Outdoor Recreation Threatened by Federal Budget Cuts
The Outdoor Alliance has issued a press release regarding recent layoffs across land management organizations due to changes in government funding. In the last week, the US Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and National Park Service have laid off more than 5,000 employees. Public lands have already taken a hit in the last ten years. According to the release, the National Park service specifically has seen a 20% reduction in full-time staff since 2010 despite a 16% increase in visitation. The US Forest Service has had difficulty maintaining trails, campgrounds, and recreation sites due to ongoing budget shortfalls and hiring freezes for seasonal workers.Want to keep up with the best stories and photos in skiing? Subscribe to the new Powder To The People newsletter for weekly updates.The most recent cuts made by the current administration will have a massive effect on the Nation's public lands and outdoor recreation. Possible effects include closures of popular national parks, trails, forests, and recreation infrastructure associated with public lands like campgrounds, public toilets, and boat ramps. Additionally, these budget cuts have potential to affect wildfire prevention and emergency responses efforts, given many of the employees associated with these programs are seasonal workers. 'We are deeply sorry to hear about the staffing cuts rolling in across federal land management agencies. Land managers do incredibly important work, often for long hours at modest pay. They are at the front line for stewarding the resources we all care so much about, and the loss of these workers will have real, tangible impacts on our public lands and waters, outdoor recreation, and community safety as we start to move into fire season," said Vice President for Policy and Government Relations Louis Geltman.
In 2020, Forest Service Chief Vicki Christiansen reported that 122 of the US' ski areas operate on National Forest land. These 122 resorts alone makeup more than 60% of the total capacity for downhill resort skiing in the country. After hiking, alpine skiing and snowboarding is the second most popular use of national forest land with 57 million skier visits annually. Ski areas on national forest land also account for 41,200 full time jobs and visitors of these resorts contribute $2.9 billion to local economies. In short, the US Forest Service is an essential factor to skiing in much of the US. As summer months get hotter, wildfires have posed greater and greater threats to public lands as well as several ski areas that operate on them. In 2024, several California ski resorts sustained damage from wildfires such as the Bridge fire, which damaged structures at Mountain High Ski Resort and Mt. Baldy. Ash fell from an orange sky in early September of 2024 as a fire dubbed the Bachelor Complex raged on the backside of Mt. Bachelor, in Bend, Oregon. The mountain remained closed for several days through its summer season due to unhealthy air quality and fire danger. The Lava and Boulder fires forced Idaho ski area Tamarack to close and evacuate as they burned more than 78,000 acres into Wyoming and Montana. Budget cuts and hiring freezes mean that many of the 17,000 seasonal fire workers employed by the federal agencies are now in limbo as job offers, transfers, or promotions have been rescinded or put on hold just ahead of the 2025 season. Many of the 3,400 Forest Services staff members fired this week held positions that provided critical support and to wildfire management teams. "Without adequate staffing and resources, our experiences outside, the health of public lands, and the outdoor recreation economy will suffer," states the press release. Outdoor Alliance has created a quick action form that helps folks to send personalized letters to their Congress members and urges them to take action to protect the workforce that keeps public lands safe and accessible.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
16 hours ago
- CBS News
Sacramento's Cosumnes River Preserve could be impacted by U.S. sale of federal land for housing
U.S. considers selling more than 16 million acres of federal land in California for housing U.S. considers selling more than 16 million acres of federal land in California for housing U.S. considers selling more than 16 million acres of federal land in California for housing SACRAMENTO — The U.S. Senate is considering selling over 16 million acres of federal land in California to turn into housing, including in Sacramento. The plan is part of President Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill," or budget reconciliation bill, which proposed putting over 250 million acres of public land in western states for sale, including land governed by the Bureau of Land Management U.S. Forest Service. The spot in Sacramento that could be impacted is the Consumnes River Preserve. "We were out there for about three hours this morning and it's a prize. It's really something worth saving," said Josh Schermerhorn, who was enjoying the Consumnes River Preserve with his wife Kathy on Tuesday. Senators who support this bill said selling federal land will generate upward of $10 billion for the government. "The thought of the sale of public lands is pretty un-American," said Katie Hawkins, California program director of the Outdoor Alliance. Hawkins said they are suspicious of the proposal because there are no safeguards in the plan that would prevent pretty much anyone from buying it. "Whether it's extraction, timber sales or if it's development for wealthy developers or even foreign interest," said Hawkins. Her other concern is whether the land is really meant to be built on. Historically, the area has seen flooding with waters spreading across nearby wetlands and rice fields. "I think flooding is natural," said kayaker Kather Schermerhorn. "This is an area that's not hurting anybody and to let it be natural." Mike Lee, a Republican Senator from Utah, has been pushing for the federal land to be sold, but not everyone in his party is on board. "It is so important that the acquisition or disposition of any of these lands be made only after significant and meaningful local input," said Republican California Rep. Kevin Kiley. Kiley openly opposed the idea on the House floor several weeks ago. The House voted against it, but the proposal is still alive on the Senate side. "We have other places where housing could be built and it doesn't have to be on a pristine, precious preserve," said Kathy. A staff member from one of the 10 organizations within the Consumnes River Preserve Partnership told CBS13 that the land is not meant to be built on and thinks solving the housing crisis should not cost Americans losing natural gems. Other California land that could be impacted includes parts of Lake Tahoe, Yosemite and Joshua Tree. Democratic U.S. Senator Alex Padilla sent CBS13 this statement about the proposal: "Make no mistake, this latest Republican proposal is riddled with anti-environment provisions meant to create the largest public land sell off in recent memory to subsidize their tax cuts for billionaires. If Republicans have their way, we will never get our public lands back once they are privatized. Our public lands and natural spaces are some of our nation's greatest gifts and I will do everything I can do to protect them." The Senate has until July 4 to decide on this bill.
