Article link

The Grand Rapids research station is among those slated to close. St. Paul remains open. They list Ely as closing but I’m not aware of any research station there?

Moving headquarters to Utah which is the nexus of anti-public lands activism is extremely concerning.

Here's some additional analysis on the significant changes related to this from a group that focuses on public lands and national parks.

From the article above: "Call your senators. Call your representative. Not next week or later. Now.

Tell them this is not a reorganization — it’s the destruction of a federal agency by executive fiat and that Congress must intervene. Tell them to block all funding for this relocation and restructuring until the full implications have been studied, debated, and voted on by the people’s elected representatives.

Tell them you know what happened to the BLM. Tell them 87% staff loss is not efficiency. Tell them that three people showing up to Grand Junction is not “moving closer to the land.” Tell them that if they allow this to proceed, the Forest Service will suffer the same fate at twenty times the scale, and the blood will be on their hands.

Tell them you know the endgame. Tell them this is the on-ramp to land transfer. Tell them that handing the headquarters to Utah while Utah is actively suing to seize your public land is not a coincidence — it’s a tell.

And tell every conservation organization, every outdoor recreation company, every hunting and fishing group, every single person who has ever set foot on a national forest and felt something — tell them the time for polite statements and “concern” is over. The building is on fire. The arsonists are inside. And if we don’t act now, there will be very little left to save.

Stay loud. Stay angry. Stay relentless.

They want us tired and resigned. Don’t give them that satisfaction."

Sounds like the research station in Grand Rapids is slated to be cut. I worked with those people some in the past.
Link

I am all for efficiency, but I have yet to see any real information related to what was accomplished by DOGE, or what cost savings would come from this proposal. They expect me to fall in line when they toss out words like "nimble" and "effective", but where is the data? Think for a minute about who benefits when we conduct less research and know less about what is happening on the National Forest.

Glad you posted it and hope it survives, I figured if I post it, it will last a couple of hours.
I know wolf expert David Mech and others have worked out of the Kawishiwi station much of the time years ago.

Research in forest management and diseases and water quality and animal life is so important.
With research and learning wee are dumbing down our existents.

If something has and is working don't fix it.
Its also attempt to do away with environmental review and things like controlling mining.

thegildedgopher: " Article link

The Grand Rapids research station is among those slated to close. St. Paul remains open. They list Ely as closing but I’m not aware of any research station there?

Moving headquarters to Utah which is the nexus of anti-public lands activism is extremely concerning. "

So true.

View points and affect

Unbelievable... and HOW much are they spending on going to the moon?

If the headquarters move is the gunshot, the destruction of the research program is the burial.

More than fifty research and development facilities across thirty-one states. Gone. Consolidated into a single location in Fort Collins, Colorado. And “consolidated” is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence, because what it actually means is that decades of place-based, long-term ecological research — the kind that literally cannot exist anywhere else because it depends on specific forests, specific watersheds, specific ecosystems studied over generations — will be snuffed out.

You cannot move a thirty-year watershed study.

Seems like in other cases in the last year. The science isn't wanted. It's all about making some people rich. Lets just be honest

Jackfish: "Unbelievable... and HOW much are they spending on going to the moon?"

A LOT less than attacking Iran for no good reason and disrupting the world economy...

saveusfs.org is a great place to start if you are wondering what you can do on an individual level to support our forest service. Via a grassroots social media campaign they have already secured commitments from over 70 outdoors businesses to use their voice and influence to fight this insanity and advocate for the preservation of our public lands — and the people and agencies who have dedicated their lives to the work that keeps them beautiful and accessible to all.

Among the companies you can feel good about supporting are:

Altra, Big Agnes, Black Diamond, Columbia, Fjlraven, Kahtoola, Kelty, Mountain Hardwear, NEMO, Orvis, Patagonia, REI, Smartwool, and The North Face. This is not a complete list, but just a few of the more recognizable names. I was bummed not to find any of the more canoe companies at this time.

