areas, stocking lakes, campgrounds, boondocking, hunting, hiking trails, preserving habitat, etc.
- ourmandave 2y agoTrump 1.0 was the guy who was applauded by the useful idiots for donating part of his presidential salary to the Parks Service ($78K). All while proposing to cut the Interior Dept budget by $1.5B. https://www.npr.org/2017/04/04/522518472/trump-donates-salary-to-national-parks-even-as-he-tries-to-cut-interior-departme https://www.npr.org/2017/04/04/522518472/trump-donates-salar...
- ada1981 2y agoTree Spiking: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_spiking https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_spiking
- broof 2y ago10% of the force is not a small number but it’s also not a decimation.
- grantmuller 2y agoActually it’s quite literally a decimation, if you know the root of the word.
- pjmorris 2y agoTo be pedantic (and technically correct), "n the military of ancient Rome, decimation (from Latin decimatio 'removal of a tenth'[1]) was a form of military discipline in which every tenth man in a group was executed by members of his cohort." [0] So, a 10% cut fits the definition. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimation_(punishment) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimation_(punishment)
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- kcoddington 2y agoThat's actually a classic definition of the word. Hence the deci- prefix.
- t43562 2y agoReally? Decimation is the practise of killing every 10th soldier in a group as a punishment. 10% IS that
- robertlagrant 2y agoI think all these identical comments need to take into account reality - most people reading that will not think "oh, so a 10% reduction, then". It's technically correct, and probably chosen to motte and bailey both interpretations, but it's obviously misleading.
- t43562 2y agoIt depends. A 10% reduction in GDP, as an example, would result in great misery. A 10% staff reduction on an already understaffed organisation probably has a very great impact. The damage is probably being expressed very well
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- chmorgan_ 2y agoHeadline is misleading. Quote from the article: "some 3,400 workers who had been targeted for layoffs — an estimated 10 percent of the workforce" 10% doesn't meet the traditional usage of the term 'decimate' (as few use the term only when it meets the dictionary definition).
- xbmcuser 2y agoI sometimes wonder if Americans realize what is going on they are borrowing $1 to grow the economy $0.80 and from that $0.75 goes to the top 1%. So 99% of the remaining citizen are borrowing $0.99 to get $0.05. Now a lot of the money that has been borrowed was from the 1% and they realize that rest of the 99% cant pay them back so now they will take over your countries assets at cents to the dollar all the while spouting how capitalism is a good thing.
- pjc50 2y agoMuch of the borrowing grows the economy by more than one dollar - it has positive ROI for the society as a whole. Which is why cutting it is so destructive. They're going to Liz Truss the US Federal budget, and it's going to be extremely bad for a wide swathe of the middle classes via the financial markets.
- actionfromafar 2y agoAaaand its off the front page. Back to talking about some Steam game.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- insane_dreamer 2y ago/active is the only way to roll these days
- ethagknight 2y agoAccording to the article, USFS was a managerial disaster that sorely needed an overhead reduction to meet budget. Sad to see the 10% lose there jobs.
- text0404 2y agowhere are you getting that? it says the agency is chronically underfunded and therefore understaffed and lacking necessary resources, not mismanaged. that would indicate that it should receive more resources/budget, not less.
- whamlastxmas 2y agoUnderfunded by what metric? We have forests and can access them in the US. It seems to be working as far as I can tell.
- jacobjjacob 2y agoMany seasonal campgrounds never open due to lack of staffing. Fire risk can’t be sufficiently managed and creates massive fuel buildups. Illegal dumping at the edges of the national forests is also a big problem that they can’t keep up with, as well as preventing other illegal activities like poaching or unlawful harvesting of resourceg.
- 93po 2y agothe US forest services has a budget of 9 BILLION dollars a year. in 2023 less than a billion of that was salaries. if they're understaffed it's entirely a management problem, not a funding problem. especially because in 2024 they got a $500 million increase to this, bringing it to $1.4 billion, nearly the entirety of which was justified under hiring firefighters. the US forest services also maintains forests in over 80 countries. why are we spending money there? i don't understand why they don't focus on keeping their employees if its such a devastating loss of goodwill and loyalty and expertise. their 10% reduction in workforce saved them 1.5% of their total budget. they really can't save 1.5% somewhere else?
