Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Politics

How Trump Could Ruin Your Next National Park Adventure

Forest ranger firings have already led to some trail closures, but the stakes get much higher than that.

Donald Trump.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

It takes less than an hour to drive from Seattle to Franklin Falls, a beginner-friendly hike that is so popular among locals that it often runs out of parking space by mid-morning in the summer. A winter snowshoeing trip is no less rewarding — the rockface glistens with icicles, and sometimes Franklin Falls itself will freeze, delighting Instagrammers and Frozen acolytes alike.

Those views, though, now sit behind a barricaded trailhead. “Due to the large scale termination of Forest Service employees, Franklin Falls and the Denny Creek Trailhead are CLOSED,” the sign read as of Saturday morning. “This site will reopen when we return to appropriate staffing levels.”

It’s unclear when — or if — that will happen. Last Friday, the Trump administration began laying off thousands of public land managers, including 3,400 new hires to the U.S. Forest Service and 2,300 to the Department of the Interior, about a thousand of whom worked for the National Park Service. Adding insult to injury, the email firing the probationary employees told them they’d “failed to demonstrate fitness or qualifications for continued employment because your subject matter knowledge, skills and abilities do not meet the department’s current needs,” despite many having unblemished or even exemplary employment records.

The cuts have placed a staggering strain on the remaining employees at the agencies. “Cutting thousands of National Park Service and Forest Service jobs is like reducing ski patrol during peak season — it may not shut everything down, but it makes access, safety, and the outdoor experience more challenging for everyone,” Ryan Laemel, the chief operating officer of Protect Our Winters, an outdoor recreation environmental nonprofit, wrote to me in a statement.

And there are more existential crises, too, like the cessation of fire risk reduction work, which could result in worse wildfires, and an abrupt halt to decades of ongoing scientific research in the parks, which will leave a gaping hole in our understanding of our own country’s climate and ecosystems. “Public lands aren’t just places to recreate — they are part of the climate solution and hold deep cultural significance, especially for Indigenous communities who have stewarded these landscapes for generations,” Laemel pointed out. Forests and grasslands managed by now-terminated employees “store carbon, protect water sources, and help prevent catastrophic wildfires.”

In Montana, for example, only three full-time workers now maintain all the infrastructure in the Yellowstone and Bozeman Ranger Districts, which cover 1 million acres, the Bozeman Daily Chronicle reports. “I honestly can’t imagine how the parks will operate without my position,” Alex Wild, a ranger who lost his job at Yosemite, wrote in an Instagram post that more than 150,000 people have liked. “I mean, they just can’t. I am the only EMT at my park and the first responder for any emergency. This is flat-out reckless.”

Stories like Wild’s have struck a chord on social media, where there has been an upswelling of outrage over the public land manager layoffs. Though President’s Day weekend saw general protests across the U.S. against Elon Musk’s idea of efficiency, NOAA firings and USAID workers losing their jobs haven’t, on their own, generated quite the same level of backlash.

Part of that is likely an issue of immediacy: 85% of Americans have vacationed at a National Park, but it’s not necessarily apparent from looking at your iPhone that you’re relying on free NOAA data. But Americans also have an almost cuddly reverence for forest rangers; as one social media user aptly put it, they’re basically the “librarians of the forest.” Eliminate their jobs and face the wrath of everyone who had a childhood dream of wearing a quad-dented straw hat when they grew up.

Neal Clark, the wildlands director at the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, a nonpartisan non-profit leading efforts to protect public lands, told me he thinks the Trump administration is playing a long game with its sabotage of the Forest Service and Department of the Interior. “The bigger point is that when you cut staff from the Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service, the National Park Service — agencies that have been chronically underfunded for decades — the additional lack of capacity and resources is ultimately going to catch up,” he warned. “It’s going to catch up with this administration, and it’s going to catch up to public land users.”

Trailhead closures like that at Franklin Falls are only the very beginning. Maybe this summer you’ll find it difficult to get the river permit you’ve come to expect for your annual family float trip. Perhaps you’ll find you can’t reserve a campsite in a National Park, or maybe the bathroom at your favorite trailhead will be closed or not serviced. Park infrastructure in general will get worse, making visits frustrating and messy; the $23 billion maintenance backlog at the National Parks will balloon into a multi-generational challenge.

Clark suspects this chaos is by design. “It’s intended to decrease the functionality. It’s intended to demoralize dedicated staff,” he said. “Ultimately, the goal is to bolster what has been a long-standing effort by industry and elected officials who back industry to sell off, transfer, or otherwise privatize public lands.”

