Remember when we used to have a Forest Service?

The Forest Service in Region 1, encompassing Montana, North Dakota and Idaho, is losing about 110 jobs in a move to downsize and reorganize the department. Missoula alone will lose 35 positions in the first round of a multi-year plan to reduce the Forest Service.

On the surface, this seems like a good idea to create a more efficient operation, but is it? Couple this with information that during the current year, 500 fire-fighting jobs, including our famous smokejumpers, will be evaluated for outplacement to contractors.

Add to this 600 ranger and law enforcement positions, 500 geologists and 1,100 biologists, all possible jobs for the auction block, and you start to see an alarming trend. In 2008, another 5,000 slots for scientists, range conservation and foresters will be reviewed for outsourcing.

And finally, in 2009, fully two-thirds of the Forest Service may be outsourced.

One problem with evaluating positions for outsourcing is the way in which it's done. Our Forest Service personnel are multi-taskers. Most are cross-trained for fire duty, emergency medical, management and biology, to name a few. When positions are analyzed, they are considered as a single task in order to categorize them for outsourcing. So when contract employees take over, do we really get the same quality of employee?

This is the difference between contract employees and a close-knit group of highly educated individuals who work together for a common purpose. And what about fire coverage when the dry seasons come? If we eliminate thousands of Forest Service positions, where do we draw from to protect our cities and our homes?

In other years, we have seen fire lines filled by Forest Service personnel from many states. The Forest Service is our first line of defense when bad fire years occur. If we have a fire start at 4:30 p.m., we can bet that in a few minutes personnel familiar with the area will be responding and other Forest Service personnel will be notified to stand ready.

The Forest Service is a network related nationwide, everyone on the same page, all under one set of rules, coordinated. If we gut the Forest Service infrastructure, where will those firefighters come from? How will they be coordinated? Who will be in charge? Sounds like the Federal Emergency Management Agency, doesn't it?

In our area, the Tally Lake Ranger station will be moving for a second time. They were stationed at Tally Lake originally. This time it will move to an as yet undisclosed location in the valley. Some positions will be lost in the move, and more positions will be lost in the near future.

The proposed savings of $145,000 is arguable and represents less than 1 percent of the annual budget of $16 million. These people teach CPR in the community, make presentations to the schools, and in general take an active part in community affairs. When they move another 10 miles away, how will that affect the relationship between Forest Service personnel and community? And where will the next move be?

In most instances when a move to alter the management of the forest is in the works, the public is invited to make comments and be involved in the process. Especially when the impact is as great as this. However, since this is a result of directives from the Office of Management and Budget, there is no comment period provided for the communities it affects.

A similar plot by the OMB in 2003 was de-railed by congressional action. It's possible this could be stopped again before we hemorrhage our best personnel and services in yet another in a long stream of irresponsible actions by Washington bureaucrats.

FEMA was downsized and gutted, and we know now the effect it has on the well being of our country. Do we need to do the same to the Forest Service to see what the results will be?

Our National Park Service is also under the gun to be divided up into contractor-managed pieces, so when we want to go camping, we not only pay taxes for the trees, we can pay a contractor to be allowed in the park.

Our Forest Service personnel and the management of our parks and forests are vital to the well being of our state and the people who live and work here, as well as the tourists that support our economy. It's the reason we chose to live here. The loss of a few jobs is not significant, but the loss of our forest infrastructure is crucial.

The picture I've painted here is for Forest Service, however the state Department of Natural Resources and Conservation is also getting the hammer, and they, like the Forest Service, are responsible for the lion's share of wildfire protection. Who will fill the void, and at what cost to property and lives?

It is important for people interested in our future to call our congressmen and women to let them know we do not want to lose our Forest Service. Does the Forest Service need to be reorganized? Yes. Does it need to be privatized? No. Call your representatives. For legislative information or to call a legislator, call 1-406-444-4800 or go online at www.leg.state.mt.us/session.htm.

George Elam is a resident of Whitefish.