Showing posts with label illegal activities. Show all posts
Showing posts with label illegal activities. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 12, 2019

Comments on the end of a Forest Service Career


"There is no agony like bearing an untold story inside of you."  -- Maya Angelou


The trees were twenty to thirty feet tall and starting to be high enough to block the view of the valley.  We drove past the old cutting unit and I was thinking, I helped plant those trees.  There are other places around the forest where I was instrumental in reforesting a cutting unit, either from actually planting the seedlings, or as an inspector or contracting officers representative administering a planting contract.

And there are thinned areas that I had helped create, again, either by wielding a chainsaw and thinning out the dense conifer growth, or through administering a contract to thin the forest. 

Time to say goodbye, Starkey Experimental Forest and Range.

Trees are located around the forest that I personally selected to become part of the genetics program for the region.  Timber sale units had been identified and marked on the ground, and trees were marked for harvest, or for leave trees, usually by following a prescription written by a silviculturist, by me.  There are stumps with my stump mark on them.  The first time I marked trees, the prescription was to mark every ponderosa pine larger than 14 inches diameter to cut.  Now, most of the timber prescriptions call for cutting trees with diameters smaller than 21 inches.  How’s that for a change?  Before it was to cut all the yellowbellies, as the larger ponderosa pines were known, now the call is for cutting trees that are of a smaller size class.

There are scientific papers that I helped produce, mostly in the collecting of data for stand conditions, fire return intervals, martens, pileated woodpeckers, western toads and black bear diets.  Who can say they had a job to sort through bear scat to identify the berries and insects?

Basking in the good weather in the Eagle Cap Wilderness Area.

There are biological assesments, environmental assesments, environmental impact statements and allotment management plans that I have had a role in writing.

There are wildfires that I helped suppress, although I really suspect the weather had more to putting out the fires than my little pulaski ever did.  And there were the wildfires I helped mop-up, carrying a bladder bag of water on my back and hosing down every hot spot we'd see.

It has been a great experience working for the Forest Service.  I want to stress that most of the people I have worked with have been stellar.  Fabulous.  Nice.  Pleasant.  Kind.  Understanding of my quirks and incompetencies.  Yes, you would have to be a great person to put up with me.   And the work has been awesome, in some of the best country on earth!

The first year I worked for the Forest Service was the last year that Jerry Ford was President.  There has been some history developed between the agency and me.  And yet, I feel that most of that relationship has been, how do I say this, not necessarily one sided, but certainly less than equal treatment compared to others in the agency.

In a cheap motel in some small town, after work, working on keying the plants found that day.

You see, I’m a second class employee.  You may not have heard of anything called a second class employee, and in fact we are frequently characterized as being temporary employees, seasonal employees, 1039 hires, summer help, et cetera.

But the bottom line is we are not treated the same as the permanent employees.  No matter how well a second class employee does the job they will never receive a step increase.  No matter how long a second class employee works, they will never receive a length of service award.  No matter how many times they try to put money into their Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) account, they will be told they can’t do it.

I was with a group of FS employees a while back and noticed every one of them had a fleece vest or jacket, or hat, or other garment with their forest, or ranger district, or lab stitched, stenciled, or embroidered on the garment.  Everybody except for us second class employees.


It was an absolute pleasure and awesome responsibility representing the United States as a Peace Corps Volunteer.  Here I'm shaking hands with the future leaders of the world, Botswana, 1989.

A couple years ago I was starting work on a new project and was told I could set my own schedule.  So I decided to continue my usual schedule of the past thirty years and told my supervisor I’d stay on 4-10 hour days.  Word got back to me that I could select my schedule so long as it was 8-ten hour days, with 6 days off.  So I was very pleased that I was allowed to select my own schedule, as long as it was 8-ten hour days!

