Alt US Forest Service

@altusfs

📣 Speaking for the trees, and: 🌲 600 million forest acres 💚 193 million acres public land 🥾 164,000 miles of trails 🎣 400,000 miles of streams 🪵 Billions of board feet timber 🚰 Trillions of gallons clean water 🚫Not affiliated with USDA Forest Service

966 Siguiendo19.822 Seguidores3664 Publicaciones

Bluesky

¿Es tu perfil?Reclámalo y altusfs.dirty.social es tuyo.Reclamar perfil

Alt US Forest Service@altusfs· 9d

‼️ Prime example of critical need to have multiple ways to get emergency alerts ‼️ This is the Tartar Fire, in Western Idaho, near Weiser. If I’m reading this situation correctly, in one day— the Tartar fire dramatically ran roughly 20 miles south toward a populated area overnight. Dark red = run.

Tatar Fire, in western Idaho, August 1 with total involved area on August 2 in light pink and active hotspots in dark red.

Tatar Fire, in western Idaho, August 2 with total involved area on August 2 in light pink and active hotspots in dark red.

Alt US Forest Service@altusfs· 9d

Great info— thanks. I queried a search engine, first result said “The Nonprofit Built For When Emergency Alerts Fail.” I’m not familiar enough w/ this arena to know how often formal guidance / official alerts fail, but there are clearly examples (yours, others). If it fills a gap, that’s great.

Duck-Duck-Go Search Result for the query, “is watch duty a not-for-profit” on August 2, 2026:

Watch Duty
https://www.watchduty.org› about › about-us
About Watch Duty: The Nonprofit Built For When Emergency Alerts Fail
Watch Duty is the nonprofit delivering real-time wildfire and flood alerts to 16M+ Americans - built by a team of firefighters, dispatchers, and reporters for when official...
• • •
support.watchduty.org
https://support.watchduty.org>hc›en-us>articles›1...
. • •
Are you a non profit? - Watch Duty Support
May 19, 2026 • Yes! Watch Duty is a registered 501(c)(3) non-profit. Watch DutySherwood Forestry Service, Inc2261 Market Street, Suite 85478San Francisco, CA 94114EIN: 87-1454433...

Alt US Forest Service@altusfs· 13d

I see a big sign that says “Saving $1.3 Trillion” but what would really complete the photo is cans of Perri-air.

CANNED IN DRUIDA
perri-air
NATURALLY SPARKLING
SALT - FREE AIR
All Natural Druidia Ingredients

Alt US Forest Service@altusfs· 17d

“Stop trying to make fetch happen. It’s not happening!” cc: @altreclamation.altgov.info @altfws.altgov.info; @resistancerangers.altgov.info

Because of the complicated nature of mineral-estate ownership, this report assumes that Federal surface ownership generally includes mineral-estate ownership, meaning that the Federal Government owns the surface and any underlying mineral or energy resources, as was assumed in previous Federal land resource allocations (Gautier and others, 1998).
Federally owned land includes land managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), National Park Service, U.S.
Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wil
ervice, Department of
Energy, Department of War, U.S
of Reclamation, and
Tennessee Valley Authority (Sche
1 others, 2025).

Alt US Forest Service@altusfs· 24d

Uh… @npr.org are you ok? “Wildfire smoke and unhealthy air persist and shift direction, as Trump demands explanation from Canada,” is that really your takeaway? “Trump threatens Canada with steeper tariff costs over wildfire smoke” from @aljazeera.com was the better the lede.

Al Jazeera English @aljazeera.com • 19h
Trump threatens Canada with steeper tariff costs over wildfire smoke aje.news/u4xif6

Alt US Forest Service@altusfs· 27d

In general, search for a forest plan. I download PDFs to an app to search inside easily. Search keywords like “ponderosa” or “reconstruction” You can comment on this plan’s age: why’s a March 2006 plan guiding 2026 work, anyway? Do we *really* believe management needs are the same as 20 y.a.?

