The Forest Service Is Losing 2,400 Jobs–Including Most of Its Trail Workers

https://www.backpacker.com/news-and-events/news/us-forest-service-job-eliminations-trail-workers/

by iancmceachern • 2 years ago

261 297 2 years ago

dgfitz2• 2 years ago

In response to a shrinking budget, the land management agency is suspending seasonal hiring next year. Public lands will bear the cost.

These aren’t careers.

milesward2• 2 years ago

They should be!

plasmatix• 2 years ago

And now they aren't even jobs.

coding123• 2 years ago

Don't worry they'll hire migrants after a while when people forget this story.

idiotsecant• 2 years ago

What are you saying? These are vital positions. I'm not sure what it matters to the discussion if they are 'career' or not?

mgerdts• 2 years ago

It’s probably related to this:

“I moved across the country to work here, for a seasonal job,” she says. “We have people who have worked here for 10 years as seasonals, and made a career out of these positions. They trusted that the jobs wouldn’t go away.”

I suspect the other part of these careers involve seasonal work that covers a different part of the year, such as working at ski resorts.

javajosh2• 2 years ago

Although I downvoted you, I admit having a grudging admiration for people like you who are openly and smugly conceited. Honestly, that's much better than those who hide their real sentiment in a cloak of high-emotional IQ yet sociopathic virtue signaling obfuscation.

ninetyninenine7• 2 years ago

I'm upvoting him for that reason.

aphantastic• 2 years ago

Nah. They’re just plainly and proudly wrong. Nothing admirable about that, it’s essentially the default state of human kind.

In addition, the agency is freezing all external hiring for permanent positions.

dgfitz2• 2 years ago

How is saying “these aren’t careers” smug and conceited??

add-sub-mul-div• 2 years ago

I can't begin to guess how many layers of irony to read into this.

red-iron-pine5• 2 years ago

you're assuming they're not 1) a bot, 2) a paid shill, or 3) stirring the pot simply to piss people off out of boredom or whimsey

dbetteridge• 2 years ago

The article clearly lists multiple "careers" including biologists, timber workers and maintenance staff.

The only reason they're not careers now and are forced to be seasonal hires is due to ongoing defunding of the forest service over decades

samschooler2• 2 years ago

Seasonal hiring for intermittent tasks that are best done in the summer is cheap for USFS and makes sense. They don't need to be careers.

milesward2• 2 years ago

That's crap. We need more access to nature, not less.

user3939382• 2 years ago

One of the few things I actually want the government doing. We have weapons to give to foreign countries though.

JackYoustra5• 2 years ago

I don't think you can use tanks, missiles, shells, and drones to clean trails

FredPret• 2 years ago

At least, you really shouldn’t

javajosh2• 2 years ago

You could certainly use military drones to map out trails and mark sections for cleaning. Beating milspec drones into plowdrones, etc.

ceejayoz5• 2 years ago

Challenge accepted.

(Hilariously, the USFS does use artillery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Forest_Service#/...)

jandrewrogers4• 2 years ago

They literally use tanks to keep avalanches off roads. Here is a video near Seattle of the Dept of Transportation using a couple M-60 Sherman tanks to launch artillery into the snowpack in an effort to control avalanches along the Highway 2 corridor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZLfboCceGA

iancmceachern2• 2 years ago

You can use the Army Corps of Engineers....

anonzzzies• 2 years ago

This is a drop in the bucket compared to military spending; apparently no one cares?

slantedview• 2 years ago

In a political system shaped by lobbyists, those without lobbyists go without.

tptacek9• 2 years ago

Non-defense US federal spending dwarfs defense spending, for whatever it's worth. The US is essentially a benefits management firm with a standing army.

nightski2• 2 years ago

Military spending is being superseded by interest payments on debt. We need to tackle the deficit.

krferriter• 2 years ago

For everything that isn't social security, medicare, or the military, continued federal support requires explicitly convincing enough members of Congress that it is important so that they will campaign in their committees for even basic inflation-level funding increases to be included in the next budget. National Park Service has a backlog of billions of dollars in maintenance it knows it needs to do across the US, but Congress won't give them the money to do it. They'll toss $18 billion to Israel though even while Israeli politicians and the Israeli public and Israeli lobbying groups in the US criticizes the US for not being generous or supportive enough and gets involved in domestic US politics. We need a serious talk about the strings our very generous foreign aid needs to come attached to.

nerdponx4• 2 years ago

As I understand it, Ukraine is mostly getting old outdated equipment, and Israel is actually buying weapons, not just receiving them as gifts.

jrochkind13• 2 years ago

The US normally gives Israel around $3 billion dollars a year to buy our weapons -- they are in fact required to spend it on buying weapons from US defense industry. It's kind of an, um, gift certificate.

