logo
Resignation of Crater Lake head leaves Oregon congressional delegation concerned

Resignation of Crater Lake head leaves Oregon congressional delegation concerned

Yahooa day ago

Crater Lake on a hazy afternoon Aug 4, 2021, caused by wildfires in southern Oregon. (Photo by Alex Baumhardt / Oregon Capital Chronicle)
While Democratic members of Oregon's congressional delegation expressed alarm at the sudden resignation of the leader of the state's only national park, the Republican who has the park in his district declined to take a position Friday.
Kevin Heatley, the new superintendent of Crater Lake National Park, resigned from his post May 30 over staffing concerns after just five months on the job.
Heatley, who had previously worked at the Bureau of Land Management, told Oregon Public Broadcasting, KGW, The Washington Post and several other news organizations that staffing was already lean at Crater Lake, and layoffs of probationary employees President Donald Trump ordered, followed by hiring freezes, mandates to leave vacant positions unfilled and new federal incentives from the Office of Personnel Management and the office known as the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, to resign or retire were making it worse.
Oregon's congressional delegation met the news with differing levels of concern.
U.S. Rep. Maxine Dexter, representing Oregon's 3rd Congressional District, wrote Wednesday to Doug Burgum, secretary of the Department of the Interior, demanding to know if he or the agency had undertaken any analysis of what staffing levels were like there or how bad it had gotten. Dexter is also a member of the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.
On X, formerly known as Twitter, Oregon's U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, a Democrat, said it is clear to him that Trump is 'hellbent on destroying natural treasures like Crater Lake.'
U.S. Rep. Cliff Bentz, who represents Oregon's 2nd District —his district includes southern Oregon's Crater Lake — said on the phone Friday he'd 'look into it.'
'The person's (Heatley) concern may be well founded. It may not. Until I know the facts better, I'm not going to take a position on it, but now that you've raised an issue, we'll look into it,' he said.
The national park in southern Oregon, famous for its vibrant and translucent volcanic lake that is among the deepest in the world, typically sees about half-a-million visitors each year. But this summer, 60 to 65 seasonal positions will need to be filled, Heatley told journalists in several reports, and just eight ranger positions have so far been filled to keep visitors in the 286-square-mile park safe.
'I mean, the train is still running on the tracks, but it's not heading in the right direction,' Heatley told OPB on June 2. 'I cannot, in good conscience, manage an operation that I know is moving in the wrong direction.'
Spokespeople for Crater Lake did not respond to Capital Chronicle requests for staffing and hiring data.
The federal jobs portal USA Jobs does not list any current vacancies at Crater Lake. The Kansas-based company running Crater Lake's lodging, concessions, retail and boating operations had 18 vacant positions listed on its site as of June 5.
The National Parks Conservation Association, a Washington D.C.-based nonprofit conservation group, called the staffing issues at the 63 National Parks a 'full-blown staffing crisis.'
They report that the Department of the Interior's own workforce database shows that as of May 13, the Park Service had just over 18,000 employees across all parks, a more than 16% drop from 2023, the previous fiscal year — a decrease equal to that of the previous ten years combined. The association said the recent sharp drop was driven by Trump-incentivized buyouts, early retirements, deferred resignations and leaving vacancies unfilled.
Interior Department data also shows 39% of seasonal and temporary staff at the national parks have been hired so far — about 3,300 employees. That's less than half the number of seasonal employees Park Service officials said they'd hire in a February memo.
In her letter to Burgum, Dexter called Heatley's resignation a 'flashing red warning sign that something is very wrong,' in a news release Wednesday.
This article was first published by the Oregon Capital Chronicle, part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Oregon Capital Chronicle maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Julia Shumway for questions: info@oregoncapitalchronicle.com.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Survey: Russians now see Germany, not US, as most hostile country
Survey: Russians now see Germany, not US, as most hostile country

Yahoo

time17 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Survey: Russians now see Germany, not US, as most hostile country