Chapter Four:
Monitoring and Evaluation
Strategy
Introduction
The 2012 Planning Rule includes a requirement that all Forests that are not in plan revision update their forest plan monitoring within four years, or as soon as is practicable (36 CFR 219.12c). This document updates our forest plan Monitoring Plan to meet this requirement of the 2012 rule.
Forest Plan Monitoring Under the 2012 Planning Rule
The NFMA requires "continuous monitoring and assessment in the field" to evaluate
"the effects of each management system to the end that it will not produce substantial and permanent impairment of the productivity of the land" (16 USC 1604(g)(3)(C)).
The 2012 Rule includes a three-part iterative cycle of assessment, planning, and monitoring in a continuous feedback loop. Monitoring is meant to support the assessment process and evaluate plan implementation over time. This planning framework is designed to "inform integrated resource management and allows the Forest Service to adapt to changing conditions, including climate change, and improve management based on new information and monitoring" (§ 219.5 (a)).
Specific Requirements for Monitoring Under the 2012 Rule
A monitoring plan will consist of "monitoring questions and associated indicators" which "must be designed to inform the management of resources on the plan area, including by testing relevant assumptions, tracking relevant changes, and measuring management effectiveness and progress toward achieving or maintaining the plan's desired conditions or objectives" (219.12 (a)(2)). The monitoring program must also be
"coordinated with the regional forester and Forest Service State and Private Forestry and Research and Development" (§ 219.12 (a)(1)) and support and align with a broader-scale monitoring program, to be developed at the regional level, that will address monitoring questions at a geographic scale broader than one plan area (§ 219.12 (b)).
Furthermore, in developing the monitoring plan, the responsible …

Alt US Forest Service@altusfs· 27d

I don’t want to go against agency experts, but in general, proposed action assures public the work is consistent with the forest plan. So, point out when it’s not. For example, burning or removal of slash is out of alignment w/ this FP guideline: Probably more examples. Nitpicking is your ally.

Down Woody Material
2307. Leave large woody debris on harvested or thinned sites to help retain moisture, trap soil movement, provide microsites for establishment of forbs, grasses, shrubs, and trees, and to provide habitat for wildlife. GUIDELINE
2308. a. *During vegetation management activities on ponderosa pine forested sites, retain an average of at least 50 linear feet per acre of coarse woody debris with a minimum diameter of 10 inches. On white spruce forested sites retain an average of at least 100 linear feet per acre of coarse woody debris with a minimum diameter of 10 inches.
STANDARD
b. *DELETED

Alt US Forest Service@altusfs· 29d

With you. It is today’s front page of the Washington Post Sports section.

July 12 2026 front page of Washington Post sports section.

Alt US Forest Service@altusfs· Jul 12

Tons happening as always during a “flood the zone with 💩” rolling coup. #AltCitizen action to help: Call Senate appropriation committee. Ask why USDA is ignoring Congress. Look who’s on the Senate Appropriations committee? #WheresMitch 📞 (202) 224-7257 🛑 USFS Dismantling #SaveUSFS

Monitory members of the Senate Appropriations Committee include Jeff Merkley
(Oregon)
Tammy Baldwin
(Wisconsin)
Martin Heinrich
(New Mexico)
Gary Peters (Michigan)
Kirsten Gillibrand
(New York)
Jon Ossoff
(Georgia)

Majority members of the Senate Appropriations Committee include potentially dead dude Mitch McConnell
(Morgue?)
Susan Collins
(Maine)
Jerry Moran
(Kansas)
Cindy Hyde-Smith
(Mississippi)
Deb Fischer
(Nebraska)
Mike Rounds
(South Dakota)
Jon Husted
(Ohio)

Alt US Forest Service@altusfs· Jul 10

Please read- it packs a lot in you should know. Concludes with a couple key #AltCitizen actions, but the big one is this: “Call the House and Senate Appropriations Committees and tell them to enforce their own law. Section 716 and Section 421 are on the books, and USDA is openly defying both.”

CONTACT
House Appropriations Committee Republicans
H-307 The Capitol
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-2771

Appropriations Committee
Democrats
1036 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC20515
Phone (202) 225-3481

Alt US Forest Service@altusfs· Jul 6

Direct link to the Freedom 250 oversight report by @naturalresources.bsky.social takes a moment to load, so here are two screenshots of the executive summary to pique your interest: democrats-naturalresources.house.gov/imo/media/do...

