Pres. Trump Announces USFS HQ Move
The Trump administration just moved forward with a plan to relocate the Forest Service headquarters to Salt Lake City. Naturally, the internet is caught up in the dumbest possible false dichotomy over this. On one hand, you’ll be accused of being a mentally handicapped “panican” if you express any reservation about giving the most anti-public-land—and arguably the most politically corrupt Republican-led state in the nation—more leverage over the Forest Service. On the other, you’ll be painted as the kind of person who’d like the Department of War to drop Roundup from C-17s on every tree in the country and just get it over with if you support it. Neither jab is helping anyone gain clarity though.
What We Know Now
Yes, the USDA is planning to move the Forest Service HQ to Utah, which, to be frank, does suck in some ways because Utah is terrible on public land issues. They’re the worst, and everyone should be more distrustful of their politicians than they currently are. However, Forest Service HQ being in Washington, DC—far away from the National Forests—was always stupid. It arguably should have been placed in Wallace, Idaho, after the Big Burn, but it wasn’t.
Moving agencies like this is always risky. Would you rather they put HQ in Denver or Seattle? Think about what kind of employees that would attract. If you’re a right-winger like we are, you do not want that.
Trump’s Options
Realistically, President Trump is left to choose from Utah, Idaho, Montana, or Wyoming. He chose Utah, which understandably raises some eyebrows. If you are concerned about that, remember that the positions within the USFS are staffed by bureaucrats, not state-level politicians. Mike Lee, of public land and H-1B infamy, does not get to staff the agency of his dreams (which would just be a few bean counters armed with MLS accounts and some sanctioned arsonists) just because the building is located in the state he represents. Yes, Utahans will have more immediate access and more influence, but they can’t make unilateral changes to land management policies.
President Trump could have chosen to put the USFS in Boise, Idaho, or Bozeman, Montana. A lot of people would be happier about that, but the decision to move it to Utah very well may have been a practical one. Think about something as simple as airports. Neither Boise nor Bozeman has anything close to the capability of SLC International Airport. The airport in Bozeman handles about 3 million travelers a year, versus SLC, which sees about 30 million come and go. The two are not comparable. Then you have to factor in things like inclement weather, which Montana is going to see a lot more of than Utah, and on and on. Utah is also more centrally located geographically. Plainly, it makes some sense to put it there. Don’t lose too much sleep over this.
Reorganization
The widely shared HatchMag.com article claims that this is not, as the administration says, an attempt to restructure the agency. Rather, it’s a first step toward the outright destruction of the USFS altogether. Many are calling this a pure fabrication, and it is, sort of, but the Republican Party and members of this cabinet are nakedly anti-public-lands and have made multiple moves to get rid of them. Lawsuits aimed at transfers (sell-offs by a different name) and Lee’s poison pill in the BBB most recently. Hatch is sensationalizing, but they’re not necessarily wrong about the intentions of some of these people.
President Trump, for his role here, is a real estate guy who grew up in New York and is mostly indifferent to public land. Land is just not high on his list of priorities, which is perfectly reasonable given how much is going on in the world and in this country domestically. He delegates this stuff to people he believes can handle it. Whenever you’re irritated at some land policy, bear that in mind and direct your frustration at the correct person.
Personal example: I was asked to participate in some phone meetings with people right at the top of an agency who are working on land policy goals. They were polite, professional, and well-meaning, but they did have some ideas that would be disastrous for ecosystems in the Mountain West. I told them what I thought, and they must have taken it into consideration because we haven’t seen those plans put into effect. I’m adding that anecdote to show that this administration has a lot of receptive people in it too. They’re not all a bunch of scumbags who hate everything you love, like many online want you to believe. Only a few are like that.
The USFS needs changes. Maybe this plan will bring welcome improvement and faster reaction times for people and businesses that operate on National Forests. Maybe it won’t—we’ll have to wait and see.
As for the science piece of all this, we have a lot more to say, but we want to talk to friends in academia who work in this field before we comment much on that part. But we don’t need another “Queering Our Streams” scientific paper funded by the taxpayer—that much I know. Science is important. The United States has the best wildlife management and science in the world. It is suffering under some decisions that have been made, but it’s not going away because the USFS HQ moved to Utah or because President Trump is changing the current structure of the bureau. Take a deep breath, and reduce time spent monitoring the situation on this one. We’re going to make it.
There will be a Part 2 to this, but unfortunately Substack doesn’t make enough money to dedicate to it full-time, so I’ve got to go back to work. Subscribers are greatly appreciated. Thank you all. The first episode of the public land history show should be finished soon. Excited to get that out to you guys. Thank you for your time, and a blessed Pascha to our Orthodox brethren.