r/Wildfire • u/smokejumperbro USFS • Feb 06 '25
News (General) Sens. Padilla, Sheehy propose new wildfire agency
https://www.semafor.com/article/02/06/2025/sens-padilla-sheehy-propose-new-wildfire-agencyHere we go folks
43
u/sporksable Locate Coffee Establish Seat Feb 06 '25
I know Sheehy is...well, Sheehy (although he is a WFPPA cosponsor), but Padilla has always been in our corner. This is a good first step to seeing how a consolidation would work and if it's truly viable.
I'm not particularly high on it still being housed in DOI, but that's something that can be worked around, especially with the firepower that comes with a senate confirmed head.
Tl;dr, yay.
29
Feb 06 '25
[deleted]
25
u/sporksable Locate Coffee Establish Seat Feb 06 '25
Honestly Forest Service should probably be brought under DOI but that's not a hill I'm going to die on.
I just hate the fact that you have two sets of employees doing the same job, on the same fires, oftentimes in the same offices, and having to follow two separate sets of policies.
I shouldn't have to have two different email addresses on two separate computers with two separate wired networks just to basically do my job.
10
Feb 06 '25
[deleted]
9
u/Orcacub Feb 06 '25
The bill only consolidates the fire programs. Not the entire agencies. Despite what some folks think, the agencies do a lot more than fight fire.
3
Feb 07 '25
[deleted]
2
u/Orcacub Feb 07 '25
I think it’s not so much about where to station folks or who sleeps/works where. I think it’s more about who’s in charge of who, and what are the prioritized objectives at the agency level, and who’s actually qualified to supervise and manage firefighters/firefighting at high levels. Too many line officers and their close underlings have no- zero- zilch- nada fire experience these days. They get hired with none and are expected to manage/lead/set objectives/priorities for fire programs that are as complex if not the most complex, in the agency. If fire is not done right people die. If botany/wildlife/Rec./timber isn’t done right the agency gets sued, and loses or wins, but nobody dies.
3
u/hartfordsucks Rage Against the (Green) Machine Feb 07 '25
"USFS Chief Randy Moore retires today, Dec. 20, 2026, as the last remaining USFS employee. Having finally reached his goal of completely destroying the USFS, he retires an accomplished man."
93
u/smokejumperbro USFS Feb 06 '25
No matter how you feel, the USDA/DOI have let down firefighters and the country.
I read NFFE's write-up and it was obvious the USFS and DOI and violating OPM policies to screw firefighters over. All the money that Congress handed out during the Biden administration for mental health and well-being never turned into a single actionable program for firefighters on the ground.
They couldn't even say we had elevated cancer risks, so the DOL stepped up without them and offered cancer coverage.
Can't wait to get out from under the line officers that can't relate to our jobs or pay in any way.
17
u/Darth_Ra Dirty COMT Feb 06 '25
This is how we got here, though.
"The status quo doesn't work, let's blow it all up!"
Sure. But when it all gets blown up and you don't have the things that "it" does anymore, what now?
11
u/Logical-Associate729 Feb 06 '25
They are going to privatize as much as they can. Hope you want to work for Grayback!
11
u/Darth_Ra Dirty COMT Feb 06 '25
If you think you're feeling iffy about this as a firefighter, as a support guy for firefighters, I can tell you I am spinning with what this might mean if it happens.
10
u/Logical-Associate729 Feb 06 '25
It boggles my mind that anyone in a union would have voted for these oligarchs.
5
u/Logical-Associate729 Feb 06 '25
Trump just said it last week, the goal is to privatize as much as possible.
9
7
Feb 06 '25
What do you think this means for duty locations? Just hypothetical right now obviously but do you think this would move USDA people out of their current locations.
5
u/BigSpoon89 Fire Ecologist Feb 06 '25
Probably not. Agencies share real estate now they'll just continue to do it then. Your engine bay at your local FS ranger station will just now be under a different agency.
2
Feb 07 '25
So this could mean one of two things for me: the front desk lady can no longer throw my shit out that’s in common areas of our shop that’s miles away from the office that she works in or it’s ops normal. I’d guess it’s ops normal. Kill the bill.
8
Feb 06 '25
I imagine it would be a years long process. Probably long enough to be moth balled by the next administration. But, if it happened, the responsible thing to do would to initially consolidate to jump/tanker/rappel bases. The agencies won’t be keen on just handing over real estate but places like Gifford Pinchot and the Oregon coast would just shed the fire staff and refocus on resources. Then an investigation to ensure these super bases are where they are still needed most. A handcrew leaving any particular jump base in the northwest can still rival a current response time.
4
Feb 06 '25
Interesting thought I really like it. And as far as other parts of the country go maybe utilizing different bases in region would work as well. Perfectly good base in northern Utah. It would also be sweet to start certifying other resources in operations particularly hotshot crews. Adding repel capability to a 25 person crew would be an excellent idea.