History is generally not very kind to those in power that try to suppress science to further their own interests. Just ask Galileo and Pope Urban VIII.

thegildedgopher: "saveusfs.org is a great place to start if you are wondering what you can do on an individual level to support our forest service. Via a grassroots social media campaign they have already secured commitments from over 70 outdoors businesses to use their voice and influence to fight this insanity and advocate for the preservation of our public lands — and the people and agencies who have dedicated their lives to the work that keeps them beautiful and accessible to all.


Among the companies you can feel good about supporting are:


Altra, Big Agnes, Black Diamond, Columbia, Fjlraven, Kahtoola, Kelty, Mountain Hardwear, NEMO, Orvis, Patagonia, REI, Smartwool, and The North Face. This is not a complete list, but just a few of the more recognizable names. I was bummed not to find any of the more canoe companies at this time."

Thanks for the info.

Cuts

Proposed federal cuts hit Ely research station, could affect parks, forests, tribes
Posted Thursday, April 9, 2026 12:43 pm


David Colburn
REGIONAL — A sweeping federal budget proposal, combined with ongoing restructuring of key land management agencies, could bring changes to public lands and tribal programs across northeastern Minnesota.
The Trump administration’s fiscal 2027 budget request, revealed last week, calls for significant cuts at several federal agencies, including the National Park Service and Bureau of Indian Affairs. At the same time, structural changes already underway within the U.S. Forest Service could have more immediate local effects.
While Congress will ultimately decide final funding levels, the proposal offers a clear look at the administration’s priorities. And in at least one case, those priorities are already showing up on the ground, with a Forest Service research facility in Ely slated for closure.

Forest Service
The U.S. Forest Service has identified its research and development facilities in Ely and Grand Rapids for closure as part of a nationwide effort to consolidate its research work.
The move is part of a broader restructuring that reaches well beyond Minnesota, with the Forest Service planning to close dozens nationwide, roughly 60 in all.
The Ely facility has long been part of the agency’s work in northern Minnesota, studying forest management, red pine production, and the state’s timber industry.
That work isn’t necessarily going away. Under the new structure, it could continue under a more centralized system. But closing the Ely and Grand Rapids sites would mean the Forest Service no longer has locally based research staff in Minnesota.
The closures are part of a broader restructuring effort announced by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which oversees the Forest Service. Under the plan, the Forest Service will move its headquarters from Washington, D.C., to Salt Lake City and shift from a regional structure to a state-based model, with 15 state offices replacing nine regional offices. Research operations will be consolidated under a single national organization based in Fort Collins, Colo.
The reorganization also includes a shift in federal wildfire responsibilities. Under the plan, wildland fire management would ultimately move from the Forest Service to a new U.S. Wildland Fire Service within the Department of the Interior, although current firefighting operations would continue under existing structures during the transition.
Alongside those structural changes, the administration is proposing major shifts in Forest Service funding. The budget would eliminate funding for forest and rangeland research programs and for state, private, and tribal forestry assistance, while reducing overall operations funding by roughly 44 percent. At the same time, funding for timber programs would increase significantly.
Together, the changes point toward a smaller research footprint, less local presence, and a stronger emphasis on timber production.

National Park Service
The administration’s budget proposal would also cut approximately $736 million from the National Park Service, a reduction of more than 25 percent of its operating budget.
The cuts would affect more than 430 park units nationwide, including Voyageurs National Park.
Even before the proposed reductions, the Park Service is already operating with fewer staff. According to the National Parks Conservation Association, the agency has lost about a quarter of its workforce since early 2025 due to involuntary terminations, resignations, retirements, and hiring challenges.
That has already translated into real-world effects, including maintenance backlogs, reduced services, and in some cases, uncollected entrance fees due to limited staffing.
Further cuts could make those challenges more visible, particularly at parks that rely on seasonal workers during peak visitor months.
Communities that depend on park tourism could also feel the impact if reduced staffing affects visitor experience or return visits.
Voyageurs was not singled out in the proposal, but as part of the national system, it would likely see the same kinds of pressures as other parks.

