Voting for Smokey Bear: Political Accountability and the New Chief of the Forest Service

Abstract

Has Smokey the Bear become Smokey the Politician? The image of Smokey Bear, peering from magazine pages and billboards, does not cut the profile of someone scrambling for political office. Smokey, the mascot of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA), symbolizes the warm and fuzzy (or is that furry?) side to our national forests. Smokey is shown living peacefully in a forest among flowers, birds, and fawns. In this Eden-like setting, he asks that we be careful with fires in his community--the national forests. Like tourists who avoid the rough side of town, we do not see the complete story of Smokey's community. We never see Smokey clear-cutting forests, drilling for oil, downhill skiing, riding ATVs, snowmobiling, mining, hunting, or herding cattle. To some, such images would seem at odds with Smokey's community. Others, however, would conclude that Smokey was merely making wise use of his forest home. If Smokey's image mirrored the true complexities of national forest management, he would likely be a controversial figure, reflecting more accurately the divisive issues surrounding the agency he represents. Because of actions of the Clinton administration, those controversies surrounding the Forest Service's management of the national forests may now be settled in the political arena, for the Forest Service has become politically accountable. Smokey Bear must now be responsive to the ballot box. On October 28, 1993, the Clinton administration removed F. Dale Robertson from his position as chief of the Forest Service. In the tradition of Forest Service chiefs before him, Robertson was a career Forest Service employee. He had risen through the ranks of the agency to become its head in 1987, during the Reagan administration. The removal of Robertson sparked a debate between those who accused the Clinton administration of politicizing the Forest Service and those who clamored that a clear change in the direction of the Forest Service was due (Cushman, 1993).(1) A few weeks later, on November 17, 1993, the Clinton administration announced that Robertson's replacement would be Jack Ward Thomas, who was a Forest Service researcher involved in developing a protection strategy for the northern spotted owl. Although Thomas had worked for the Forest Service for many years, his lack of management experience in the hierarchy of the Forest Service precluded his selection as a career appointee. In other words, his selection is considered politically motivated. This breaks with the long-standing tradition that the chief of the Forest Service is filled by a career appointment. However, a review of the fundamental laws and issues concerning the management of our national forests reveals a picture of land-use management that is based, ultimately, upon value judgments. While objective scientific determinations play an important role for the Forest Service in evaluating management options, as well as implementing management decisions, the criteria that guide the Forest Service in the selection of its management direction are imbued with subjectivity. Given such a mission and the constitutional framework of our representative democracy, it is wholly appropriate to hold the Forest Service accountable to the values of the people as reflected through their elected representatives. The Forest Service is charged by law with managing the 191 million acres of public land which comprise 156 national forests and 19 national grasslands (U.S.D.A. Forest Service, 1993; ii). These lands are located in 44 states, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. The Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (MUSYA) is the fundamental law that guides the Forest Service in its management of these lands. In particular, MUSYA provides that the national forests shall be administered for outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed and wildlife and fish purposes (Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 [sections]1). …