5
Feb 06 '25
I mean, your heads in the right place…if you hire more rappellers and use more Type 1s it would have the same result. It’s all theoretical, but like working for the FS now, everyone has access to leadership classes and cert taskbooks. It would be a very similar vibe and logistics as it is now (handcrews piecing out folks for engine assignments, jumpers taking crewboss for reg roles, etc).
9
u/trinitytreetime Feb 06 '25
Gonna be interesting if they are able to push it through, a lot of little issues will have to be addressed. If they don't maintain housing my forest/local area will basically be unstaffed.
15
u/ZonaDesertRat Feb 06 '25
Cause FMOs and the type have never screwed anyone over??? Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. I've seen it far too often, folks you thought would never turn on "the brotherhood" do a 180 the min they get into management. While I despise them for doing it, I also know that it is how it is... Management is always, ALWAYS there to protect the agency, not the worker!
20
u/smokejumperbro USFS Feb 06 '25
Feels like you're making a false equivalence. "Well these guys are bad too!"
Most FMOs are great and we can't get bad individuals out completely. But currently we have a bad SYSTEM. And that system needs to be changed.
15
u/Darth_Ra Dirty COMT Feb 06 '25
I don't think that anyone disagrees with that, but trusting this administration to create a new agency with the well-being of federal workers and firefighters at its heart?
That's... a shot in the dark, to put it mildly.
4
7
u/retardanted Feb 06 '25
The current system in which no one is motivated to move above FMO to district ranger because they would be changing out of fire retirement, but must be overseen (and increasingly so) by these people in upper management is not good. Basically no one works any serious amount of time in fire makes it to those high level positions in the USFS and DOI. But now the USFS puts these folks with no fire experience in charge of fire hire and are the AAs telling teams how to manage fire
1
u/hartfordsucks Rage Against the (Green) Machine Feb 07 '25
Basically no one works any serious amount of time in fire makes it to those high level positions in the USFS and DOI. But now the USFS puts these folks with no fire experience in charge of fire hire and are the AAs telling teams how to manage fire.
Bingo. USFS is tasked with managing wildfires but none of the real "decision makers" have any real fire experience.
1
u/Fetterflier Feb 07 '25
Once you hit 20 years in federal fire as a perm, don't you basically just switch over to regular FERS after that anyway?
46
u/BigSpoon89 Fire Ecologist Feb 06 '25 edited Feb 06 '25
I've internally debated this idea for years and I still haven't convinced myself it's a good idea. I think there's obvious pros to having a dedicated unified Federal wildfire agency from a staffing and training perspective, but I'm concerned about the need to use fire resources in our efforts to expand RX fire and managed fire use on federal lands.
Anybody who has watched CalFire try to do anything besides suppression knows where I'm coming from. It's like pulling teeth to get them to do RX burns that aren't grass. The suppression side just does not care about the Forestry and land management side of CalFire. I fear taking away fire resources from NPS/FS/FWS means that when they need resources to do burning there will be crickets.
Anyway, I'm open to hearing the details before passing judgement. I just hope it includes thoughtful consideration of prevention and fire-use or it won't be worth it.
1
u/BigWhiteDog Feb 06 '25
Not sure where you get Cal Fire only doing grass. Not even close to true. And the suppression side is the one actually doing the burns under direction of the Foresters. I know because I did them. We do care about land management, it's the public and the courts that are more a problem, because the public sees the feds losing control and burning homes.
6
u/BigSpoon89 Fire Ecologist Feb 06 '25
Not sure where you get Cal Fire only doing grass.
I get that by looking at the #'s they report for RX acres burned and compare it to how much of it is in what fuel type. They burn mostly grass or savannah. Sure, they do cover a lot more of that fuel type, but when opportunities show up to burn forest they play coy every time. They'd rather take the easier acres when given the opportunity.
CalFire will RX burn forest fuel types but only if you pull their teeth and guilt them into it. See their relationship with State Parks.
Jackson, Mountain Home, and the other state demonstration forests are the exception, because it's CalFire managed.
2
u/BigWhiteDog Feb 06 '25
Most of the forest in this state is federal and all but the state parks and forests are private. Can't burn what the owners don't want burned. And almost all the burns around here are brush lands.
8
u/bigdoor5 Feb 06 '25
Agreed. Calfire’s domain is usually much closer to population centers than the feds so they have much tighter operating windows/standards. But they aren’t perfect, I heard some pretty heinous things about burning the Jackson forest last year.
Cal state parks does a real good job with burns. Didn’t they do like over 1000ac at Calaveras in 2024?