- Nimitz14 2y agoNot in support of the firings but > tribal relations specialist ???
- thehoff 2y agoFrom the USDA----- The Office of Tribal Relations (OTR) serves as a single point of contact for Tribal issues and works to ensure that relevant programs and policies are efficient, easy to understand, accessible, and developed in consultation with the American Indians and Alaska Native constituents they impact. From Forest Service----- Tribal Relations Specialists play a critical role in the government-to-government trust responsibility that is crucial to the health and sustainability of many of our nation’s most treasured landscapes. They serve as the point of contact for American Indian Tribes; work with Tribal Councils, Tribal Leaders, and officials of other agencies; and serve as partnership coordinators for programs involving collaboration and consultation with American Indian Tribes.
- dariusj18 2y agoOne of the most important jobs in an institution is knowing things. "Who do I talk to about ...?", "Why is X like this?"
- snowwrestler 2y agoNative American tribes are legal entities with their own property rights that look somewhat like sovereign inholdings within the borders of the U.S. Some of their land borders U.S. Forest land, so there is a need to coordinate. They also rely on some centralized services of the Forest Service, like fire fighting, that they struggle to capably provide by themselves.
- singleshot_ 2y agoSeems like you would need to learn a little more if you wanted to decide to terminate that role. (Sounds familiar?)
- jfengel 2y agoI appreciate you asking. Too many people seem to say, "Here's a budget item I don't understand. Therefore it must be fraud, waste, and/or abuse".
- EfficientDude 2y ago[dead]
- rainsford 2y agoThere are a couple of comments here dismissing firing 10% of the workforce as not all that impactful, but they're missing some important context. Despite the common "wisdom" that the federal government is universally bloated, there's little evidence to suggest the forest service has an excessive number of employees given the size of their job. For context they're less than half the size of Facebook, and my non-expert hot take is that managing all that federal land sounds like the more complicated and labor intensive job. If they were running pretty lean already, firing 10% of the workforce could potentially result in job functions with no one to do them, and that goes downhill pretty fast. The firings were also exclusively focused on firing new employees, regardless of role or performance, simply because they were easy to fire. That makes the forest service (and every other federal agency) as unattractive employer, which will make it much harder to recruit new employees as people naturally retire or leave. That 10% reduction is going to snowball into a larger number over time, even if more people don't get fired, which I suspect they will. Less important but worth noting is that while the stated goal is to "drain the DC deep state swamp" or whatever, what that apparently really translates into is firing forest service employees, who are spread out all over the country and not what most people think of when it comes to "the deep state". In the name of fighting the bureaucratic boogeyman, they're hurting people like this.
- whamlastxmas 2y agoI think part of the argument on the other side is that if the forest service better managed its finances and revenues they wouldn’t have to lay people off. I am positive there is a way they could have kept those employees but they (possibly correctly) prioritized spending elsewhere
- jacobjjacob 2y agoAFAIK, this affected probationary employees of all or most agencies. So I’m not sure how this argument makes sense as something the Forest Service did wrong or could have prevented. Also, the government should be efficient but shouldn’t be required to break even or profit… it’s a public good.
- stvltvs 2y ago
- insane_dreamer 2y agoOne thing people don't realize is how little these USFS, NP, BLM etc. workers are paid. These are not "fat cats" in DC. Wages are very low. But they're willing to accept the low pay because they care about that what they're doing makes it possible for our country to enjoy our beautiful nature. (Not saying every single person, but this is the prevailing sentiment.) The little money that we as a country are saving (and we're not actually saving any money, it's being redirected to a large border security budget) is by no means conmensurate with the large amount of damage we are doing long term. But if all you care about is extracting natural resources from our environment, then the USFS, BLM etc. are just a thorn in your side.