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Yahoo
Mike Lee brings back proposal to sell public land in Western states
Sen. Mike Lee, a Utah Republican, participates in a forum hosted by the Sutherland Institute at the University of Utah's Hinckley Institute of Politics on Oct. 14, 2024. (Katie McKellar/Utah News Dispatch) A version of this story originally appeared in the Utah News Dispatch. Utah Sen. Mike Lee is bringing back a proposal that would allow the federal government to sell off several million acres of public land in Utah, Colorado and other Western states. Lee says it will open up 'underused' federal land for housing and help communities manage growth — opponents, including a number of Democrats in Congress and environmental groups, say it's an attempt to pay for tax cuts and warn it will jeopardize access to public lands. Introduced Wednesday evening, Lee's amendment to congressional Republicans' budget bill, nicknamed the 'big, beautiful bill,' renews an effort initially spearheaded by Rep. Celeste Maloy, R-Utah, and Mark Amodei, R-Nevada, that sought to dispose of 11,500 acres of Bureau of Land Management land in southwestern Utah and some 450,000 acres of federal land in Nevada. But Lee's proposal is much broader — rather than earmark specific parcels of land for disposal like Maloy and Amodei's amendment, Lee wants to require the U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Department of Agriculture to sell off a percentage of land managed by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. According to the amendment, both agencies would be required to dispose of between 0.5% to 0.75% of land they manage, which amounts to about 2.2 million to 3.3 million acres. State and local governments would be allowed to nominate parcels of land, and would be granted priority to purchase. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Eleven states would be eligible — Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. Notably, Montana is exempt, and Montana Republican Rep. Ryan Zinke was instrumental in sinking Maloy and Amodei's original proposal, stating that selling public lands is a line he would not cross. Though the scope is much bigger, Lee's reasoning behind the proposal is the same as Maloy and Amodei's — identify parcels of federal land near high-growth areas, and sell them at market value to local governments to use for housing, water infrastructure, roads and other development. The amendment prohibits the sale of land that's already designated, like national parks, national monuments, wilderness areas or national recreation areas. Land that has an existing right, like a mining claim, grazing permit, mineral lease or right of way is also off limits. If it passes, the secretaries of the departments of Interior and Agriculture would have to prioritize nominating land that's next to already developed areas, has access to existing infrastructure or is 'suitable for residential housing.' The amendment also directs the secretaries to nominate land that's isolated and 'inefficient to manage,' and to reduce the checkerboard land pattern, the result of railroad grants in the 1800s that left small plots of private land scattered within swaths of federal land and vice-versa. 'We're opening underused federal land to expand housing, support local development and get Washington, D.C. out of the way for communities that are just trying to grow,' Lee said in a video address. 'We're talking about isolated parcels that are difficult to manage, that are better suited for housing and infrastructure. To our hunters, anglers and sportsmen, you will not lose access to the lands you love. Washington has proven time and again it can't manage this land. This bill puts it in better hands.' But that reasoning didn't fly for a number of environmental groups, including the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, which called Lee's proposal an attempt 'to pay for tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy.' 'Senator Lee's never-ending attacks on public lands continue. His hostility stands in stark contrast with Americans' deep and abiding love of public lands. Senator Lee's plan puts Utah's redrock country in the crosshairs of unchecked development,' said Travis Hammill, Washington, D.C. director for the alliance. 'In Utah and the West, public lands are the envy of the country — but Senator Lee is willing to sacrifice the places where people recreate, where they hunt and fish, and where they make a living.' The Center for Western Priorities, a public lands advocacy group, called Lee's amendment 'a shameless ploy to sell off pristine public lands for trophy homes and gated communities that will do nothing to address the affordable housing shortage in the West'; the National Wildlife Federation dubbed it a 'fire sale' that is 'orders of magnitude worse' than Maloy's proposal; The Wilderness Society said it was 'a betrayal of future generations and folks on both sides of the aisle' and warned that could spark political backlash. Maloy's proposal identified parcels owned by the Bureau of Land Management to sell to Washington and Beaver counties, the Washington County Water Conservancy District and the city of St. George. The land would have been used for water infrastructure (like reservoirs and wells), an airport expansion in St. George, new and widened roads, recreation and housing. The proposal was widely celebrated by the water district and local governments, who said it would help them make adjustments as the region continues to experience rapid growth. But nearby tribes, environmentalists and politicians from both sides of the aisle were skeptical. Utah News Dispatch is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Utah News Dispatch maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor McKenzie Romero for questions: info@ SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Yahoo