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Isemi, Coeres isa imminin desked it, orgaring celebrations in
honor of the 25oth anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.
America25o was created to lead the celebrations on behalf of every American, insulated from the political whims of any particular administration. It was designed to leverage public-private partnerships without any quid-pro-quos or outsized political influence infecting the celebrations. The National Park Foundation-the official philanthropic partner of the National Park Service for more than five decades-stood ready to channel private generosity toward the parks and public spaces where the nation would gather.
But under President Donald Trump, this anniversary has been hijacked and perverted into a hotbed of corruption and self-enrichment. This interim report documents how the machinery built for a national commemoration was converted, deliberately and over a period of months, into an apparatus for raising and spending money in service of the President's ego, political ideology, and pet projects.
The White House first attempted to bend America250 to its purposes, demanding spectacles focused on promoting President Trump rather than the country while forcing partisan content, campaign-style fundraisers, and favored contractors onto an organization Congress designed to serve the whole country, not one party or president. America250 pushed back against the President's demands and their resistance carried a price.
When America250 would not yield, the White House created a replacement:
Freedom 250 LLC, a shadow organization capable of infiltrating the celebrations and injecting America's 25oth with Trump's extreme, partisan agenda. Lodged within the National Park Foundation, the new entity could exploit the credibility and donor relationships of a beloved public charity while operating outside the transparency and accountability requirements Congress wrote into the semiquincentennial framework.

Alt US Forest Service@altusfs· Jul 6

If on Facebook visit @friendsoftheinyo.bsky.social for a video explainer and #AltCitizen call to action. Looks like @resistancerangers.altgov.info collaborating (follow them, please, they do great work). Your 🗣️ helps. Modify the example comment as your own (Copy/paste gets thrown out 🗑️)

Friends of the Inyo • is with Resistance
Rangers and 3 others at Inyo National Forest. • Follow
1d • J Aphex Twin • Flim • 6
We have until July 31st to comment on a rule change that removes future public comments...
Find the Comment Portal here: https:// www.federalregister.gov/documents/
2026/07/01/2026-13281/organization-functions-and-procedures-public-notice-and-comment-for-standards-criteria-and-guidance#
_ Sample Script (MAKE THIS YOUR OWN OR THEY WILL THROW IT OUT):
I'm writing to oppose this rule change, which would cut the public out of decisions about how the Forest Service manages the land we all rely on.
[Put here what forest you personally connect with and describe what you do there and why you want to be included in decisions on that land]
Forest Service Manuals and Handbooks set the rules for grazing allotments, timber sales, mining exploration, and land-use planning on the ground. They shouldn't be treated as advisory texts.
Rolling back comment access on directive changes removes one of the only tools the public has to catch bad decisions before they're locked in. Changes to a Forest Service Handbook can shape everything from mining review to trail access and the public deserves a say in that.
I'm asking the Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and keep directive changes, Manual and Handbook alike, open to public comment.

Alt US Forest Service@altusfs· Jul 2

“The Forest Service Handbooks would be redefined as advisory and informational guidance that Agency employees may deviate from without documenting or justifying alternate actions.” Comments open to 07/31/26.: www.regulations.gov. In the search box, enter “RIN 0596-AD74,” click the “Search” button.

Forest Service Facebook post:

“The Forest Service is inviting public comments on a proposed rule to modernize our directives system. This update would streamline manuals and handbooks, reduce procedural burdens, encourage innovation, and return more decision-making authority to employees in the field.
The public comment period is open for 30 days. You can read the proposed rule and submit comments at Regulations.gov.
USDA
BREAKING
FOREST NEWS
Forest Service is inviting public comment on a proposed rule to modernize its directives ”

Alt US Forest Service@altusfs· Jul 2

For those who need some peace and quiet this July 4— Your local National Forest or Grassland may offer a respite.

U.S. Forest Service message on Facebook:

“Do your part to prevent wildfire.
As we celebrate 250 years of American independence, remember that fireworks are prohibited on public lands.
Possessing, igniting, discharging or using any kind of fireworks is prohibited on national forests and grasslands.
USDA
Fireworks are
ILLEGAL on public lands
every forest | every campsite every day”

Alt US Forest Service@altusfs· Jul 1

One DOI Wildland Fire Service employee, Sydney, and two USDA Forest Service employees, Emily and Nick. I don’t know agency affiliation for the others injured. Via www.fs.usda.gov/inside-fs/le...

