Two people whose names are rarely if ever mentioned together will testify about wildfires before Congress Wednesday March 16. Chief of the U.S. Forest Service Randy Moore and singer-songwriter Carole King will appear before the House Oversight and Reform Subcommittee on Environment in a hearing titled “Fighting Fire with Fire: Evaluating the Role of Forest Management in Reducing Catastrophic Wildfires.”
The stated purpose of the hearing is “to examine the urgent need for the federal government to adopt better wildfire preparation measures, and discuss the human toll of wildfires that are becoming larger and more severe due to drought, global warming, and other climate stressors.”
The hearing will discuss several strategies the Forest Service employs to mitigate wildfires including prescribed burns, thinning, and commercial logging, as well as the challenges the Forest Service faces, such as a tight budget and an influential commercial logging industry.
Ms. King is a longtime environmental activist and this will not be her first time on Capitol Hill. On October 15, 2021 she was interviewed on CNN by Brianna Keilar about some of the logging and other environmental provisions that were in one of the infrastructure bills that were before Congress.
The March 16 hearing is scheduled for 10 a.m. ET and should be available live on YouTube, embedded below.
Thanks and a tip of the hat go out to Gerald.
It’s simple.
The agency doesn’t give a f— about you so don’t give a f— about it. Do your time, never volunteer to take on any collateral duties, set boundaries, don’t answer your phone on your days off. If you are a non-exempt employee, it is ILLEGAL for you to be “on a leash”.
Say no, a lot. Enjoy your life and family. If the agency tries to task you with something that would rob your time, say no.
If someone tries to make more work for you just to make their job easier, say no and din’t do it.
Or, go do something else…
Always an option. However I suspect that we will always (fortunately) have people who are not willing to just roll-over, move on and allow those responsible to not be called out and maybe even held accountable. Whining and complaining is the only way many know how to get the word out and it quite often catches the attention of others and leads to changes, not always, but it’s better than just walking away from a career you love and doing nothing. Although there will always be those people.
The way I see it, to do nothing is to be part of the problem. The agency would love it if no one would speak up.
Completely agree. Don’t get me started… I have faced the reality that nothing will change, or if it does it won’t be very effective or for very long.
So, I watched the hearing and that’s 2 hours and 14 minutes that I will never get back!!! The funny thing is after watching it I have to agree with Mr. Walter Carter. “We need Hotshots SUPERVISORs testifying, not environmentalist that have never hand a tool in there hands. Or folks that have lost there love one or Homes”.
I am a climate change expert. I am also an environmentalist, but my hands are just as callused as yours. I have 10+ years experience in fire and 30+ years experience in the environmental field. I have a BS in Meteorology and a MS in Environmental Management. I can also sing in my shower, but that does not make me a professional singer. Please leave the science to the scientists and I’ll promise I’ll never sing on this site! 😉
So, the things I liked in the hearing:
1) When Mr. Moore said (and yes, I’m paraphrasing, because I’m not going to watch it again!!!) that they (FS) were in this mess, because they didn’t have the people to do the job.
2) Mr. Moore mentioned the Climate Change Strategy. Interesting! Mr. Moore, could you please tell me who wrote that (maybe someone who used to be on your Regulatory Team)? 🙂
3) Mr. Moore also mentioned the Forest Plans. Interesting! Mr. Moore, could you please tell me when those were written? When were they updated and by whom? Ummmmmm? 🙂
4) I also liked when Mr. Moore stumbled a little on a question. It showed that he was human. I think he was trying to explain the complexities of how to reduce wildfire, complexities of how to manage the land, I can’t remember. I know I’m usually pretty hard on Mr. Moore, but compared to the other people on the panel, he did a great job.
5) I loved the Native American woman’s passion. I didn’t always agree with what she said, but I learned a lot from her. She opened my eyes to a different perspective.
So, the things I didn’t like:
1) One of the witnesses made a comment that the Forest Service scientists could not be trusted. I took offense, He basically compared us to cigarette companies and lung cancer. Sir, I hope that one day you meet me and you have enough balls to say that to my face.
2) Ms. King did not say nice things about timber companies. What she didn’t seem to understand is that there are 9 regions in the FS and each region is managed differently. In Region 8, timber sales are essential. KV money is essential. It is a way to manage the land (reduce wildfires), as well as, a way to reduce the price of timber, so that the cost of housing is kept low. I know some of y’all are like my house is so expensive, but image how expensive it would be if the government didn’t control the cost of lumber.
3) Ms. King the National Park Service protects the land, the Forest Service manages it. I worked for both NPS and FS and there is a BIG difference.