Mike Lee brings back proposal to sell public land in Utah, other Western states
Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee, right, participates in a forum hosted by the Sutherland Institute at the University of Utah's Hinckley Institute of Politics in 2024. (Photo: Katie McKellar, Utah News Dispatch) Utah Sen. Mike Lee is bringing back a proposal that would allow the federal government to sell off several million acres of public land in Nevada, Utah and other Western states. Lee says it will open up 'underused' federal land for housing and help communities manage growth — opponents, including a number of Democrats in Congress and environmental groups, say it's an attempt to pay for tax cuts and warn it will jeopardize access to public lands. Introduced Wednesday evening, Lee's amendment to congressional Republicans' budget bill, nicknamed the 'big, beautiful bill,' renews an effort initially spearheaded by Rep. Celeste Maloy, R-Utah, and Mark Amodei, R-Nevada, that sought to dispose of 11,500 acres of Bureau of Land Management land in southwestern Utah and some 450,000 acres of federal land in Nevada. But Lee's proposal is much broader — rather than earmark specific parcels of land for disposal like Maloy and Amodei's amendment, Lee wants to require the U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Department of Agriculture to sell off a percentage of land managed by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. According to the amendment, both agencies would be required to dispose of between 0.5% to 0.75% of land they manage, which amounts to about 2.2 million to 3.3 million acres. State and local governments would be allowed to nominate parcels of land, and would be granted priority to purchase. Eleven states would be eligible — Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. Notably, Montana is exempt, and Montana Republican Rep. Ryan Zinke was instrumental in sinking Maloy and Amodei's original proposal, stating that selling public lands is a line he would not cross. Though the scope is much bigger, Lee's reasoning behind the proposal is the same as Maloy and Amodei's — identify parcels of federal land near high-growth areas, and sell them at market value to local governments to use for housing, water infrastructure, roads and other development. The amendment prohibits the sale of land that's already designated, like national parks, national monuments, wilderness areas or national recreation areas. Land that has an existing right, like a mining claim, grazing permit, mineral lease or right of way is also off limits. If it passes, the secretaries of the departments of interior and agriculture would have to prioritize nominating land that's next to already developed areas, has access to existing infrastructure or is 'suitable for residential housing.' The amendment also directs the secretaries to nominate land that's isolated and 'inefficient to manage,' and to reduce the checkerboard land pattern, the result of railroad grants in the 1800s that left small plots of private land scattered within swaths of federal land and vice-versa. 'We're opening underused federal land to expand housing, support local development and get Washington, D.C. out of the way for communities that are just trying to grow,' Lee said in a video address. 'We're talking about isolated parcels that are difficult to manage, that are better suited for housing and infrastructure. To our hunters, anglers and sportsmen, you will not lose access to the lands you love. Washington has proven time and again it can't manage this land. This bill puts it in better hands.' Nevada Democratic Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto slammed Lee's proposal after it was introduced, saying it was developed without input from Nevadans. Lee's proposal 'ignores provisions for affordable housing and eliminates funding Nevada relies on for our schools and water conservation projects,' Cortez Masto said in a statement. 'Shoving lands sales in a reconciliation bill in order to pay for tax cuts for billionaires is not the way forward, and I'll continue to fight against this misguided proposal.' Lee's proposal also didn't fly for a number of environmental groups, including the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, which called it an attempt 'to pay for tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy.' 'Senator Lee's never-ending attacks on public lands continue. His hostility stands in stark contrast with Americans' deep and abiding love of public lands. Senator Lee's plan puts Utah's redrock country in the crosshairs of unchecked development,' said Travis Hammill, Washington, D.C. director for the alliance. 'In Utah and the West, public lands are the envy of the country — but Senator Lee is willing to sacrifice the places where people recreate, where they hunt and fish, and where they make a living.' The Center for Western Priorities, a public lands advocacy group, called Lee's amendment 'a shameless ploy to sell off pristine public lands for trophy homes and gated communities that will do nothing to address the affordable housing shortage in the West'; the National Wildlife Federation dubbed it a 'fire sale' that is 'orders of magnitude worse' than Maloy's proposal; The Wilderness Society said it was 'a betrayal of future generations and folks on both sides of the aisle' and warned that could spark political backlash. This story was originally published in Utah News Dispatch.