Emily Barker, 38, of
Clinton Township, Michigan, assigned to the U.S. Forest Service Rifle Helitack. (Photo
courtesy of the family of Emily
Barker)

Nick Hutcherson,
27 of Glendale, Arizona, assigned to the U.S. Forest Service Kaibab
National Forest.
(Photo courtesy of the family of Nick Hutcherson)

Sydney Watson, 27, of Warrior, Alabama, assigned to the U.S. Wildland Fire Service Rifle Helitack. (Photo
courtesy of the family of Sydney Watson)

Alt US Forest Service@altusfs· Jul 1

It’d be interesting to compare BLM’s proposed treatment areas to those around Medford, OR identified as high hazard, in the Wildfire Risk to Communities dataset. That said— BLM staff are on the ground, making their best judgement. But, this additional data could help justify their choices.

Overview
Risk to Homes Likelihood
Risk Reduction
Minimal exposure
Indirect exposure
Direct exposure
Wildfire transmission
Jacksonville Hill
poemans Greekig
Sterling Creek Rd
Selected place
L_: County line
3000ft
Li State line

Alt US Forest Service@altusfs· Jul 1

Informative paper from a decade ago highlights the imbalance of low hazard treatments to high hazard treatments: “An evaluation of the Forest Service Hazardous Fuels Treatment Program—Are we treating enough to promote resiliency or reduce hazard? research.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/5...

An Evaluation of the Forest Service
Hazardous Fuels Treatment Program—Are We Treating Enough to Promote Resiliency or
Reduce Hazard?
Nicole M. Vaillant and Elizabeth D. Reinhardt
The National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy recognizes that wildfire is a necessary natural process in many ecosystems and strives to reduce conflicts between fire-prone landscapes and people. In an effort to mitigate potential negative wildfire impacts proactively, the Forest Service fuels program reduces wildland fuels.
As part of an internal program assessment, we evaluated the extent of fuel treatments and wildfire occurrence within lands managed by the National Forest System (NFS) between 2008 and 2012. We intersected fuel treatments with historic disturbance rates to assess the extent to which the program compensates for the disturbance deficit caused by fire suppression and with current wildfire hazard to evaluate whether fuel treatments strategically target high hazard locations. Annually, 45% of NFS lands that would have historically burned were disturbed by fuel treatments and characteristic wildfire, indicating that NFS lands remain in a
"disturbance deficit." The highest wildfire hazord class had the lowest percentage of area treated and the highest proportion of both wildfire of any severity and uncharacteristically high-severity wildfire, suggesting that an alternative distribution of fuel treatment locations will probably improve progrom effectiveness.
Keywords: LANDFIRE, mechanical treatment, prescribed fire, resilency, wildfire hazard
ire exclusion, past land management,
temperatures, and longer periods of
"fire weather" have contributed to the increased number, extent, and cost of wildfires over the last several decades (Westerling et al. 2006, Dennison et al. 2014, Stephens et al. 2014, Thompson et al. 2015). The 10-year average number of acres burned has more than doubled from the 1985-1994 to 2005-2014 periods (National Interagency
ing wildfires has quadrupl…

Management and Policy Implications
The Forest Service Strategic Plan (USDA Forest Service 2015b) acknowledges the natural role of fire in many ecosystems as well as the potential threat of wildfire to public safety, property, and natural resources. One of the tools used to proactively mitigate potential negative wildfire impacts is fuel treatments. Understanding where past fuel treatments and wildfires have occurred is important for prioritizing future fuel treatments. We found that current treatment implementation is not focused on the areas that would most reduce fire hazard nor is it at a scale that approximates historic disturbance rates across NFS lands. Strategies to reduce fire hazard and achieve the ecological benefits of fire include the following: increasing the extent of fuel treatments if resources permit; designing treatments to create conditions conducive to naturally ignited fires burning under desired conditions while fulfilling an ecological role; and placing treatments to reduce hazard while providing options for firefighting when highly valued resources and assets are present. The data sets employed in this analysis can be used to better inform future fuel treatment placement when appropriate.

