Talk:United States Forest Service

Criticism

There should be a note about criticism of the National Forest Service compared to the state forest services http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg17n1-leal.html. 23:53, 28 June 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Litch (talk • contribs)

Official Name

Many people, including agency employees and retirees, refer to the agency as the "U.S. Forest Service." That is not correct. The official name of the agency is, simply, "Forest Service." To distinguish it from agencies, such as the Texas Forest Service, one should use "USDA" in front of "Forest Service." Herb Evans 14:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The reason the article has "United States" in front of "Forest Service" is due to the international scope of Wikipedia. Since other countries have Forest Services or similarly named entities, we have to distinguish what country we are talking about. Feel free to edit the article itself and state the common naming as known by most persons.--MONGO 17:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I thoroughly disagree with the assertions made by Herb Evans in the first paragraph above. His main point is confusing as well. I am a former FS employee, and have always referred to the agency in casual conversation as the "Forest Service." Further his assertion that employees do not refer to the FS as the US Forest Service mystifies me. I always refer to it as the US Forest Service unless, in conversation, I am using the more casual term "Forest Service." (For instance, I might say when sharing a beer off-duty with a colleague, "When is the Forest Service going to give me the sick leave I've got coming?" It would be rather dopey if I said, "When is the US Forest Service going to...") My point here is that "Forest Service" is casual. "US Forest Service" is more formal and correct. As MONGO says.

Despite Mr. Evans' assertion, the official name is NOT "Forest Service." (The official name of the US Navy is NOT "Navy.")

The very tiresome "USDA Forest Service" was added (not sure when) by bureaucrats at the US Dept of Agriculture to drive home the point (in a heavy-handed fashion) that the FS belongs to the USDA. But it's very awkward, and while USDA Forest Service is used on letterheads, in press releases, etc, why should we sane people fall into that trap? (Can you imagine the confusion if all govt agencies followed suit: "USDoD Navy" etc.

"US Forest Service": simple, to the point. Used by us employees and ex-employees.

Comment by Isoruku on 22:42, May 12, 2007

As of April 23, 2009, at least, it looks like the official name is now back to US Forest Service. The logos and text at www.fs.fed.us have been changed and the USDA logo has been removed from the heading, where it previously was beside the USFS logo. Brian Powell (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Changes

Made a few changes to the article i felt it was lacking allot of info on the forest service, Feel free to clean it up. Vlarian559 (talk) 06:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

moved sections around trying to create a flow and smooth reading experience, please feel free to read this article and adjust it so that sections flow together. I'm looking for someone to proof read this article and help with it's editing--Vlarian559 (talk) 20:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Also most of this info comes from the USFS website and a book created by the Forest Service to help introduce itself to the new Administration "The U.S. Forest Service An Overview" 2009 I'll add the weblink to this book as soon as the FS web site comes back up--Vlarian559 (talk) 20:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

suggest link to http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Forest_and_Rangeland_Renewable_Resources_Planning_Act_of_1974 in history —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.237.199.209 (talk) 16:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Rainbow Gathering

Funny, there is absolutely no mention about the Forest Service's annual attempt to chase down the hippies when they take to the woods. In recent years this has become fraught with confrontations, heavy-handed policing, roadblocks and some scary scenes that have resulted in class successful actions against the USFS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.39.49.14 (talk) 23:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Regions

It would be helpful to have Regions showing the different areas on a map. Leitmotiv (talk) 15:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Controversies re-write

The controversies section is a bit lacking at the moment. The first paragraph or two make a lot of factual claims, without any references. The airplane controversy section used a wiki page as a reference, and the rest is somewhat disorganized. I don't want to erase someone's work without putting it out for consensus first...can someone please either rewrite this section (also, preferably with a tone that is more NPOV?) and add approriate references? Otherwise, the uncited material should be removed.Jbower47 (talk) 22:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I am working on this now. DerekELee (talk) 14:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Volunteering

is missing completely. Unfortunately, there is hardly any information in the official website incl. statistics. --Mattes (talk) 13:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

National Forest Attendance

Perhaps another section that includes attendance data for National Forests could be created. This would bring attention to government research articles highlighting racial inequities in National Forest use by the U.S. general public.Savsleev (talk) 02:54, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Proposed merge of National Partnership Office into United States Forest Service

The National Partnership Office does not need a seperate article to the United States Forest Service. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:35, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Crescent77 (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

A merge to National Rural Development Partnership would seem to be a more specific, and hence better, target. Klbrain (talk) 09:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

agreed 2806:1016:D:55BC:D602:F6BD:ECE5:2143 (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Coming back to this again, both National Partnership Office and National Rural Development Partnership pages are unreferenced and weblinks broken, suggesting that they might be defunct. I've hence merged National Partnership Office as initially proposed, but minimally as there is no supporting evidence for the content. I've added a link to the current partnership scheme.   Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 10:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC)