Prelude 

The United States Forest Service (USFS) manages roughly 193 million acres of public land across the country, including 154 national forests and 20 national grasslands. These lands support some of the best hunting and fishing opportunities in the world. Everything from Grizzly bears and bighorn sheep to trout streams and salmon spawning bed from benefit from the work of dedicated USFS public servants.  

Since its founding under Theodore Roosevelt and its first Chief Gifford Pinchot, the agency has been guided by the idea that public lands should be managed for long-term use and benefit. That means balancing access, conservation, timber production, recreation, and wildlife habitat. On the ground, that work looks like maintaining roads and trails, managing wildfire risk, restoring habitat, and working with local communities. It’s also supported by decades of research- long term data that helps inform everything from wildlife management to water quality. 

 

The Forest Service's Reorganization

When major changes to our public lands are announced, the headlines come fast. But before jumping to conclusions, Backcountry Hunters & Anglers takes a step back and asks three questions: 

1. What’s happening? 

2.  Why now? 

3. What does it mean for hunters, anglers, and the American taxpayer? 

 

What do we know is actually happening? 

On March 31, Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins announced a sweeping reorganization of the USFS- one that would significantly change how the agency is structured and where its work is carried out. 

The proposal includes relocating the agency’s headquarters from Washington, D.C. to Salt Lake City, Utah, shifting at least 260 positions out of the capital and closer to western forest landscapes. It would also eliminate all 9 regional offices, which currently oversee the agency’s 154 national forests, and replace them with a new structure built around 15 state-based directors responsible for Forest Service operations across one or more states. 

A major component of the plan focuses on research. In order to “consolidate leadership of its research enterprise,” 57 of the agency’s 77 research facilities across 31 states would be closed or consolidated, including all 5 regional research stations. These functions would be reorganized under a single research entity based in Fort Collins, Colorado. 

Beyond initial announcements from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, many details remain unclear, including how these changes would be implemented and what they would mean for day-to-day management on the ground. 

Secretary Rollins says that this restructuring will move Forest Service employees closer to the landscapes they manage and the people who depend on them. 

 

Why is this happening right now? 

Change within federal agencies is not always a bad thing. In many cases, it’s necessary. But the timing of this proposal raises important questions for BHA. Given the current environmental and staffing pressures facing the USFS and the landscapes it manages, does this make sense right now? 

This reorganization is being proposed just ahead of peak wildfire season, at a time when much of the Western United States is experiencing prolonged drought and above-average temperature conditions that increase the likelihood of large, severe wildfires.  

At the same time, the Forest Service is navigating significant workforce challenges. According to the 2025 USDA staffing Report, last year the USFS lost at least 5,860 of the 35,550 agency employees, representing a 16% decrease in workforce, not including the 3,400 probationary employees that were terminated by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and then reinstated by a judge. Those staffing challenges are already affecting outcomes. A Senate analysis found that wildfire mitigation work declined by 38 percent in 2025 compared to the previous four-year average, meaning fewer acres treated to reduce fuel loads and wildfire risk. 

This proposal also comes just after Congress passed fiscal year 2026 appropriations language stating that funds cannot be used to “relocates an office or employees” or “reorganizes or renames offices, programs, or activities.” Timing wise- why pursue a major reorganization immediately after Congress explicitly restricted funding for those exact actions? 

Taken together, this raises a fundamental question: at a time when the agency is already stretched thin, will a major internal reorganization improve its ability to deliver on the ground, or make that job more difficult? 

What does it mean for the people who rely on these lands most? Does this move benefit the end user- the hunter, angler, American taxpayer? 

Supporters of the reorganization argue that these changes could improve how the USFS operates. They point to the fact that the majority of National Forest System lands, over 85 percent, are located in Western states, and argue that shifting leadership closer to those landscapes could lead to more responsive, place-based decision-making. 

Agency leadership has also framed the consolidation of research as an efficiency measure. As Forest Service Chief Schultz stated, “The consolidation is about organizing the research enterprise more efficiently, not diminishing it.” In theory, a more centralized research structure could reduce redundancy and improve coordination across the agency. 

Those are real potential benefits, and they deserve consideration. At the same time, BHA has concerns.  

We’ve seen a similar approach before. When the Bureau of Land Management relocated its headquarters to Grand Junction, Colorado in 2019, more than 87 percent of headquarters staff chose not to relocate. That level of turnover resulted in a significant loss of institutional knowledge, something that cannot be quickly reversed by a policy decision. A reorganization of this scale raises similar concerns. When experienced staff leave, they take decades of knowledge about specific landscapes, wildlife populations, and management practices with them.  

For hunters and anglers, the biggest concern may be what happens to the science that underpins good management when you consolidate 57 research facilities. Many of these sites, particularly experimental forests, have been collecting data for decades, in some cases over a century. That long-term research is essential for understanding forest health, wildlife habitat, water quality, and how ecosystems respond to fire, drought, and other pressures. 

These facilities also serve as hubs for collaboration, where Forest Service scientists work alongside universities and local partners, using specialized equipment and long-term monitoring sites to inform management decisions. 

So what does it mean to lose that? 

It could mean losing continuity in long-term data sets. It could mean pulling researchers away from the landscapes they study. And it could mean fewer opportunities for collaboration and real-time information sharing at the local level. 

Without that science, land managers are left making decisions with less information- something no hunter or angler should be comfortable with. 

At the end of the day, this isn’t about where an office is located or how an agency is structured on paper. It’s about outcomes. 

Does this improve habitat? 
Does it maintain access? 
Does it support the long-term health of our public lands? 

Those are the questions that matter- and the ones this proposal will ultimately be judged by.