Alt US Forest Service@altusfs· Jul 1

Good comments. Wish BLM had appropriate funding & support to follow your suggestions, vs. more common practices of commercially backed thinning. I want to highlight two things: 1) The BLM maps could offer more detail. 2) Fuel treatments often favor low hazard areas, due to terrain, cost, etc.

Excerpt from Forest Service publication, “https://research.fs.usda.gov/download/treesearch/54877.pdf” with highlighted text “Areas of very low hazard often are favored for treatment because they are less complex to plan and implement, are more economical to treat, or are in need of retreatment to maintain effectiveness. “ from the overall passage, [dis]turbance of treatments and characteristic se-veliof Wildfire have exceeded the disturbance need based on historic levels where the
MFRI is greater than 150 years. In these climate limited systems, one-third of annual wildfire acres burned had uncharacteristically low severity.
When the primary objective of fuel treatments is to aid in fire control, they are often located strategically to reduce wildfire hazard and facilitate wildfire suppression ac-tivities. Within some hazard classes, we found that a nonproportional amount of land was treated or burned in wildfire (Fig-ure 5). For example, the very low hazard class accounts for 20% of the NFS lands, and of the treatments completed annually, 26% are in this class, with 8% of the wildfire acres. The very high hazard class had the lowest treatment percentage and the highest incidence of uncharacteristically high-sever-ity wildfire out of all the hazard classes. With the exception of R8, which treated on average 13% of the elevated hazard land (high and very high hazard) annually, all of the other regions treated less than 1% (Figure
6). Areas of very low hazard often are favored for treatment because they are less complex to plan and implement, are more economical to treat, or are in need of retreatment to maintain effectiveness.
Very high hazard ar-

Alt US Forest Service@altusfs· Jun 29

There are some major structural issues, out the gate. The agency was evidently so rushed, someone forgot to make sure the link to project documents for public comment was working. If a small (but important) mistake like that slipped in, what other blunders await in the rush?

Alt US Forest Service@altusfs· Jun 27

I know I can’t match @altfda.altgov.info’s pace. Is a slowdown inevitable? I suspect @resistancerangers.altgov.info, @altfws.altgov.info & me would all prefer to be offline, in nature than on social media 😅 A 2022 thesis analyzed AltGov 1.0. Perhaps AltGov 2.0 follows a similar trend?

Fig 3. Average Daily Tweet by Month. This graph demonstrates statistically significant spikes in average daily tweets occurring in January 2019, September-October 2019, January-March 2020, November 2020, and January 2021.
By utilizing a Tukey's range test, I was able to determine which months had statistically significant changes in average daily tweets. The value for average daily tweets in January 2017 was significantly higher than almost every other month in the period of study. The only exception to this was January of 2019, in which the average daily tweet was lower than that of January of 2017 but higher than any other month. This may indicate that, even though accounts were still active after the initial reactionary period that sparked their creation in early 2017, they were never as active as they were during that period again.
One of the highest statistically significant spikes in average daily tweets occurred in January of 2019, which was associated with a highly politicized government shutdown. Average daily tweets also spiked in September and October of 2019, which was associated with Donald Trump's first impeachment. Another spike occurred in January through March of 2020, which coincided with the first impeachment trials of Donald Trump and the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic. The next statistically significant spikes that occurred were associated with the 2020 presidential election and the January 6th storming of the Capitol, respectively.

Alt US Forest Service@altusfs· Jun 20

Why do we lease National Forest lands for oil production at all, if National Forests exist for the production of water and timber? Well, look at the dates of the enabling legislation. This is why it’s so important to be involved and VOTE. Draft EA: usfs-public.app.box.com/s/gurkor2j3g...