This year they gave Israel $18 billion, so much more than usual.

In one sense, all of this is actually a jobs program for the US defense industry, since all that money is required to turn around as weapons purchases from US companies.

Even $18 billion is less than 1% of the US non-military budget, this isn't the reason we "can't afford" the USFS, or the reason to stop giving weapons to Israel -- the US certainly can afford both. (The reason to stop supplying Israel is that those weapons are actually destabilizing the region and encouraging violence and gross human rights violations).

But, no, Israel "buys" US weapons with US money, they are indeed a gift.

https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/papers/2024/USspendingIs...

cudgy• 2 years ago

Old, outdated equipment compared to what? What Ukraine produces?

Israel is on the USA tit as well.

bearjaws2• 2 years ago

We can spend money on both, but we have one party making up issues to be outraged about.

willcipriano3• 2 years ago

There is more than two things to spend money on.

speakfreely• 2 years ago

It's not clear which party you think is doing this because both of them do it so frequently.

renewiltord• 2 years ago

Damn, we should send the USFS HIMARS. I bet that will help.

bflesch• 2 years ago

That's a stupid pro-russian propaganda talking point. Try harder.

potato37328425• 2 years ago

How do you know he's not talking about Isreal? Or about whichever side of the dumpster fire in Yemen that the CIA is undoubtably helping out?

We absolutely play world police way more than we ought to for our own good.

tonymet13• 2 years ago

Can anyone explain the mission of USFS? Why does the US maintain a bunch of wilderness when it’s buried in debt. Why not use federal assets to generate income instead of burdening taxpayers with taxes & debt payments?

a_t48• 2 years ago

This is in the article.

paulcole• 2 years ago

I see a lot of things that the Forest Service does listed but I don’t see the purpose of why they do them.

For example, this quote is not a mission, “The U.S. Forest Service is a federal agency that manages 193 million acres of land, an area about the size of Texas.”

It might be part of what they do to accomplish their mission, but it’s not a mission.

Could you quote the part of the article that makes their mission clear?

janosett• 2 years ago

The budget for this has very little bearing on the debt. See where the money actually goes here: https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/feder...

readthenotes13• 2 years ago

"The U.S. government has spent $6.75 trillion in fiscal year 2024 to ensure the well-being of the people of the United States."

Reads like something straight out of George Orwell

lotsofpulp• 2 years ago

I like this website, even though the numbers are a few years old:

https://www.thebalancemoney.com/u-s-federal-budget-breakdown...

For basically all future years, an even greater proportion (more than two thirds) of federal government spending will be for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid (old and sick and poorer people).

tonymet13• 2 years ago

You're confusing the budget (maintenance spending) with the value of the real estate assets. That is, all of the land, e.g. 95% of Nevada, about 70% of the entire western USA

If that land was generating income, we could pay off the entire $35+T debt in no time.

tonymet13• 2 years ago

I'm talking about revenue, not spending

exabrial3• 2 years ago

I don't mean for this reply to sound rantish... but this is pretty short term thinking.

Not maintaining a tremendously valuable asset (nearly priceless) is a waste.

ninetyninenine7• 2 years ago

People who don't hike or use nature recreationally tend to view it as completely useless.

They do have a bit of a point. The asset isn't really being maintained. It's being maintained for human use as recreation. Overall you don't need to really maintain wilderness to preserve it. Overall you just leave it untouched.

You would actually do a better job if you locked down the entire area and just spent the money on keeping everyone out as my own self fish usage of nature as recreation harms it more then it helps it.

tonymet13• 2 years ago

I'm talking about the value of the land , not the maintenance costs

wepple• 2 years ago

Because it’s literally one of the greatest things about the US, and once it’s gone.. it’s gone.

bitexploder• 2 years ago

Only about 36% of US forests are older than 80 years old. They will grow back, but we should do our best to protect older growth forests.

fallingknife• 2 years ago

That's not true. The Appalachians were basically clear cut in the 1800s.

tonymet13• 2 years ago

it doesn't have to go anywhere to be productive.