4) For the guy from Berkley, don’t say you never fought a fire and then tell me how to manage a fire. (And yes Bill I removed all the explicit language from that sentence).
5) Trees! Trees are complicated. Yes, they can be a carbon sinks, but when they get sick or under stress (like being attacked by “those” beetles or don’t have enough water – drought conditions or being too close) they actually burp out ozone, a criteria pollutant.
6) Prescribe burns are not evil!!!
7) The witnesses didn’t seem to understand that there are laws that we have to follow. The New Green Deal is not the first law that deals with Climate Change. It’s not even that great of a law!!!
8) And that guy who talked about his grand kids! Really! People died in these fires and you want to talk about your grandkids!
9) Mr. Hubbert, really, they asked him to speak!?! Man, you got us into this mess, maybe you shouldn’t comment on how to fix it!!! That would be like asking Vickie Christiansen back and asking her how she fixed sexual harassment in the FS.
10) The biggest thing I didn’t like was people who had no idea what they were talking about talking about this problem. AOC please stop talking about things you don’t know about!
11) Oh, we don’t make $60,000. So, I don’t think I’ll be buying a gas or electric car anytime soon!!!
OK. One last thing, Congress, if you have another hearing on Climate Change, maybe you should ask people who have studied it for more than 3 years. Come on! There are people you could have asked from the EPA or maybe even a Climate Change Expert from the FS, NPS or BLM. Just a thought!!!
Climate Change can be managed through…oh my goodness…Management!!! What a concept!!! Peace Out!
Excellent! Thank you for breaking it all down.
I’m not sure how to ever get to the point of where people (even those in fire) understand all of the different complexities involved with land management and how the different agencies attempt to adjust for different ecosystems, regions, climate change, weather, politics, etc. But I am sure that this hearing didn’t help anything.
Stanley, you’re welcome! There were some eye-opening moments, like when the guy was talking about LEIs, but I agree with you this was a very complex topic and I think there should have been more people who could explain the complexities. I also don’t think both sides were represented well. I mean, if you’re going to bash the timber guys, maybe have a guy there who works in timber. I’m with you…I don’t think this hearing helped at all.
People testifying about wildfires who have never been Wildland firefighters- only to be briefed by people who have never been Wildland firefighters. I don’t understand that? Does this agency need to be re-organized?
Agency’s don’t give a damn about the people on the ground. I once thought the local districts cared. Not the case. The only thing they care about is the “biggest voices “. What a load of sh#t.
According to Congress.gov, the last action taken on the “Tim Hart” bill was on 10/19/2021. Still in committee. Certainly appears that there is little concern in the House for addressing the pay issue.
Good point. And in answer to your question, I very vividly remember as an Assistant PAO on a large fire in south zone R5 where I was the recipient of a current chief talking down to, over (interrupting), severe cockiness and general lack of mental dexterity with regards to respect for others. So I personally (and I realize not everyone will have the same opinion so don’t get your panties in a wad) don’t trust his true compassion for the person at the ground level, ulterior motive comes to my mind. I also remember him attempting to push by me (instead of saying “excuse me” and was caught off guard when I didn’t move and stared him down, so I am also quite sure that he has a thin layer of … something, not sure what. But this move DEFINITELY does not surprise me. It is either really stupid and useless or there is another motive. I vote for both.
I think about the CrossFit leadership training which has a statement related to: If a decision you make isn’t clearly understood by the people it impacts, then you have not been leading properly.
“And it’s too late, baby, now it’s too late
Though we really did try to make it…..”
FRESCA
We need Hotshots SUPERVISORs testifying, not environmentalist that have never hand a tool in there hands. Or folks that have lost there love one or Homes
Firmly agree with Walter CARTER.
The validity of people so far removed from actual line work, co-workers injured or killed or, as mentioned, “folks that have lost their loved ones or homes” would make a much stronger and direct link to the issues at hand.
Also, and I can’t put my hands or eyes on it right now, but I saw a paper that showed the difference between an increase in hourly pay for non-permanent employees (i.e. no benefits) vs. providing more substantial benefit packages at an affordable cost. The point was that an increase in pay won’t be able to compensate for the high expense of temporary insurance and even less for any sort of catastrophic injury or illness. Correct me if I am wrong, but a small increase in pay (which will be touted by those at the top as “HUGE”) won’t really solve any retention or financial survival issues will it? Or am I completely off base here? I mean… shouldn’t someone be able to work as a professional wildland firefighter and provide for a family? (within reason of course)
I know, right? It would be like Kanye West testifying before before Congress about voting rights.
I’m stealing that!
> like Kanye West testifying
ZING