Second class Forest Service employees can code up to two weeks of their time to training.  This means that they can work two weeks beyond their limit of 1039 hours.  It does not mean they actually are sent to any training, workshops, seminars or conventions.  What it means is they get to work two more weeks.  That is all fine and well, and I suspect somewhere in the bureaucracy is a bean counter who claims the agency provides X amount of hours of training for their temporary employees.  I once asked a supervisor, when I was coding my two weeks to training time, what training I had actually received.  She said, with no irony in her voice, that it was on-the-job training. This is when I was mainly working by myself, doing a job I had been doing for the previous ten years.

Flowers seemed abundant everywhere, at times.  Grindelia nana and Dianthus armeria in the beard of somebody.

One supervisor sat me down and told I had to remove from a public website, a privately made video that was showing the Forest Service in a poor light.  You see, I noticed a wet meadow that some employees of the Forest Service were using to muddy up the atv’s that they were using at work.  They were driving back and forth across a wet meadow, I was told, literally hundreds of times to build a fence.  Yet the NEPA documentation specifically said the FS would stay out of wet areas.  I was a little torqued off.  So, on my own time I videoed the damage, made the video, and posted it on Youtube.

Which for a second class employee is a no-no.

So, for those of you who haven't seen it, and realize that it is an amateur job, but was rather cathartic for all the frustrations I was experiencing, I've posted the link at the bottom.

Another supervisor sat me down at her desk and told me, "You are too chatty." This was somewhat comical to me, for it seems that most of my life people have told me I need to speak up more; I need to tell people what's on my mind.  But I did change my behavior to avoid the supervisor.  And  afterwards realized that that was a form of bullying.

See you on the trail, out in the woods, wandering the desert, or on top of a summit, such as Mt. Hood.

And then there is the blatant discrimination that is so rampant in the Forest Service.  You may be unaware of the discrimination, but it is there.  I see it a lot in the job announcements that I've seen over the past 25 years.  It tears at the heart every time I would be looking for a more permanent position and there in the small print the announcement would say you can only apply for the job if you are younger than thirty-seven years old.  That statement was usually within a paragraph or two of the statement that says the agency does not discriminate on the basis of age, among other things.

Sometimes the chutzpah exhibited by the agency, and people in the agency, was amazing.  For example, I once applied for a term position that was the job I was doing as a 1039 employee.  I did not get the position because all of my education and experience was not enough.  The agency hired a person from South Carolina, who had no knowledge of the trees.  He did have experience killing people overseas in the US military.  So the agency hired him (maybe because they discriminate against pacifists), and I was asked to train him on the differences in Douglas-firs and grand firs.  Essentially, I was asked to teach him to do the job I had been doing for the previous ten or so years.

Up close and personal with some of the finer vertebrates I've worked with.



Hey, I seem to be complaining too much.  That wasn't my intention when I decided to quit the Forest Service.  But if this is the only complaining I've done in over forty years of working, then maybe I should be writing a book!  If anything can be learned from my second class status, to help those that follow, then perhaps it was worth it.

Overall it was a great trip.  Not, you will note, was it a great career.  But I did manage to get through being a second class employee.  

As for you:  make the most of your life.  It's the only one you may have, ever. Do good.  Be nice.  Respect the land.  And maybe I'll see you on the trails of the world.



Here's the infamous video:
Meadow Creek Destruction


"Ain't it funny how an old broken bottle,
Looks just like a diamond ring."
                           --John Prine

Wednesday, March 16, 2016

Reporting Illegal Activities

How do I report an illegal activity? I raise this question because many times over the past few years I have reported an illegal activity and nothing becomes of it. Who do I report it to, and how much do I have to be involved in the situation before it is resolved? I have three examples, each a little different, where nothing became of the criminal in the case.

Example #1.  I found an abandoned vehicle about 300 meters off a road. It had been burnt, but was obviously abandoned. I reported the vehicle to the District Ranger, giving him the gps coordinates and how to access the area. That was four years ago, and the vehicle is still there. I would try hauling out parts of it every time I walk by it, but I consider it a crime scene and don't want to disturb any evidence.

