Why go with these policy recommendations?
- The existing policy would be more expensive in the long run as fire resources are needed at higher rates
- Regionality would create unnecessary jobs
- But regional demand can be reflected in availability and pay
- Resources can be shared i.e. between National Forests
- Shifting away from federal firefighting response may be risky
- But stakeholders can take a larger role in the prevention and suppression of local areas
Resistance to policy change will likely be felt in terms of budgets and expenses, commitment, liability and responsibility, the grit for what it will take to institute the change, and possible political and social pressure. Most agree that we can and should do a better job taking care of our wildland firefighters.
Those arguing against policy shifts like those above claim that actions would increase the cost of firefighting and overall create a financial impact in an attempt to upgrade the entire federal firefighting workforce. There is a cost to modernizing and making improvements, but there is also a cost for doing nothing different, and we would argue that the investment into preservation and promotion of a fire-skilled workforce will cost far less than just continuing with the status quo.
Some others may argue that policy addendums may only be necessary for regions of the Forest Service where wildfire severity is increasing and forest management resources are being pooled and that a series shift should apply to only these regions where job hazard has increased at a faster rate. This could be a valid point, but you could have levels of complexity and different pay scales that accurately reflect these regional differences. While advocating the promotion of fire resources for the purpose of ensuring safety and equity on the fireline, the need for fire suppression is not the sole purpose of expanding resources and duties. Expanding resources just for fire suppression lacks ecological backing, as we know fire suppression is one small component to protect and restore our landscapes.
The expansion of the year-round workforce promotes better land management in the long run, providing work capacity with depth, knowledge, contributing to a robust and consistent workforce. Fire and Natural Resources are interdependent, so we should be creating a workforce that is trained and well-versed in each if we are to best manage our landscapes.
Those who oppose the policy recommendations may not like the shift becoming more focused on non-federal resources, which may take more of the load as communities seek to expand further into areas of the WUI. Proposed policy changes would strengthen the roles other stakeholders (private landowners, state, county, and/or municipal fire departments) have in fire suppression and land management overall. Some push-back may be encountered as burdens and responsibilities are redistributed.
