Jon:
> By the 80s, I had done my bio-techhing for long enough and was ready to
> settle down a bit. By that time, the Carter and Reagan administrations
> had emphasized *volunteering* as the Great American Way. Volunteering
> was institutionalized in the Forest Service, Park Service, Fish and
> Wildlife, etc etc. The Student Conservation Assn, among others, picked up
> the federal contract monies to organize this effort. Thousands of people
> volunteered their time to the Federal natural resources agencies.

> The result. A lot of good folks gave of themselves in a 'cause' they
> believed in, and the government got a lot of work (biol. surveys, stream
> and trail rehablitation, fences mended, and such) that probably wouldn't
> have happened if they hadn't been able to volunteer. And all of that was
> praised as Good. And it might have been.

> However, instead of now hiring a college student or whomever to do the
> work as a GS-3 or 4 Biological Aid or Technician, the agencies have
> totally sliced the "Temporary Positions" out of their budgets, and rely
> on their annual crop of volunteers to get their field work done.

Of course, the problem here is not volunteerism, but rather the
cynical coopting of a good idea - amplify the amount of work that
can be done on a fixed budget - by adoption of another - replace
paid folk with volunteers.

This is a sad story, because after all the edict from "the top" was
to increase tech-hours in the field, not to reduce them or simply
maintain the status quo at lower cost.

I should add, though, that there are still a lot of temp positions
available. One biologist (one of two in the Columbia District of
the Mt. Hood NF, who planned and hired staff for spotty work, etc.,
and did other district bio work year round) managed to maintain that
status for about five years. No benefits, no security. Lest you
miss the cynical nature of this comment, I think perhaps the agencies
have used the disappearance of temp tech work as an excuse to shift
year-round positions to full-time temp. Blech.

Thanks, Jon, for pointing out an unexpected side-effect of the worthy
effort to increase the opportunities for folks to volunteer for
agencies they "believe in".

> Do folks who want computer work
> done assume that professional biologists will donate a summer's worth of
> computer time, say, to Microsoft? What a great way to break in to the
> computer field....

Well said!

> I certainly appreciate those who volunteer their time and expertise for
> The Cause. I routinely volunteer my own time on Breeding Bird Survey
> routes, the point-count survey for Neotrop. migrants for the Partners in
> Flight folks, for a MAPS banding project, and the Christmas Bird Counts.

Etc. This is the problem, though - the government takes cynical
advantage of our values and belief in, as you so aptly put it,
"The Cause".

I must add that sometimes the opposite occurs. Last (1994) fall,
at the Goshutes, the Utah National Guard agreed to hold a training
mission at our site, the training being "lift 6 tons of water and
3 tons of other shit to the top of the mountain". This freed the
Elko District from the need to do so - for 13-14 years previously,
the district bio had scrounged pennies from other projects to
finance the payment of about $8,000 to the fire-suppression
side of the BLM to pay for having a Helitak crew lift our stuff
(with a lot of volunteer help on our part, about 50-50 in terms
of grunting). He took the $8,000 and used it to pay for food
and other stuff, allowing us to actually pay a few hundred bucks
to the majority of our volunteers. (some of the better-heeled
volunteers, like myself, declined and donated our share to the
pool to increase funding for poverty-stricken BS Biology
types).

Fine fellow. Has been for years, funding our helicopter, etc.

But this year the BLM just removed the surplus from the budget.

So it goes...

Had a lot of "un-stipended" volunteers this year, as a result!

> But, the institutionalized volunteer programs of our Federal and State
> resource agencies (fiscally necessary as they may be) are, IMHO, wrong.

Ummm...I only partially agree. Volunteerism should be used as a LEVER
to increase field work, not as a REPLACEMENT for paid positions. Under
such a regime, all benefit.

But, of course - that's not the way it has worked. So, under the
spotlight of recent history, you are of course right. Sadly so.

And, of course, the Republicans tried to end volunteerism (without
increasing funds to replace them with paid field techs) as an
attempt to bring about the intersection of the worst of both
worlds!

Oh, the Indians are an inning away from losing to Atlanta...

- Don Baccus, Portland OR <donb at rational.com>