Despite the incredible unpopularity of land privatization — majorities in every Western state, including conservative strongholds such as Wyoming and Montana, oppose the concept — there has been substantial talk of eliminating public lands by those in and around the Trump administration. By gutting the Forest Service and Department of the Interior, signs of strain will start to show. That, in turn, will “further bolster the argument that these lands would be better managed by the states, or in private hands,” Clark said.

It’s a playbook that is familiar across the government. If there is a silver lining, though, it’s that Americans really do seem energized to defend their access to the outdoors. “Protest. Speak up!” one Zion National Park ranger implored her followers this weekend. “Our nation is only as strong as we all stand together.”

Green

You’re out of free articles.

Subscribe today to experience Heatmap’s expert analysis 
of climate change, clean energy, and sustainability.
To continue reading
Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
or
Please enter an email address
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Adaptation

The ‘Buffer’ That Can Protect a Town from Wildfires

Paradise, California, is snatching up high-risk properties to create a defensive perimeter and prevent the town from burning again.

Homes as a wildfire buffer.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

The 2018 Camp Fire was the deadliest wildfire in California’s history, wiping out 90% of the structures in the mountain town of Paradise and killing at least 85 people in a matter of hours. Investigations afterward found that Paradise’s town planners had ignored warnings of the fire risk to its residents and forgone common-sense preparations that would have saved lives. In the years since, the Camp Fire has consequently become a cautionary tale for similar communities in high-risk wildfire areas — places like Chinese Camp, a small historic landmark in the Sierra Nevada foothills that dramatically burned to the ground last week as part of the nearly 14,000-acre TCU September Lightning Complex.

More recently, Paradise has also become a model for how a town can rebuild wisely after a wildfire. At least some of that is due to the work of Dan Efseaff, the director of the Paradise Recreation and Park District, who has launched a program to identify and acquire some of the highest-risk, hardest-to-access properties in the Camp Fire burn scar. Though he has a limited total operating budget of around $5.5 million and relies heavily on the charity of local property owners (he’s currently in the process of applying for a $15 million grant with a $5 million match for the program) Efseaff has nevertheless managed to build the beginning of a defensible buffer of managed parkland around Paradise that could potentially buy the town time in the case of a future wildfire.

Keep reading...Show less
Spotlight

How the Tax Bill Is Empowering Anti-Renewables Activists

A war of attrition is now turning in opponents’ favor.

Massachusetts and solar panels.
Heatmap Illustration/Library of Congress, Getty Images

A solar developer’s defeat in Massachusetts last week reveals just how much stronger project opponents are on the battlefield after the de facto repeal of the Inflation Reduction Act.

Last week, solar developer PureSky pulled five projects under development around the western Massachusetts town of Shutesbury. PureSky’s facilities had been in the works for years and would together represent what the developer has claimed would be one of the state’s largest solar projects thus far. In a statement, the company laid blame on “broader policy and regulatory headwinds,” including the state’s existing renewables incentives not keeping pace with rising costs and “federal policy updates,” which PureSky said were “making it harder to finance projects like those proposed near Shutesbury.”

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Hotspots

The Midwest Is Becoming Even Tougher for Solar Projects

And more on the week’s most important conflicts around renewables.

The United States.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

1. Wells County, Indiana – One of the nation’s most at-risk solar projects may now be prompting a full on moratorium.

  • Late last week, this county was teed up to potentially advance a new restrictive solar ordinance that would’ve cut off zoning access for large-scale facilities. That’s obviously bad for developers. But it would’ve still allowed solar facilities up to 50 acres and grandfathered in projects that had previously signed agreements with local officials.
  • However, solar opponents swamped the county Area Planning Commission meeting to decide on the ordinance, turning it into an over four-hour display in which many requested in public comments to outright ban solar projects entirely without a grandfathering clause.
  • It’s clear part of the opposition is inflamed over the EDF Paddlefish Solar project, which we ranked last year as one of the nation’s top imperiled renewables facilities in progress. The project has already resulted in a moratorium in another county, Huntington.
  • Although the Paddlefish project is not unique in its risks, it is what we view as a bellwether for the future of solar development in farming communities, as the Fort Wayne-adjacent county is a picturesque display of many areas across the United States. Pro-renewables advocates have sought to tamp down opposition with tactics such as a direct text messaging campaign, which I previously scooped last week.
  • Yet despite the counter-communications, momentum is heading in the other direction. At the meeting, officials ultimately decided to punt a decision to next month so they could edit their draft ordinance to assuage aggrieved residents.
  • Also worth noting: anyone could see from Heatmap Pro data that this county would be an incredibly difficult fight for a solar developer. Despite a slim majority of local support for renewable energy, the county has a nearly 100% opposition risk rating, due in no small part to its large agricultural workforce and MAGA leanings.

2. Clark County, Ohio – Another Ohio county has significantly restricted renewable energy development, this time with big political implications.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow