Joint Fire Science Program slated to be defunded

What you can do

Joint Fire Science ProgramThe Joint Fire Science Program is slated to be defunded by the Administration in the current budget proposal for FY 2020. If you have thoughts about this, consider signing on to a letter of support by April 8, 2018.

Here is a description of the JFSP:

The Joint Fire Science Program (JFSP) was established in 1998 to provide scientific information and support for wildland fuel and fire management programs. The program is a partnership of six federal agencies; the Forest Service in the Agriculture Department and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Geological Survey, all in the Department of the Interior. JFSP received specific direction from Congress to address four areas: fuels inventory and mapping, evaluation of fuels treatments, scheduling of fuels treatments and development of protocols for monitoring and evaluation.

In 2001, Congress further directed JFSP to expand its research efforts in post-fire rehabilitation and stabilization, local assistance, and aircraft-based remote sensing. Research sponsored by JFSP also examines other fire related issues including air quality, smoke management, and social aspects of fire and fuels management. In short, the purpose of JFSP is to provide wildland fire and fuels information and tools to specialists and managers, helping them to make the best possible decisions and develop sound, scientifically valid plans. The JFSP is managed by an appointed ten-person governing board with five representatives from the Department of Interior and five representatives from the USDA Forest Service. The board meets several times a year and conducts frequent conference calls to discuss program management and issues.

Author: Bill Gabbert

After working full time in wildland fire for 33 years, he continues to learn, and strives to be a Student of Fire. Google+

7 thoughts on “Joint Fire Science Program slated to be defunded”

  1. This President never ceases to amaze me. He says one thing and then changes his mind the next day. I don’t believe he has listened to the experts on the subject of managing Forests in this country.

  2. Why isn’t preventing wildfires just as important as tracking hurricanes & other natural disasters? If they were happening in the northeast you can bet they would be funded! The western US needs protection also!

    1. Exactly Diane. I wonder if a CCC program could be implemented once again. That program did a lot of good back in it’s day. My Grandfather and Father in Law both were CCC ers. Planting and thinning trees,soil erosion work,and bridge building all were the projects of the CCC days. I think much could be accomplished in reducing fuels in the Forests of this country if a program like this were implemented.

  3. I have seen Bureau of land management at work. I think disbanding BLM would be in order. I saw first hand what they were like at burning man. States should manage themselves, under the watchful eye of the feds, protecting individual rights, while protecting public lands. I met Dan Love, the 6’5″ thug in charge of BLM for years. None of his agents interfered with his behavior, and they all pursued his goals, some of them enthusiastically. Less power for agencies. More accountability. Fires are less of a threat to this country’s well being, than oppressive powerful agencies. Shut down un-necessary and misused federal agencies, let local agencies handle local affairs, watched by federal government oversight.

    1. What does this have to do with fire science; take your beef with Love elsewhere, he’s gone. The BLM has other work to do besides babysit burners.

      1. Too much power for federal agencies. I have no beef with Dan Love, he has been fired for corruption and abuse of power. My comment was intended to express that “federal” agencies are less accountable than smaller “state” agencies with federal oversight. As far as “babysitting burners” they, BLM, charge extreme fees for public land use, police it for profit, and frankly, chose to be present, when local jurisdictions were able to handle law enforcement. Why are you so eager to support the feds spending money so freely, is this program ending costing you money personally?

  4. I’m not certain about this expense. Since losing my home and all of our belonging in the paradise Camp fire I don’t think the money was or had been spent effectively. Many many years of over growth that should’ve been cut down never was. I’ve heard it’s because the tree lovers said no. Well, who put them in charge of me & my safety. I should be able to afford to keep my family, home,town AND fellow citizens safe. Most homeowners can’t afford to cut down large trees therefore placing their lives on the line. We were just quoted 12k to cut down and remove just 5 large trees. Twelve thousand dollars! To cut down a tree. That’s highway robbery. I’m not in favor of taking all money away but it needs to be utilized better to keep everyone safe!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *