Firefighting Bill to Fan Flames

Wildfire Response for Profit: The Sheehy Method

As wildfires intensify across the American West, the debate over how best to manage and respond to these disasters has gained urgency.

Senator Tim Sheehy has introduced the "Fit for Purpose Wildfire Readiness Act," aiming to consolidate federal wildfire response into a single agency under the Department of the Interior for the purposes of streamlining revenue from government contracts more easily to his own bank account.

While the proposal purports to streamline firefighting operations on the ground, experts warn it will undermine the effective interagency coordination that currently underpins U.S. wildfire management.

Nearly every veteran wildland firefighter and expert, from the National Federation of Federal Employees to former USFS leadership, says coordination is already effective through the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) and mutual aid systems. The real issue is lack of year-round funding, staffing shortages, and climate-intensified conditions, not a broken command structure.

You can’t negotiate with physics. Climate-driven fires, wildland-urban interface expansion, and fire-adapted ecosystems require long-term resilience strategies, not just suppression.

Overhauling wildfire response to serve Sheehy’s private interests would do more harm than good, especially for communities that rely on publicly funded fire services, not profit-driven corporations, to protect their homes and lives.

A Flawed Proposal: A Unified Federal Wildland Fire Service

Sheehy's bill, co-sponsored by Senator Alex Padilla (D-CA), mandates the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior to develop a plan consolidating federal wildland fire preparedness, suppression, and recovery efforts into a new "National Wildland Firefighting Service" within the Department of the Interior to supersede the NIFC.

Instead of strengthening the existing interagency system, co-sponsor Sen. Padilla may unintentionally undermine the very professionals he claims to be trying to support in California.

Sheehy emphasizes that a single agency could cut through red tape and respond more effectively to fast-moving wildfires. His bill is no more than a solution in search of a problem. Such a system already exists.

The National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) in Boise, Idaho, serves as the central hub for coordinating wildland firefighting resources across the United States. It houses the National Interagency Coordination Center (NICC) and the National Multi-Agency Coordination Group (NMAC), which oversee the allocation and prioritization of firefighting resources during large-scale incidents. NIFC's collaborative framework includes federal agencies such as the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, and others, ensuring a unified approach to wildfire management.

Wildfire response isn’t failing because of too many agencies; it’s failing because we’re not funding the ones we already have.

These agencies coordinate through established entities like the National Interagency Coordination Center (NICC) and the National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG), which facilitate resource sharing, training standardization, and joint operational strategies.

This collaborative model allows for flexibility, leveraging the unique expertise and jurisdictional knowledge of each agency. For instance, the USFS manages over 193 million acres of national forests and grasslands, while the BLM oversees vast public lands in the West, each requiring tailored fire management approaches.

Concerns Over Consolidation

Critics of the consolidation proposal raise several concerns.

1. Disruption of Effective Coordination. The existing interagency system, though complex, has evolved to handle the multifaceted nature of wildfire management. Consolidation will disrupt established relationships and protocols that have proven effective.

2. Loss of Specialized Expertise. Each agency brings specialized knowledge of the lands they manage. A single agency may struggle to maintain this depth of expertise across diverse ecosystems.

3. Overemphasis on Suppression. There's a risk that a centralized agency might prioritize immediate suppression over long-term strategies like controlled burns and ecological restoration, which are essential for sustainable wildfire management.

4. Potential for Increased Costs. Past experiences suggest that large-scale reorganizations can lead to unforeseen expenses and inefficiencies during the transition period.

If our goal is truly to support frontline fire crews and protect our communities from worsening wildfires, the better path isn’t restructuring, it’s deep investment in what’s already working: public fire science, collaborative land management, and a fully staffed, year-round firefighting workforce with local expertise.

Sheehy should listen to the experts, firefighters getting smoke in their lungs and cutting line in the backcountry, because they’re telling us loud and clear: this bill makes us less safe.

Visualizing the Impact

While the goal of improving wildfire response is commendable, the proposed consolidation risks undermining a system that, despite its imperfections, has developed robust mechanisms for interagency collaboration. Enhancing funding, improving communication, and investing in preventive measures within the existing framework would offer a more effective path forward.

The existing system employs interagency coordination through entities like the National Interagency Coordination Center (NICC) and the National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG), facilitating collaboration across agencies while preserving specialized expertise.

Sheehy advocates for merging five federal agencies: USFS, BLM, NPS, FWS, and BIA into a single Federal Wildland Fire Service within the Department of the Interior. He argues this would reduce bureaucratic red tape and streamline wildfire response.

While consolidation aims to simplify command structures, it risks disrupting established coordination mechanisms that have proven effective in managing complex wildfire incidents. The current model allows for flexibility and specialization, which are crucial in diverse fire scenarios.

Burning for Profit

Sheehy's proposal focuses on enhancing suppression capabilities, particularly through aerial resources, to respond rapidly to wildfires. This proposal will enrich Sheehy indirectly through several avenues, particularly tied to his ownership stake and leadership in Bridger Aerospace, a private aerial firefighting company based in Belgrade, Montana.

Bridger Aerospace provides aerial firefighting services, including water and retardant drops to federal agencies like the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. If wildfire response is consolidated into a single, centralized agency, that agency will award larger, less competitive contracts to established private firms like Bridger.

Unlike public agencies that are mission-driven and cost-constrained, private contractors charge market rates, and often do so in emergency situations when bidding is waived.

Sheehy founded Bridger Aerospace and served as its CEO. Although he stepped back from executive duties after announcing his Senate run, he retained a significant ownership stake, as disclosed in his 2023 financial reports. Bridger Aerospace went public via a SPAC merger in 2023 (NASDAQ: BAER). Any increase in revenue from federal contracts would likely boost the company’s stock value and in turn, Sheehy’s personal wealth.

Even without direct involvement in contract negotiations, his shareholder status means he benefits financially from the company’s performance. Sheehy's bill to benefit his own bottom line is a textbook example of conflict of interest, where public policy aligns with personal or corporate gain.

Sheehy may argue that he's not actively managing the company, but as a senator with legislative influence, he can still shape the regulatory and funding landscape in ways that benefit companies he owns. Any boost to Bridger’s federal contracts, stock price, or brand recognition stemming from this legislation is a clear financial gain, even if indirect.

Senator Sheehy’s proposal to consolidate federal wildfire response would likely increase reliance on aerial firefighting (his company’s specialty) and boost the value and revenue of Bridger Aerospace, both of which could financially benefit Sheehy unless he divests or places his holdings in a blind trust.

Supporting What Works

While Senator Sheehy's proposal aims to streamline wildfire response, it's crucial to consider the potential risks and disruptions to a system that, despite its complexities, has developed effective coordination and specialized expertise over time. Any changes should be carefully evaluated to ensure they enhance, rather than hinder, the nation's ability to manage wildfires effectively.

Integrating suppression with prevention strategies like controlled burns, fuel management and ecological restoration and also recognizing that fire plays a natural role in many ecosystems are essential truths in modern fire management strategy.

Prioritizing suppression without equal emphasis on prevention can lead to larger, more destructive fires in the long term. Effective wildfire management requires a balance between immediate response and proactive measures to reduce fire risk.

While there are sure to be inefficiencies, the current system allows for targeted funding and resource allocation based on agency-specific needs and priorities.

Merging agencies will entail significant upfront costs and operational disruptions, putting Montana at risk during at a perilous time.

While Senator Sheehy's proposal aims to streamline wildfire response, it's crucial to consider the potential risks and disruptions to a system that, despite its complexities, has developed effective coordination and specialized expertise over time and experience. Any changes should be carefully evaluated to ensure they enhance, rather than hinder, the nation's ability to manage wildfires effectively.

Why would a United States Senator from Montana want to undermine our wild land fire suppression and response strategy? In this case it's clear: profit.

Montana deserves senators who represent the state’s interests, not the best interests of their own bottom line. Call Sheehy today and tell him straight from Montana: we don’t pay our taxes to line his pockets and be less safe during wildfire season.

Senator Tim Sheehy (R-MT)

• Washington, D.C. Office: (202) 224-2644

• Kalispell: (406) 257-3398

• Billings: (406) 252-0559

• Great Falls: (406) 452-9587

• Bozeman: (406) 872-6350

• Helena: (406) 441-1069

• Butte: (406) 782-2048

• Missoula: (406) 218-2658