Tribal programs
The proposal also includes a wide range of changes to federal programs that support tribal communities, including those in northeastern Minnesota.
Funding for the Bureau of Indian Affairs would be reduced by more than 20 percent under the proposal, while tribal housing programs would see a $467 million cut, and the Community Development Block Grant program would be eliminated, affecting housing and infrastructure efforts.
Economic development programs would also be reduced. The proposal calls for eliminating the Indian Guaranteed Loan Program and reducing funding for Native community development financial institutions, which help finance tribal businesses.
The proposal also targets federal support for Native arts programs, including the elimination of funding for the Institute of American Indian Arts, a federally supported college dedicated to Indigenous arts and culture.
Education funding would also be affected, with an estimated 30 percent reduction for the Bureau of Indian Education, which supports schools serving Native students.
The Indian Health Service would see an overall funding increase, though much of that funding is directed toward facilities and system upgrades. At the same time, some patient-focused programs would be sharply reduced, including a 75 percent cut to the Special Diabetes Program for Indians.
Funding for sanitation facilities would also be reduced by 87 percent.
It remains unclear how those changes would play out for individual communities, including the Bois Forte Band.

Priorities may shift
Congress will determine how much of the proposal becomes reality. Lawmakers typically revise presidential budgets, sometimes significantly, before final appropriations are approved.

Forty trillion in debt can do that.

I find it a very curious thing that so many on this board celebrate virtually free access to the Boundary Waters and at the same time decry measures designed to meet fiscal realty.

You want it, you use it, you pay for it. It's not an entitlement. Is there a politician brave enough to campaign on this mantra? Probably not because the electorate consistently rewards politicians who campaign on program growth. Hence forty trillion and counting. Stein's Law: if something cannot go on forever, it will stop.

Argo: "Forty trillion in debt can do that.

I find it a very curious thing that so many on this board celebrate virtually free access to the Boundary Waters and at the same time decry measures designed to meet fiscal realty.

You want it, you use it, you pay for it. It's not an entitlement. Is there a politician brave enough to campaign on this mantra? Probably not because the electorate consistently rewards politicians who campaign on program growth. Hence forty trillion and counting. Stein's Law: if something cannot go on forever, it will stop."

I have no problem paying park fees and fishing/hunter license fees, particularly if that money stays within the forest service, state park system, department of natural resources, etc.

However, the notion of privatization, a profit driven model of public land management, or the federal government abdicating management responsibilities for these lands is a reprehensible concept to me. Fees should be set at the minimum level required to cover the costs. Access to public lands should never be restricted to only wealthier Americans.

And that 40 trillion in debt definitely didn't come about because of conservation or public land spending. That conversation involves convoluted tax policy, military spending, unnecessary foreign wars that achieve little to nothing, health care spending, etc...

My limited perspective on this.
I spent six years with the USFS (Department of Agriculture) during my 30 year career as a wildland firefighter, the rest of those years were spent working for the Dept of the Interior (BLM, NPS and USFWS).
I do not think the sky is falling, with this move, however I do not think it will save any money either.

The USFS has 10 regional offices, the government wants to replace these regional offices with 13 state offices, I do not see the logic. (The BLM is managed by 12 state offices with no regional offices).

The BLM state offices do their own HR. Hiring, firing, personal actions the whole gambit. The USFS regional offices do not do hiring or personal actions. They are done at a HUGE complex in Albuquerque NM called the Albuquerque Service Center. It handles all personnel actions for the USFS. I do not see the ASC being relocated to those 13 states.

My observation is that the USFS, a division under the Dept of Agriculture (which is not a land management agency) is very top heavy.
I had many more redundant supervisors when I worked for the USFS, than I had working for the BLM, NPS or US Fish and Wildlife Service, which I felt was way more mission (land management) focused.