Germany is now considered the most hostile country towards Russia, a survey conducted by the independent Moscow-based polling institute Levada showed. The survey found that 55% of respondents named Germany as the most unfriendly state - a 40 percentage point increase since May 2020. In contrast, the United States, which held the top position for two decades, was named by only 40% of respondents, compared to 76% last year. This shift is attributed to the revival of Russian-American relations under US President Donald Trump, the institute said. Germany, however, has faced increasing criticism from the Russian leadership, particularly due to its arms deliveries to Ukraine, which has been under attack by Russia. The tone has notably hardened since Chancellor Friedrich Merz took office last month. The United Kingdom ranked second among countries perceived as hostile to Russia, with 49% of respondents, followed by Ukraine at 43%. Best Friends: Belarus and China The representative survey also asked Russians to name the five countries they associate as having the closest and friendliest relations with Russia. Belarus topped the list with 80% of respondents, followed by China with two-thirds. Kazakhstan ranked third with 36%, followed by India with 32% and North Korea at 30%. The results reflect the Kremlin's official policy of dividing the world into friendly and unfriendly states since the start of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Germany, which was long one of the main buyers of Russian gas in the European Union, has faced criticism in Moscow for its military support for Ukraine. The representative survey was conducted between May 22 and May 28, with 1,613 people aged 18 and older participating, Levada said.

The ultimate loser of Trump and Musk's bloody battle royale could be the nation
The ultimate loser of Trump and Musk's bloody battle royale could be the nation

New York Post

time23 minutes ago

  • New York Post

The ultimate loser of Trump and Musk's bloody battle royale could be the nation

Godzilla vs King Kong. Ali vs Frazier. Yankees vs. Red Sox. Trump vs. Musk is bigger than all of them because — unlike the first match — this one is real. And unlike the other two, it has real-world consequences. The future of the republic — not to mention the future of Tesla, ­SpaceX and Musk's other cutting-edge tech companies — could be at stake, depending on how bad it all gets. Of course, with this pair, they could make up while this column is at the printer. Musk is known to do 180s in business like most people breathe, and he seems open (at least for now) to rapprochement. That's why, after tanking during early rounds of the fight, Tesla shares spiked on Friday. Trump, meanwhile, can be forgiving when he sees an opportunity. Remember how he mocked 'Little Marco,' who after a ­MAGA-esque transformation is now Secretary of State Marco ­Rubio. Trump wanted to ban TikTok but as I was first to report, he's extending its life in the US. He came to believe that even if it is Chinese spyware, it helped him win a second term. But there's a better case that the Trump-Musk feud will linger. These men maintain some of the biggest egos on the planet; Musk actually thinks he's the reason Trump got elected since Elon owns X (formerly Twitter), which became a MAGA megaphone. If you know Trump like I do, someone taking credit for his success is a third rail. Plus, Musk isn't a natural convert to MAGA. These dudes bonded because Musk, a former Democrat, believed his party lost its mind on woke. His EV maker Tesla, a darling of the environmental movement, has a big operation in China, the main target of Trump's trade war. Musk called Peter Navarro, Trump's lead trade warrior, 'Peter Retarrdo' because Elon's no fan of tariffs. For his part, Trump is no budget hawk. It's telling that this fight started with Musk's critique that the president's 'big, beautiful bill' spends too much money. It quickly exposed other fissures lurking beneath the surface, according to my sources, and now it has gotten messy. No way to treat a pal Trump is teeing up killing all of Musk's lucrative government contracting after Musk outrageously — and foolishly — claimed the president is holding back the Jeffrey Epstein files because Trump's in the docs in some nefarious way. Not a way to treat a friend, particularly a powerful one. All of which gets me to laying odds on the winner if this feud keeps going. I say Trump is the heavy favorite. Musk has no political base, even if he splinters and begins spending his billions on Dems. Yes, some lefties are relishing the battle, but Musk will never be acceptable to most Democrats for the unforgivable sin of aiding Trump, then via DOGE cutting all that government lefty spending. Charlie Gasparino has his finger on the pulse of where business, politics and finance meet Sign up to receive On The Money by Charlie Gasparino in your inbox every Thursday. Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters Meanwhile, Musk poses little threat to MAGA. He's not a natural politician — he's not even comfortable in his own skin. He controls X and has a huge following, but Trump has his own following and social media platform that attracts as much media attention. And Trump can hit him where it hurts — his pocketbook. Musk is the world's richest man, but mostly on paper. It could diminish fast given how much of it is built on government work. Recall Musk smoking a joint on Joe Rogan, which is a no-no when you do defense contracting as SpaceX does. I reported how it sparked scrutiny by the feds that went nowhere. Maybe now it goes somewhere. Musk's accounting at Tesla has drawn regulatory attention in the past; it now might get some more. The company just had a lousy quarter as its lefty EV-buying base went somewhere else. Shares have recovered somewhat but remain under pressure. They fell as much as 16% when the feud went defcon. Trump could go after other parts of the Musk empire. The president could throttle SpaceX's government contracts, using the weed issue as an excuse to re-examine the relationship. Maybe more of those go by the wayside along with all his other government contracts. Musk is obviously miffed that Trump's tax bill didn't cut enough fat, but what might have really stoked his anger is that it did take aim at various green-tax credits that Tesla has feasted upon. Musk's recklessness in his attacks underscores one of his weaknesses as a CEO; he once said he had a buyer to take it private at a premium but no one emerged. And you wonder why the Epstein barb shouldn't be taken seriously. The smarter move Yes, Trump has a lot of levers to pull to get at what makes Musk so powerful. But here's why he shouldn't: For all of Musk's flaws, he's smart and has his finger on the pulse of the emerging economy. Tesla's tech is first-rate. ­SpaceX is transformational, and serves a significant national security function. Musk is rich and can continue to elect Republicans to keep Trump from being impeached and derailing what is really working in his second term, such as his war on woke, closing the border and, when this tariff stuff subsidies, tax cuts to grow the economy. And they did make beautiful music together exposing stuff with DOGE. Someone please call a timeout.