Purpose and Need: Why do we need to act?
The Forest Service's purpose is to respond to EOls to consent to lease Forest Service managed surface estate parcels to the BLM for potential oil and gas lease and development. Should the FS provide consent to the BLM to lease parcels, the BLM may offer those parcels for lease through a competitive leasing process, and those parcels may subsequently be developed for oil and gas resources. If parcels don't sell during the competitive leasing process, they may be picked up non-competitively up to two years after the competitive sale and may be subsequently developed for oil and gas resources.
This determination is to facilitate environmentally responsible exploration and economic development of public resources and, if so, under what reasonable and justifiable terms, i.e., the conditions under which the leased resources might be recovered. The conditions would provide protection for surface resources while allowing optimum subsurface resource recovery.
Conditions, also known as lease stipulations, are considered for areas where there would be reasons to preclude or restrict surface use.
The need for action is established by the FS's responsibility under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (MLA), as amended, to promote the exploration and development of oil and gas on the public domain, and as found at 36 C.F.R. § 228.103; to facilitate oil and gas resource leasing in an environmentally responsible manner to help meet the increasing interest in development on Federal lands (Energy Policy Act of 2005, Section 362; Executive Order 14156); and to further respond to policy directives to meet the nation's increasing demand for energy.
Additionally, the need is also linked to the Routt Land and Resource Management Plan as amended (LRMP), which emphasizes environmentally sound mineral and energy development (LRMP, page 1-4). The LRMP recommends consent to lease with appropriate lease terms or stipulations, as set forth in the forest Oil an…

Alt US Forest Service@altusfs· Jun 19

Reflecting pool built over 100 years ago, literally in a different climate. A remarkable, high profile lesson in climate change impacts. Algae thrives in warm water (68 to 86 degrees F). Excess algae reflects a “new normal” we see everywhere in nature, that Trump Regime denies. #ShowYourStripes

Temperature change in Washington DC Relative to average of 1961-2010 [°F] showing trend toward higher average temperatures over time.

Alt US Forest Service@altusfs· Jun 14

I read the comments (I know 😅) and found this gem wildly speculating the reason for this is federal employees are engaging in “malicious compliance,” rather than accepting the obvious explanation that Trump and Elon kneecapped the federal workforce (as pointed out by another commenter):

An idiot says: “My speculation is that malicious compliance is occurring: "we don't feel like launching balloons and if something goes wrong we'll blame it on Trump" -- whom they dislike.
It is nice to see a full compliment of Mexican sites but where are Canada's?”

An informed person says:

“This is happening because the ongoing NWS reorganization, whose planning has been underway for years and was accelerated since early 2025, cuts mid shifts to a solo staffer at many offices. That person still has forecast and IDSS duties to attend during nominal 12Z balloon prep/launch time. So the launch is deferred to 18Z if it happens at all.

It's not local "laziness." It's top-down design.
Of course this affects both 12Z models and climatological research/reanalyses. It also violates the agreement with WMO to launch the full RAOB set at 12Z.”

Alt US Forest Service@altusfs· Jun 13

Does anyone at USDA genuinely believe this? “Grazing on National Forest System Lands is critical to the health of our landscapes…” www.usda.gov/sites/defaul...

multiple-use missions of both the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Together, the agencies administer approximately 240 million acres of rangelands across 28 states, supporting over 23,000 permittees and lessees." Because of this large impact on our nation's beef and sheep herds, any efforts to fortify and restore them will by necessity include our BLM and USFS lands.
As such, on March 31, 2026, Secretary Burgum and I signed the Advancing Grazing on Forest Service and BLM Lands Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The MOU affirms the cooperative implementation of the USDA-DOI Grazing Action Plan (the Grazing Plan) released on October 20, 2025. Together, the Grazing Plan and MOU further the commitment to streamline and expand livestock grazing on federal lands, elevate grazing as an Administration priority, and strengthen support for America's ranchers. The MOU reinforces the essential role ranchers play in maintaining national food security. Grazing on National Forest System Lands is critical to the health of our landscapes; to providing sustainable beef, lamb and wool for America's food and fiber supply; and for maintaining the fabric of rural America.
The Forest Service has initiated several of the actions outlined in the MOU and is preparing to fully implement the Grazing Plan. In the following pages you will find clear and concise policy direction from the Under Secretary of Natural Resources and Environment, Michael Boren, further implementing the Grazing Plan and MOU.
Please familiarize yourself with the contents of this document and work to accomplish our shared goals in your respective forests and districts. I look forward to hearing the success stories as we work together to see American agriculture succeed for another 250 years.