I am glad they are moving employees Salt Lake City rather than Grand Junction CO, like the previous attempt in the first Trump administration.

To sum things up without getting into the weeds.
I do not see the sky falling with this re-organization and I do not believe the conspiracy theories "Mostly". However, I do not see it saving any money. If the government wanted to do that, they would lump the USFS into the four other land management agencies managed under the Dept of the Interior, (BLM, NPS, USFWS and the BIA) that of course would take an act of congress, and congress seems to be AWOL currently.

Since we are dealing with 4 year olds we change the name to the Warestry Department. Trillion dollar budget by Monday.

PaddlinMadeline: "Since we are dealing with 4 year olds we change the name to the Warestry Department. Trillion dollar budget by Monday. "

Ha.

LindenTree: "My limited perspective on this.
I spent six years with the USFS (Department of Agriculture) during my 30 year career as a wildland firefighter, the rest of those years were spent working for the Dept of the Interior (BLM, NPS and USFWS).
I do not think the sky is falling, with this move, however I do not think it will save any money either.


The USFS has 10 regional offices, the government wants to replace these regional offices with 13 state offices, I do not see the logic. (The BLM is managed by 12 state offices with no regional offices).


The BLM state offices do their own HR. Hiring, firing, personal actions the whole gambit. The USFS regional offices do not do hiring or personal actions. They are done at a HUGE complex in Albuquerque NM called the Albuquerque Service Center. It handles all personnel actions for the USFS. I do not see the ASC being relocated to those 13 states.


My observation is that the USFS, a division under the Dept of Agriculture (which is not a land management agency) is very top heavy.
I had many more redundant supervisors when I worked for the USFS, than I had working for the BLM, NPS or US Fish and Wildlife Service, which I felt was way more mission (land management) focused.


I am glad they are moving employees Salt Lake City rather than Grand Junction CO, like the previous attempt in the first Trump administration.


To sum things up without getting into the weeds.
I do not see the sky falling with this re-organization and I do not believe the conspiracy theories "Mostly". However, I do not see it saving any money. If the government wanted to do that, they would lump the USFS into the four other land management agencies managed under the Dept of the Interior, (BLM, NPS, USFWS and the BIA) that of course would take an act of congress, and congress seems to be AWOL currently.


"

LindenTree - Thank you for providing that well written context - very informative.

Thanks for chiming in LindenTree. I would like to hear your thoughts specifically on the ability to keep specialized and region-specific research moving forward under the new plan. I don’t see how the research that was being conducted in Grand Rapids, for example could be done without boots on the ground in that specific region.

And SLC is essentially home base for the movement to privatize public lands. What in your opinion makes that a positive move?

I would think they would have no problems doing the same work out of the Northern Research Station in St. Paul, MN. The office in St. Paul has been doing forest research across many states for as long as I can remember. It was the headquarters for the North Central Research Station before it was merged with the Northeast Research station to form the Northern Research Station. Also from all the information I can find they are not cutting any research positions in the consolidation.

I don't see the research arm of the USFS being top heavy. The research that happens at centers and the experiment stations associated with land grant universities serve much more than the National Forests. In the southern states USFS research serves forestry on private land much more than on public. It seems like all of the research facilities in Mississippi are being shuttered. MS is a big forest product producing state. Research addresses insect and disease issues especially. It also offers students opportunities for internships to better prepare them for work after graduation.

What we know about forest ecology and management is just a drop in the bucket compared to what we have yet to learn. Locally I have watched the Clemson Forest Experiment station do some real significant work on hardwood silviculture, Table Mountain Pine stand replacement/ fire and much more. I hate to see it closed.

briar: "I would think they would have no problems doing the same work out of the Northern Research Station in St. Paul, MN. The office in St. Paul has been doing forest research across many states for as long as I can remember. It was the headquarters for the North Central Research Station before it was merged with the Northeast Research station to form the Northern Research Station. Also from all the information I can find they are not cutting any research positions in the consolidation."