Musk may indeed have won Trump the election. But his Wisconsin cheesehead humiliation proved he'd lost the juice
Musk may indeed have won Trump the election. But his Wisconsin cheesehead humiliation proved he'd lost the juice

Yahoo

time26 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Musk may indeed have won Trump the election. But his Wisconsin cheesehead humiliation proved he'd lost the juice

At Waterloo, Napoleon rode to his defeat wearing the fetching forest green uniform of a light cavalry colonel and his signature bicorne chapeau. In Wisconsin, Elon Musk rocked up in a novelty cheesehead hat. Dramatic? Okay, maybe a tad. The tech mogul's disorderly rout in the Wisconsin Supreme Court election this April, after splashing nearly $20 million on the race, was not Musk's final defeat. Even now, amid the glowing ruins of his thermonuclear exchange of views with his erstwhile bestie Donald Trump, it would be unwise to count him out. Nevertheless, the Wisconsin debacle marked a turning point in Musk's relationship with his presidential patron. And it's crucial to understanding just how their alliance unraveled so quickly and so explosively. Cast your mind back to the unfathomably distant past of March 19, 2020. While the world plunged headlong into disaster, Musk — having previously tweeted that "the coronavirus panic is dumb", while falsely claiming that "kids are essentially immune" — predicted that there would be "close to zero new cases in the U.S. by the end of April". Today we know that COVID-19 ended up killing an estimated 1.2m people in the U.S. and 7.1m people across the world (maybe far more). Around the same time, Musk reportedly made a private $1m bet with the philosopher Sam Harris that U.S. COVID-19 cases would never top 35,000. According to Harris, Musk never paid out, and the disagreement ended their friendship. "It was not long before he began maligning me on Twitter for a variety of imaginary offenses," Harris later wrote. In this we see the seeds of Musk's next five years. His attitude to COVID-19 exemplified his willingness to tweet from the hip and spread misinformation even with millions of lives at stake. His increasingly strident opposition to lockdowns and vaccine mandates, calling the former "fascist", presaged his embrace of movement conservatism and his descent into COVID conspiracism and antivaxism. And his alleged ghosting of Harris suggested a thin-skinned reluctance to ever admitting that he's wrong. Even so, in those days Musk was popular and admired across the political spectrum. He was the genius rocket-builder who put a sports car in orbit and made electric vehicles mainstream. He'd served as inspiration for the Marvel movies' take on Tony Stark, and graced the cover of TIME as its 2021 Person of the Year. Some tech journalists and electric vehicle experts had a less flattering view. They'd witnessed Musk's willingness to attack his critics and pursue petty grievances; to bend the truth, pick pointless fights, and (allegedly) break the law. But these incidents don't seem to have penetrated into wider public view. That remained the basic picture even as Musk's politics changed drastically. Piqued by his daughter Vivian Wilson's coming out as transgender, and seemingly aided by the brain-pickling effect of his favourite social network, he shifted rightward — from self-proclaimed "socialist" and centrist to redpilled crusader — and ultimately underwent a full-fat far-right radicalization. As recently as December 2022, Musk's net approval rating among American voters was narrowly positive, with many simply not knowing enough about him to have an opinion. By mid-2024, when Musk's political shift finally brought him into alliance with Trump, his popularity was dropping slowly. Still, it stayed close to neutral through the election in November and for weeks afterwards as citizens waited to see what Trump 2.0 would bring. All of which is to say that Musk might be right when he claims that he won Trump the election. While it's impossible to know what happened in the alternate universe (or, perhaps, the parallel simulation) where the tycoon did not intervene, there's every reason to think he made a big difference. Obviously his money helped; with a total contribution of $291m, he was both the biggest individual donor of the 2024 election cycle and the biggest of any election since at least 2010. Yet money isn't everything. Musk's endorsement gave permission to other tech barons to swallow their doubts or fears about Trump. Technocratic businessfolk who fancied themselves as hard-headed intellectuals, focused on excellence and competence above ordinary partisan politics — not a natural fit with Trump's governing style, to put it generously — now had one of their own tribe to help them imagine that Trump would build, build, build rather than burn, burn, burn. It's