Example #2. Bovines. This really annoys me. There never seems to be proper policing when it comes to domestic livestock. Nearly every year I find cattle in sheep allotments, or livestock in "vacant" allotments, or cattle on the allotment long after they should have been removed. Every year. One year I reported four bovines in an allotment on the Umatilla National Forest in the middle of November. I asked the range person for that district when the cows were suppose to be removed, and she told me she couldn't reveal that information to me unless I submitted a Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) request.

Example #3. While hiking in one of the Wilderness Areas on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, I encountered a hunter who was using a chainsaw to clear the trail. I talked with man, and got his name and filmed him with my camera while he was telling me he knew he was in wilderness and what he was doing was illegal. When I got back to the trailhead I wrote down his license plate. I gave all this information to the Law Enforcement Officer (LEO) for the Forest, and he has subsequently ignored doing anything about it. I had the perp's name, license plate, and a video the the criminal, and nothing became of the case.

Here's the video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCDkxaCOYvs

What am I doing wrong? Am I reporting these crimes to the wrong people? Should I go straight to the State Police, or the FBI, or what? Do I need to follow up on these things?


Meadow Creek



On Wednesday, 6 August 2014, you sat me down for a one-on-one discussion about a video I had posted in a public place. The video informed the viewer of what I considered to be a crime on federal property. It appeared in the video that somebody had driven motor vehicles repeatedly through a wet meadow in the Starkey Experimental Forest and Range. The video implied that Forest Service personnel had committed this destruction of the meadow. There were tracks of motor vehicles across maybe twenty meters wide, and perhaps 50 meters long, with no vegetation visible in that section, which before had been a wet meadow full of native sedges.

You asked me to remove the video. I said I would, and in fact, I had actually tried the night before, but had forgotten my password to the website. I did remove the video that night. You said that things that were to go out to the public were suppose to go through certain procedures before they were publicized. I did recall seeing emails in the past that said documents for public dissemination were to follow defined protocols in order to present a professional appearance for the agency. In this case, I did not follow those protocols, and for this I am sorry.

I am not sorry for pointing out illegal activities on federal lands.

When I initially posted the video of the destruction of a wet meadow that I found along Meadow Creek, I never thought so many people would spend so much time discussing the video. It seems the amateur video achieved more import than the crime that occurred on federal property. I feel that I should provide some background to this entire sordid affair.

In May I was working along Meadow Creek. We had started in the downstream sections known as pastures 2, 3, and 4. Then we drove over Bally Mountain, down Smith Creek, parked the vehicle and walked the approximate 1 kilometer to the beginning of pasture 5. It was there, next to Meadow Creek, that a major mudding area caused by motor vehicles had recently developed. There were personnel from the La Grande Ranger District working just downstream. At lunchtime, I pulled my camera from my pack and took several videos of the mud bog. This was not an elk wallow, nor anything else that could have been naturally occurring. This was done intentionally by somebody, or several somebody, driving repeatedly back and forth through a wet, not moist, but wet, meadow.

Now, I can understand driving into a place and getting stuck. Once. I cannot understand why anybody would drive through a wet area repeatedly, or in the words of the Forest wildlife biologist, "literally hundreds of passes."

At home later, I assembled a video, a cathartic activity for my own benefit more than anything else. I was upset that such destruction would be done by people in an agency who's Chief once said " We're supposed to be leaders. Conservation leaders. Leaders in protecting and improving the land." This was way outside my comfort level for protecting and improving the land--to intentionally destroy the land with motor vehicles.

The video rested on a web-based video site for a few weeks. I showed it to a few friends, but after about 3 weeks there had been only about ten views. A far cry from a viral video.

On June 15th, the wildlife biologist for the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest posted on a social network site, the following news article from the Spokane Spokesman newspaper, about private citizens mudding on the Colville National Forest:

http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2014/jun/10/four-wheel-drivers-trash-colville-meadow-mudding/

The article states that destroying meadows on national forest lands is against the law, costly to repair, and people are subject to fines and jail if they are convicted. I agreed with all that was mentioned in the article, as well as the sentiments that the biologist expressed. I also posted a link to the video.