Alt US Forest Service@altusfs· May 30

Via @broads4wilderness.bsky.social on FB: “Tell your member of Congress today: Full funding for the US Forest Service and forest research programs is non-negotiable!” Form letter: www.votervoice.net/GreatOldBroa... *Please note form letters often save personal info for future calls to action*

Great Old Broads for Wilderness •
<
...
Wilderness
Follow 23h •
The White House is attempting to slash and burn the USFS and completely eliminate the agency's forest research programs in their proposed FY2026 budget.
Future generations are counting on us to be good stewards of our shared public forests, and these USFS research programs protect trees, reduce destructive wildfires, and keep forest ecosystems healthy. Losing this vital research to draconian budget cuts is unacceptable.
Tell your member of Congress today: Full funding for the
US Forest Service and forest research programs is non-negotiable!
Please share this post and click the link below to take action today:
https://www.votervoice.net/GreatOldBroads/campaigns/
137757/respond
(Photo: Robert Lee Cortes/Pixabay)
For USFS research programs in the proposed FY 2026 budget.

Alt US Forest Service@altusfs· May 23

Really handy script. Key states / reps listed— is yours one? Only change I would make is to call the Capitol switchboard directly. Cuts out one step. ☎️ United States Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121 This + more actions here: tinyurl.com/act4usfs

Phone zap: stop the US Forest Service Reorganization
The USDA Forest Service has released an illegal reorganization plan that attempts to bypass Congressional oversight, drive out federal workers, deny the union's right to negotiate, and dismantle agency programs. The Forest Service manages over 193 million acres - the National Forest System - using science from Research & Development. That science also informs the management of other public lands and privately owned forests throughout the United States. The State, Private, & Tribal Forestry division of the agency reaches across boundaries to provide technical and financial assistance to landowners and resource managers to sustain the nation's forests and grasslands and protect communities from wildland fire.
The reorganization calls for moving the agency's headquarters from Washington, DC to Salt Lake City, closing all 9 regional offices, and closing 57 research facilities. Many impacted staff are expected to resign rather than relocate - which seems to be the point of this reorganization!
The union representing the Forest Service estimates that 6500 jobs are impacted, with about 730 of these supporting wildfire response. This is in addition to huge staff losses that the agency has already experienced: in 2025, the Forest Service lost 32% of its workforce.
On top of the reorganization, the proposed budget for 2027 completely eliminates two branches of the Forest Service: State, Private, & Tribal Forestry and Research & Development.
We need YOUR VOICE to tell members of Congress to STOP the reorganization.
Everyone is encouraged to call, but if you live in one of the states or districts listed below, making a phone call is especially important. These members of Congress are on the Appropriations Subcommittee that covers the Forest Service.
ALASKA: Sen. Lisa Murkowski - R
NEW YORK: Sen. Kristen Gillibrand - D
CALIFORNIA 9th District: Rep. Josh Harder - D
NORTH DAKOTA: Sen. John Hoeven - R
CONNECTICUT 3rd District: Re…

STEP ONE: FIND THE PHONE NUMBERS
Find your Senators' and Representative's phone numbers here by entering your home address.
https://www.commoncause.org/find-your-representative/
STEP TWO: MAKE THE CALL
Use the phone script below. Be polite but firm.
Try to talk to staff, but leaving a voicemail is good too.
Make sure to provide your address so that your message is counted by the staff.
Hello, my name is [YOUR NAME] and I'm a constituent at address [FULL ADDRESS WITH ZIP CODE]. I have a comment for the [Senator/Representative].
I'm calling to urge [him/her] to stop the illegal reorganization of the US Forest Service.
The planned facility closures would negatively impact the partners and constituents served by Forest Service lands, grants, and technical expertise. The reorganization would reduce the agency's ability to carry out its mission to support forest health and wildfire management, including critical support for the private sector forestry industry. The Forest Service supports forest management across all lands, both public and private. States and private landowners depend on the agency for funding for wildland firefighting, reliable data about forest health, and the science behind wood products and tree disease management.
The agency is making false claims about cost efficiency in its rationale for location closures that are not supported by evidence about those locations. The agency is also not taking into consideration the negative impacts that the reorganization will have on programs like Forest Inventory & Analysis and Forest Health Protection.
I'm asking the [Senator/Representative] commit to stopping the reorganization and fully funding the Forest Service in the 2027 appropriations bill - including Research & Development and State, Private, & Tribal Forestry, which are crucial for constituents in our state. If Congress fails to restore Forest Service funding and stop the reorganization, the agency will lose critical functions to manage forest resources …

Alt US Forest Service@altusfs· May 23

YOU can help #SaveUSFS You’re here: you’re involved, but are your friends / family? Google Doc full of ways to help— starting w/ 8 sample social media posts, one conversation starter for friends + family, and a handy little graphic. Thanks to @nffe.bsky.social and @fedworkersunited.bsky.social.

