The agency didn’t explain its decision, but the expensive promotional campaign would have coincided with budget difficulties the agency faces with rising firefighting costs and a backlog of trail maintenance.

The Forest Service in recent years has faced major public criticism over plans to close some trails and roads to motorized vehicles because it lacks the funds to maintain those trails and roads while preventing erosion and impacts to fish and wildlife.

In its Jan. 6 announcement, Forest Service officials said they had not accepted any contract bids for the rebranding campaign and would instead look for other ways to enhance the public’s access to Forest Service lands and the public’s understanding about what the agency does.

Andy Stahl, the director of the watchdog group Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics, said he thought Forest Service leaders “finally listened to Forest Service employees, and no one thought this was a good idea.”

Stahl said that shortly after he learned about the proposed public relations contract, he sent e-mails to 25,000 Forest Service employees. About half of the e-mails were opened, and he got 50 replies, all critical.

Some e-mails suggested other ways to spend the money, including revising forest management plans, restoring ecosystems, hiring more employees and lifting a three-year wage freeze.

The Forest Service manages about 193 million acres of forests and grasslands for multiple uses, from watershed protection and timber production to grazing, mining and recreation.

The presumed front-runner to win the public relations contract was Portland-based Metropolitan Group, a “social change” firm that the Forest Service contracted with in the past to help the agency’s Pacific Northwest offices “reflect on its roots and discover its future.”

Metropolitan Group currently holds a $527,000 contract with the Forest Service, and the $10 million proposed rebranding effort had been billed as a “follow-on” contract.

Some Forest Service employees wondered why the agency didn’t just put more boots on the ground, and some worried that the rebranding effort would only make the agency look bad. Others supported the general idea of keeping the public informed of the good the agency does.

Forest Service officials announced Jan. 6 that it has decided not to spend $10 million on a five-year nationwide public relations campaign with the goal of branding itself as a public agency that cares about people and nature.

The agency didn’t explain its decision, but the expensive promotional campaign would have coincided with budget difficulties the agency faces with rising firefighting costs and a backlog of trail maintenance.

The Forest Service in recent years has faced major public criticism over plans to close some trails and roads to motorized vehicles because it lacks the funds to maintain those trails and roads while preventing erosion and impacts to fish and wildlife.

In its Jan. 6 announcement, Forest Service officials said they had not accepted any contract bids for the rebranding campaign and would instead look for other ways to enhance the public’s access to Forest Service lands and the public’s understanding about what the agency does.

Andy Stahl, the director of the watchdog group Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics, said he thought Forest Service leaders “finally listened to Forest Service employees, and no one thought this was a good idea.”

Stahl said that shortly after he learned about the proposed public relations contract, he sent e-mails to 25,000 Forest Service employees. About half of the e-mails were opened, and he got 50 replies, all critical.

Some e-mails suggested other ways to spend the money, including revising forest management plans, restoring ecosystems, hiring more employees and lifting a three-year wage freeze.

The Forest Service manages about 193 million acres of forests and grasslands for multiple uses, from watershed protection and timber production to grazing, mining and recreation.

The presumed front-runner to win the public relations contract was Portland-based Metropolitan Group, a “social change” firm that the Forest Service contracted with in the past to help the agency’s Pacific Northwest offices “reflect on its roots and discover its future.”

Metropolitan Group currently holds a $527,000 contract with the Forest Service, and the $10 million proposed rebranding effort had been billed as a “follow-on” contract.

Some Forest Service employees wondered why the agency didn’t just put more boots on the ground, and some worried that the rebranding effort would only make the agency look bad. Others supported the general idea of keeping the public informed of the good the agency does.