7
u/BigSpoon89 Fire Ecologist Feb 06 '25
The Calaveras South Grove RX last year is exactly what I have in mind when I say I'm worried about so much distance between the resource staff and fire. CalFire stonewalled State Parks about that burn for years. It should've happened years ago. Finally, State Parks said we're doing this with or without you and signed direct agreements with the Stanislaus and Sequoia-Kings Canyon to have them supply resources. Told the local CalFire unit that you can show up if you want but we're doing this anyway. The local unit did show up but that burn didn't happen because of CalFire.
6
2
u/BigWhiteDog Feb 06 '25
Cal Fire usually does the state parks burns with the supervision of SP folks. I don't think I heard about Jackson Forest issues (my sisters run competition trail rides there a lot so I may have and forgot), what happened?
1
u/logwebkra Advanced Hiding Tactics Feb 07 '25
Not true, CA State Parks has their own burn program.
1
0
u/Chocolate_Onions Feb 07 '25 edited Feb 07 '25
Stop using in-line T's on timber fires and maybe people will take you more seriously in that fuel type.
0
u/BigWhiteDog Feb 07 '25
WTF are you blathering about?
0
u/BigWhiteDog Feb 07 '25
Btw, are you talking about the Tees that are called "Forestry Tees" and were invented by the USFS? Those tees? 🤣
1
18
u/modularpeak2552 Feb 06 '25
It’s a good idea on the surface, but I’m skeptical of sheehys reasoning since he owns an aerial firefighting contractor(yes I know He technically resigned as ceo but still)
3
15
u/Speaker Feb 06 '25
I think this is a great idea. DOI already has the blueprint with AFS.
12
u/sporksable Locate Coffee Establish Seat Feb 06 '25
There are some particularities with Alaska that makes AFS work the way it does, but I think its a viable starting point.
The thing that would take the most getting used to would be the whole two track fire management process. A jurisdiction FMO who manages the land in relation to fire and the suppression FMO who executes the wishes of the land manager.
3
13
u/hunglikearomanstatue Feb 06 '25
Imagine that that you are a venture capitalist and you combine two businesses. Eliminate middle management. Make fewer workers do more work. Contract the rest out. Give the public a poorer product.
8
Feb 06 '25
Maybe under such organization forestry technicians will finally be able to call themselves firefighters.
7
u/Darth_Ra Dirty COMT Feb 06 '25
Nah, central issue still exists that you'd have to pay and cover them as fire fighters.
7
7
u/EducationalCollar679 Feb 06 '25
Maybe a new agency is a good way to set a new precedent at the beginning for higher wages. OR, maybe if the agency took off, could hit 'em with a union and refusal to work on day 1 until it is recognized....
6
9
u/BigWhiteDog Feb 06 '25
Sadly anything Tim is involved in is automatically sus, and no it wasn't a bunch of different agencies that made the SoCal fires what they were. That was a bunch of factors, primarily land use and unrestricted home building with no fire hardening on top of weather and climate.
I've thought that something like this at least for the air tanker program was a good idea, as long as they ordered and used new-off-the-factory-floor, purpose-built air tankers over the hodge-podge of used contractor stuff. Sadly the USFS has dicked around way too long after the T130 crash.
The problem with a dedicated new agency is who does RX burns? And what about fires that could be used as vegetation management burns? Does "US Fire" respond then turn it over to say USFS burn crews?
Personally I'd like to see federal fire response here in CA contracted out to Cal Fire but I'm prejudiced! 🤣 🤣 🤣
8
u/JoocyDeadlifts Feb 06 '25
turn it over to say USFS burn crews?
Yeah I feel like this is the inevitable end point, you end up with downsized underpaid or mostly-contract land management agency RX resources and a small core of superbase suppression resources, which is a bit https://xkcd.com/927/ but I guess might not be too bad for me and mine. Iono.
4
u/BigWhiteDog Feb 06 '25
Yessj you know that any centralized fed fire agency won't be put together by actual fire professionals
1
5
u/sporksable Locate Coffee Establish Seat Feb 06 '25
So up in AK (where an agency somewhat similar to this exists) land managers plan fuels projects and they can either execute themselves or ask AFS or the state for assistance.
The fuels management stays with the land manager, but the execution can either be with the manager or assisted by the suppression organization.
But that is a fair point that fuels management responsibilities will 100% have to be negotiated and agreed upon
3
7
u/Due_Investment_7918 Feb 06 '25
I understand a lot of the doubt I’m saying here, but I think this is great news. One of the biggest issues for our cause is that we are caught in a quagmire of agency mismanagement. We’re lumped in with the land management agencies, rarely have admin with fire experience. We’re largely forgotten about and spread thin, or overtly exploited. Then they point to land management and the other goals of the agency to justify it.