WE NEED OUR FOREST SERVICE!
FIGHT TO STOP PRIVATIZATION
The billionaire Trump admin is trying to rush through a destruction of the US
3 Days of Calls to flood
Forest Service. They want to rush it
Congress - May 22, 26,27
through this summer before the public even knows what happened.
May 22-30: Make a daily. call to keep up pressure!
This is no less than an effort to privatize public lands for billionaire profits. BUT workers and allies are fighting back to save our essential Forest Service workers.
Click link below for step-by-step guidance
IAM
UNION
Click here for action guide:
http://tinyurl.com/
act4usfs

Alt US Forest Service@altusfs· May 19

The Forest Service motto is “Caring for the Land and Serving People.” Not “the public,” and not “the people.” If you spend a career in the agency, you do not struggle to recall the iconic phrase. Forest Service Chief Shultz, who has not spent a career with the Forest Service, struggles.

Successful organizations are able to articulate a bold, compelling, doable vision and mission. They communicate it in brief, concise, and memorable language. Told from the perspective of someone who was deeply involved, here is the story of how the U.S. Forest Service's enduring motto was born, how it was introduced, how it grew into prominence and was adopted, and why it has endured almost 30 years.
"CARING FOR THE LAND AND SERVING
PEOPLE"
THE ORIGINS OF THE U.S. FOREST SERVICE MOTTO
t was early 1985 in Washington, DC. A group of former U.S. Forest Service forest supervisors, mostly recent arrivals in the Washington Office (WO), were having monthly breakfast and brown-bag lunch meetings to discuss field issues and prepare advice for the chief. They referred to themselves as "The Dirty Dozen."
That year the proposed Bureau of Land Management-Forest
and the future of the Forest Service. Both Chief Peterson and
Service land exchange, in which the two agencies would swap parcels of land with the goal of making management easier
Associate Chief Dale Robertson agreed. Lynn Sprague, then director of information systems, was appointed to get the ball rolling.
for both, was one of the biggest issues. Boundary lines were
Lynn called Regional Forester Zane Smith of Region 5 and
being redrawn on maps. Politics around the issue were in full requested Mack Moore, a leadership development specialist, to
bloom.
help design the conference. Mack was not available, so Zane
The Dirty Dozen invited Chief Max Peterson for an informal meeting and cocktails at the home of Bill McCleese (one of the
assigned me to go to Washington in his stead. Bob McDonald,
Dozen) and proposed that a first-ever national forest supervisor's
Roger Franz, Coy Jemmet, and I met in a small room at Fort
conference be assembled to address urgent servicewide issues
Myers, Virginia, for several days in the spring of 1985 to start planning the conference. Coy, one of Lynn's staff assistants, was
BY LOU ROMERO
FOREST…

Bob Breazeale's flip chart drawing "Caring for the Land, Serving People” with an arrow diagram illustrating the continuous flow of services from forests to people and back.

Alt US Forest Service@altusfs· May 11

No need to insult USFS staff managing the land for years / decades. There’s always room for improvement: in theory, it’s why the agency has an R&D division. Responsibly used herbicides have a role on public lands. Public oversight & public science have bigger roles— crucial to defend. #SaveUSFS

Alt National Park Service @altnps.bsky.social
The U.S. Forest Service isn't managing forests anymore. It's running a timber operation and poisoning everything else to do it.
A yearlong investigation by Mother Jones found that the Forest Service and private logging companies are systematically spraying thousands of
7:52 PM • May 10, 2026
Everybody can reply
956 reposts 72 quotes
1.9K likes
44 saves

Alt US Forest Service@altusfs· Apr 25

#ArborDay was first observed on April 10, 1872 with a Nebraska state resolution designating the day to plant trees. Richard Nixon later proclaimed Arbor Day the last Friday in April. “Other Holidays Repose Upon The Past; Arbor Day Proposes For The Future” www.govinfo.gov/features/arb...