Since then I have heard from many Forest Service employees, and every one of them is disgusted with ME! There has been no mention of the destruction of public property, or that the perpertrators should be charged with crimes, or fined, or made to rehabilitate the damage. Every single Forest Service employee who has commented on the social media site, or in private e-mails, or in person, has expressed the view that I am a terrible person for pointing out the meadow destruction.

Forest Service personnel have told me that they "personally see no relationship between these impacts and those caused from malicious abuse with off road vehicles that tear up meadows for the thrill of it." (Apparently the impacts from Forest Service off road vehicles use is less than from private off road vehicles, but I don't buy that).

Unfortunately, somebody has removed my post that included the video, but from there the following exchange took place:
  • Mark  I was at Meadow Creek recently and watched a small excavator repairing these ruts. They were also seeding and spreading straw. I've never seen mudders do that. Do you know if there will be a follow up video once the recovery starts? Also, there are no images of the incredible pools and stable stream banks that have come about from this work.
  • Catherine  Ironically, I get heartburn every time I see that fat, slobby comedian on a TV commercial tearing up a green meadow with a "monster truck" just to sell heartburn drugs!
  • C Stupid is as stupid does - it doesn't matter who did it, or how much they're sorry, or how much they repair it, or how much good they might be doing elsewhere. We're all jerks sometimes.
  • K How much did it cost to repair this meadow? Are the funds coming out of the employees salary? Will it look like the meadow before this damage?
  • K I can understand driving through there once, and getting stuck. But the multiple times the people drove through this meadow is unconscionable.
  • K Seems like this should be illegal.
  • K One can rationalize just about anything. Including destroying the wet meadow to fix something else.
  • K There are freshly cut lodgepole pine trees lying in this meadow now. Will it ever look like the meadow it use to be? Not in our lifetime!
  • Mark  The damage to this system has occurred for over a century from grazing, logging, and roads. The work going on there now will set it on a path to recovery. There were literally hundreds of passes needed to get logs, tools, fence materials, straw, etc. i...See More
  • Mark  This reminds me of what many timber sales and road decommissioning work looks like immediately flowing implementation. Once the dust settles, slash melts down, and plants come back the results are quite impressive.
  • K "The damage to this system has occurred for over a century from grazing, logging, and roads", says Mark. Yes. And that was described in the video I posted. But does that justify the "destruction" of the wet meadow, that was full of sedges, grasses and other vascular plants for the sake of rehabilitating the creek downstream? Seems you are trading one disaster for another.
K Anyone can rationalize anything. It is as if a shoplifter says he/she will return the goods to the store later. It seems to me that it should be against the law, if it isn't already.


I've been told that I should have taken the issue to Bill, who apparently is the District Ranger, and a "very nice person." I suppose that if I had known that I may have, although my limited history with the authority of the Forest Service may still have prevented that option. You see, on the last year of the Ford Presidency and my first year working for the Forest Service, I was taken to task by my supervisor for communicating with the Forest Supervisor. I had sent the Forest Supervisor a letter, written on my own time, suggesting that he ban smoking in Forest Service vehicles. Way back then, non-smokers such as me, had to sit quietly in an enclosed vehicle while somebody else smoked. I am not a fan of tobacco. I've had several relatives, a father, a grandfather, and others, suffer and die a slow agonizing death most likely from tobacco smoke. I wrote to the Forest Supervisor, and heard back though my supervisor that I was never to do that again. Never. It was emphasized that I was never to contact somebody from above the organization other than my immediate supervisor.

So, I just didn't think about approaching somebody up in the Forest Service organization.