A wildfire agency will ALWAYS have a close relationship to land stewardship. They’re intrinsically tied. But let’s skip that-
A centralized agency dedicated to wildfire resources is going to focus largely on wildfire resources. We need to get our most articulate, experienced voices helping to build this from the ground up. Make a stink if we have to. This has the potential to create a path from hotshot supe to agency overhead. Could absolutely change everything if we get involved early and often
7
u/Darth_Ra Dirty COMT Feb 06 '25
While I agree with all of your points...
I just think everything you're saying is beyond naive.
2
u/Due_Investment_7918 Feb 06 '25
I can’t say I agree with you there. I think I would be naive if I was saying “They’re going to give it to us”. What I’m trying to say is this is an opportunity for us to make it happen. This gives us an opportunity to influence each step of the process while they build it. There’s no systemic entrenchment of “this is how we’ve always done it”, because this hasn’t been done before
9
u/LuluGarou11 Feb 06 '25
What a terrible idea. No surprise Sheehy wants to cash in on it. Padilla sounds as naive as it gets.
3
u/coolguy01111 Feb 06 '25
Why so?
6
u/LuluGarou11 Feb 06 '25
This is an attempt for him to privatize firefighting (his personal fortune was built selling military tech as firefighting tech to civilians). It will defund and dismantle the system and replace it with a poorly structured and even more poorly funded model that is designed to fail.
2
u/coolguy01111 Feb 07 '25
Interesting, appreciate the take.
6
u/LuluGarou11 Feb 07 '25
He is a blatant grifter and many others are also concerned with him.
^the twatbag can't even run his own business profitably, how tf is he even in a position to pretend to understand national fire policy priorities when he has demonstrated failure of comprehension vis-a-vis his own business?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/22/montana-tim-sheehy-business-scrutiny-senate-race
The degenerate already thinks wildland firefighters abuse the current system for profit.
Hopefully some food for thought for you and anyone else yet to savvy up to this conman's pattern.
5
u/LuluGarou11 Feb 06 '25
Yeah this is a terrible idea all around and wouldnt be Padillas first big privatization fuck up:
https://calmatters.org/politics/2020/11/biden-firm-california-vote-contract-padilla-yee/
7
u/aqutedge Feb 06 '25
Good news? Bad news? What are people’s thoughts on this
-3
u/Responsible_Bill_513 Feb 06 '25
Two different missions on two different ownership of lands.
Either fully dissolve the USFS or don't.
5
u/sporksable Locate Coffee Establish Seat Feb 06 '25
Why would USFS or any land manager need to be dissolved?
This agency would centralize wildfire suppression, not land management.
2
u/Responsible_Bill_513 Feb 07 '25
If it's suppression only, who's doing the prescribed burning?
1
u/sporksable Locate Coffee Establish Seat Feb 07 '25 edited Feb 07 '25
So in the Alaska model the land managers would still be in charge of planning the fuels projects. For execution, they use either their own agency resources, order in other resources, or contract it out.
This doesn't mean that there are other models that work better, but responsibility for fuels work is something that should and will be talked about if this bill ever passes.
2
u/ChampionTree Feb 06 '25
What… why USFS be dissolved?? It’s a lot more than just a firefighting agency.
1
u/Responsible_Bill_513 Feb 07 '25
56% is the current estimate of the fire budget. Pull the fire budget out of all the forests and they will collapse. The creation of a Wildland fire service will pull all that cash that supports fleet, dispatch, nepa for burning, salaries that are saved from p-codes, I could go on and on.
3
u/Piss_Poor_Heros Feb 06 '25
I wonder how the logistics would work for this. Do I have the same duty location, same desk, same leadership, same equipment, same responsibilities, still be a 0462 but I maybe use a different payment system and different pay codes?
3
10
Feb 06 '25
[deleted]
8
u/BigSpoon89 Fire Ecologist Feb 07 '25
Maybe its a good idea to transfer some federal land to the states in certain places where it makes sense
No, it's not a good idea. It does not make sense any way you shine a light on it.
1
u/hartfordsucks Rage Against the (Green) Machine Feb 07 '25
Maybe its a good idea to transfer some federal land to the states in certain places where it makes sense, and in other places having a legit federal wildfire agency focused on suppression.
Many state governors already want the federal government to turn over all federal lands to the states. Most states have balanced budget requirements which means most states aren't equipped to suddenly deal with major expenses ($250+ mil in some states). Which will lead to states auctioning off our public lands. So I'm extremely concerned about any precedent for transferring federal lands to the states.
4
2
u/dickwarlockstuntman Ed Pulaski was a Bagger Feb 06 '25
Haha, well now We call this the act of mating But there are several other very important differences Between human beings and animals that you should know about-Blood Hound Gang
1
Feb 07 '25
[deleted]
1
u/Last_Statement3049 Feb 11 '25
Conflict of issue, you realize he stills own a significant portion of the aerial firefighting company Bridger Aerospace right.
148
u/[deleted] Feb 06 '25
[deleted]