also possible that Musk had a hand in Trump's significant gains among young men, among whom he was especially popular. His reputation as a forward-thinking intellectual and an entrepreneurial mastermind — backed up by being the literal richest person on Earth — seemed to mitigate the fear that Trump really might be an atavistic troglodyte who's bad for business as well as merely bad at it. The strongest alliances, of course, are founded on mutual advantage. And at first it did seem like Trump had plenty to offer Musk in return: favorable regulatory treatment for his businesses, billions of dollars in government contracts, and even an influential position in government — along with, allegedly, access to millions of Americans' sensitive data. We don't yet know exactly why their relationship soured so quickly. Although both men have offered their own explanations, they are also historically unreliable narrators. Still, early reporting suggests that Musk was progressively disgruntled by a series of decisions made by Trump that were not in his favor. Chief among them: refusing to install his pal Jared Isaacman as head of NASA, which regularly awards lucrative contracts to Musk's company SpaceX. According to The New York Times, Trump objected to Isaacson's past donations to Democrats. However, it's hard to imagine that disqualifying him if Trump was really, truly committed. So why might Trump have been having second thoughts about his obligations to Musk? That brings us back to Wisconsin. Beginning in January, Musk's polling began to plummet, and by the eve of the judicial election it had hit -14 percent. It turns out that while voters broadly supported the idea of DOGE, many disagreed that indiscriminately bulldozing research and aid programs practically overnight — possibly causing hundreds of thousands of extra deaths around the world — is the best way to do it. Musk and Trump had worked so well together because they share many traits. Both have a deep-seated instinct to pick fights, and an uncanny knack for exploiting such conflicts to grow their personal brand. Both have an affinity for "big, beautiful" projects with implausibly ambitious goals. Both peddle falsehoods fluently and incessantly. Now those same qualities were coming back to bite them. Worse, accepting the DOGE job — let alone treating it as a license to abolish government agencies by fiat rather than a mere advisory role — was always inherently dangerous. Throughout human history, leaders have protected themselves from the consequences of their actions by scapegoating then sacrificing their subordinates. Opponents too may feel safer criticising the grand vizier than the sultan. Strangely, the smartest and wisest man on the planet seems not to have anticipated this risk. So whereas in 2024 Musk's strengths helped mitigate Trump's weaknesses, in 2025 Trump may have come to feel that Musk was dragging him down. If so, that feeling seems to have been mutual. "DOGE has just becoming the whipping boy for everything," Musk told The Washington Post last week. 'So, like, something bad would happen anywhere, and we would get blamed for it even if we had nothing to do with it." That's without even mentioning the impact on Tesla, Musk's electric vehicle maker. Rather than delivering new riches, working with Trump has earned him the hatred of car customers across the world, prompting mass protests and a steep drop in sales. You can imagine him feeling like he'd got the raw end of the deal. Musk, a business veteran but a political neophyte, has repeatedly claimed that his views and policies are overwhelmingly popular, often suggesting that appearance to the contrary is actually a mirage confected by the woke-industrial complex. Assuming he really believes this, Wisconsin must have been an awful shock. Just as hardship or tragedy can expose the cracks in a marriage, electoral failure widens the contradictions of an awkward political partnership. Suddenly all those little frustrations and ideological mismatches, which have always been there but were overlooked as long as the wins kept coming, become potential dealbreakers. So if Musk or Trump didn't have concerns before, that probably began to change at around 9:16pm local time on April 1, when the Associated Press called Wisconsin for the liberal-leaning Judge Susan Crawford. Now here we are. One can't help suspect that this partnership could still be intact if either man had properly factored into their calculations that Elon Musk might act like Elon Musk and Donald Trump might act like Donald Trump. But perhaps that's just proof that you and I lack the intellectual competence, the raw reasoning capability, to comprehend the complex five-dimensional chess moves that Musk has been executing all along. Masterful gambit, sir! What's next?

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store