They won’t call them “cuts” because they will give them the option to move to a new location where they will be paid to twiddle their thumbs. Like my army veteran friend who was a federal arbitration judge who got DOGE’d . He wasn’t fired, he was a told to uproot his entire family or lose his job. The result is the same and the intent is the same.

There aren’t a lot of peat bogs in Saint Paul, so good luck continuing work like this— Which is no coincidence since the current administration thinks climate change is a hoax.

thegildedgopher: "

briar: "I would think they would have no problems doing the same work out of the Northern Research Station in St. Paul, MN. The office in St. Paul has been doing forest research across many states for as long as I can remember. It was the headquarters for the North Central Research Station before it was merged with the Northeast Research station to form the Northern Research Station. Also from all the information I can find they are not cutting any research positions in the consolidation."

They won’t call them “cuts” because they will give them the option to move to a new location where they will be paid to twiddle their thumbs. Like my army veteran friend who was a federal arbitration judge who got DOGE’d . He wasn’t fired, he was a told to uproot his entire family or lose his job. The result is the same and the intent is the same.


There aren’t a lot of peat bogs in Saint Paul, so good luck continuing work like this— Which is no coincidence since the current administration thinks climate change is a hoax. "

So true, you can move the people, but you can't move a ecosystem to study. Leave them here they belong.

thegildedgopher: "

briar: "I would think they would have no problems doing the same work out of the Northern Research Station in St. Paul, MN. The office in St. Paul has been doing forest research across many states for as long as I can remember. It was the headquarters for the North Central Research Station before it was merged with the Northeast Research station to form the Northern Research Station. Also from all the information I can find they are not cutting any research positions in the consolidation."

They won’t call them “cuts” because they will give them the option to move to a new location where they will be paid to twiddle their thumbs. Like my army veteran friend who was a federal arbitration judge who got DOGE’d . He wasn’t fired, he was a told to uproot his entire family or lose his job. The result is the same and the intent is the same.


There aren’t a lot of peat bogs in Saint Paul, so good luck continuing work like this— Which is no coincidence since the current administration thinks climate change is a hoax. "

The last 32 years of my career I was doing forestry research. My research sites were scatted across Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Iowa, and Indiana. I could have carried out my work from many locations so I don't agree with your statement that they need to be in Grand Rapids to work in N MN on projects like the one you posted. The USFS office in St. Paul has carried out many research studies across Northern Minnesota for as long as I can remember.

I’m curious - What type of forestry research were you doing for 32 years. If I may ask.

Aspen growth and yield, Red Pine growth and yield as well as thinning methods, hybrid poplar, fertilizer trials, plus many short term studies.

That sounds like a lot more fun interesting and less stressful than what I’ve been doing for the last 38 years. So I had to ask, cuz I’m jealous haha. I’m sure you had an advanced degree to get that gig.

I was the field guy, data collector, data summarizer. My boss said I had the better of the jobs. I have a tech degree and worked my way up.

Sweet, I’m glad I asked and thanks for sharing that. I like that story.

USFS does lots of good work but also is very political and games the system in some pretty bad ways. The culture has shifted old school conservation partnering with the local community to more radical environmentalist more towards left leaning political lobbies.(if that makes sense). They can also bully you if they don't like you.

They have also lost the ability to push back against the environmental groups out there that practice lawfare. This means that if you live in the area and are asking for something you are under the constant threat of an environmental group suing you into oblivion. Even if the forest services gives you a permit they tip off one of the non-profits and you give up because who has $50k to battle in court just for a driveway permit?

The restructure is an attempt to reset the FS to get back to their mission. Will it work? I kinda doubt anything will change.

Science is the future and research stations have been closed in Minnesota. You don't study bogs and forests from the desert in Utah. Also many studies on animals and ecosystems with the changing environment.
Science Nationwide in many fields have been gutted.