I'm not sure where to go with this. It seems like the issue has become me and a video I posted, and not the crime of destroying public property. The decision document that was signed by Bill, the District Ranger, says that vehicles will not be operated in wet areas. See this web link for the complete document:

http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai.com/11558/www/nepa/86728_FSPLT2_382249.pdf


It doesn't seem to get any clearer that what happened on Meadow Creek should not have happened. The Willamette National Forest feels so strongly that this sort of activity is illegal that they have an entire website devoted to why it is illegal:






I'm goiing to have to guess that what is illegal on the Willamette National Forest should be illegal on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest as well.



It's illegal. There. I have told you all, and now the ball is in your court. On our meeting on the 6th of August, you said you could facilitate a meeting with personnel from the District. You mentioned that there could be a field trip to the site and a discussion on what happened and what should happen next. I don't think that will be at all productive. I have rather strong feelings that this should never have happened (36 Code of Federal Regulations 261.13, section h, Descision Document, Chief's Comments, etc.) but apparently I'm in the minority, and I would hate to be ganged up on. That seems like the logical conclusion of any meeting that would have a bunch of people in it that seem to support what happened there.



La Grande Ranger District personnel mentioned that "it saddened me that it looks like you put "us" out there like this and opened the doors for more ridicule to be heaped on." And yet this person commented kindly to a former District Ranger who told her on a social media site that she was "spending entirely too much time in the woods, playing, and squandering tax payer dollars." Nothing like encouraging people to continue to heap ridicule on the Forest Service by claiming they are squandering taxpayer dollars.


I've heard from several Forest Service employees about this, and there has been no mention that the Meadow Creek action was legal, or ethical, or right in any way. There have been mentions that what I did was dispecable. Imagine! Posting a video to a website that showed the Forest Service in a negative light.

I don't want to meet with anyone about this. I am not comfortable in public situations. Accept that not everyone is an extrovert. There would be people I didn't know, and people who might know me and the "ridicule" I have heaped on the Forest Service. It makes me uncomfortable thinking about a meeting like that.

You asked me to remove the offending video from the public website, in part because I didn't go through the proper channels. So I have some questions:

1.) Do I need to remove all video's that I have posted on the Youtube website? 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCDkxaCOYvs )

Or only ones that mention the Forest Service in a negative light? 

2.) Can I post comments to a social media site (eg., facebook) without going through the proper channels?

3.) What can I post on public sites that would be acceptable without going through the proper channels?

4.) Are other Forest Service personnel subject to the same rigorous scrutiny that I'm being subjected to? Or is this the result of me being a second class employee of the Forest Service?

5.) What about blogs? Am I suppose to get approval for each and every blog I post? (See:  http://chochaloza.blogspot.com/).

Wait. Did I just say second class employee? Yes. I'm sure you are aware of the hierarcial structure of the Forest Service. Everyone is equal but permanent employees seem to be more equal than temporary employees. A perfect example is the TSP, Thrift Savings Plan. You and other permanent employees can put your own money into your own TSP account. But people such as me, a temporary (ha!) employee since the Ford Administration, cannot put my own money into my own TSP account. Yes, I can put my own money into a savings account that may get all of one percent interest, whilst some TSP accounts are getting close to twenty percent. 

Second class employees. Would a permanent, first class employee be set down in the boss's office and told in no uncertain terms that he was "too chatty?" I've watched many permanent employees who were way, way more talkitive than me, walk down the hall jabbering, with no mention by Catherine that they were too chatty. But because somebody was a second class employee it is probably much easier to bully that employee than a first class, permanent employee.

Speaking about being too chatty--I have gone on way too long, covering way too many topics.
Image removed based on above conversation

Here's a wet meadow area along Meadow Creek, just downstream from the "problem" area:
Image removed based on above conversation.

Here is what "somebody" did after the destruction was highlighted by the above story:
Image removed based on above conversation.


Notice the recently cut lodgepole pines that have been piled over the former wet meadow.

This image was taken in September, a year and a few months after the damage occurred:

Image removed based on above conversation.

Autumn is usually a dry time of year in northeast Oregon, so the standing water is evidence of moisture seeping up from the soils, indicative of a wet meadow. Vegetation on the far left had been undisturbed by the ATV users.