JackYoustra5• 2 years ago

Many parts of the US government have an egalitarian mission. Beyond USFS, there's the parks, flood insurance, education programs, grant making organizations (as people on this forum are very very aware of), land management and more.

You can object to the overall non-profit egalitarian mission (and I do in many cases) but it's not unique to the forest service.

yellowapple2• 2 years ago

I do wonder why the USFS hasn't been rolled into the Dept. of the Interior alongside e.g. the Bureau of Land Management and the National Park Service. Putting it under the Dept. of Agriculture (as it is now) seems like it'd lead to some perverse incentives, and the overlap in mission and jurisdiction between the USFS and the BLM and NPS seems like it'd produce administrative/managerial redundancies (the cost of which would be better spent on the very jobs being cut right now).

tonymet13• 2 years ago

it’s not egalitarian to be insolvent. This is one way to help keep the government from defaulting.

jeffbee2• 2 years ago

The mission of the USFS is not to "maintain a bunch of wilderness". Its mission, and the reason is is under the Dept. of Agriculture, is to provide forest products in perpetuity to Americans.

wbl• 2 years ago

It does however maintain a bunch of wilderness.

tonymet13• 2 years ago

close, and kudos for earnestly attempting to answer. Here's the mission from the USFS brochure

The mission of the US Forest Service (USFS) is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation's forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations.

righthand2• 2 years ago

Why does it need to be profitable to exist? Why does it need to generate income? Why can’t we be fine with subsidizing and paying for wilderness and public transportation? Because some well connected business man could charge us money for it and pocket the difference and still barely maintain it and sell it off to be developed into concrete malls?

tonymet13• 2 years ago

You may have noticed the federal government is insolvent, yet has plenty of assets. When they return to solvency we can discuss involuntary charity.

mikeocool• 2 years ago

All National Forests have a forestry plan that involves selling a certain amount of timber cut from the forest every year.

However, forest recreation (which obviously requires the forests to still have trees) also generates a lot of money — both for the local economy around the forest and via things like permits for the government itself.

Basically the goal is to maintain the forests as long term assets, not sell them off in one go.

tonymet13• 2 years ago

All good. obviously they aren't productive enough. It's about 70% of the western usa. surely they could be more productive.

smoovb• 2 years ago

Even with these sobering financial details, it’s clear that the agency’s decision to balance the books by cutting seasonal jobs came as a shock to many employees.

Time for this to stop being a shock. The country needs some harsh belt tightening and stories like these will become commonplace if real reform is practiced.

readthenotes13• 2 years ago

Are you from Argentina??

roamerz• 2 years ago

I wonder why a truthful statement like that is being downvoted?

I could eat steak at a lavish restaurant every night but I realize that if I did so my credit card balance would eventually come to the point I would be using the total of my income to pay the interest. Instead I do the sustainable option and buy groceries and cook at home.

Continuing deficit spending at the federal level will eventually bankrupt our government and make this a worse world to live in.

ImPostingOnHN2• 2 years ago

This would be like eating steak at a lavish restaurant every night (defense spending), and someone else (USFS) eats a spoonful of beans, and then you saying 'we need some belt-tightening'.

We don't, you do. The USFS is already working with a tightened belt.

eesmith2• 2 years ago

At best it is incomplete.

Raise taxes back to what they were back in the 1950s when the top marginal rate was over 90%.

Close off the methods rich people use to legally lower their true tax rate. Buffet famously pointed out his tax rate was lower than his secretary's. Bezos back in 2011 when he was worth $18 billion got a $4,000 tax credit because he reported investment losses.

Why are we paying for Bezos' steak?

Fund the IRS to go after rich people, instead of targeting poor people simply because it's cheaper and easier than going after wealthy ones. ("we estimate that each dollar spent on auditing an individual in the 70–80th percentiles produces a return of $9.06. Each dollar spent auditing an individual in the 90–99th percentiles produces a return of $12.48.", https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w31376/w313...)

Create a global wealth tax.

Stop paying for all this ridiculously expensive road transportation system and housing sprawl on the backs of our children's future.

And yes, stop eating steak. "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."

amanaplanacanal7• 2 years ago

You never go bankrupt when you can print your own money.

I don't know how old you are, but I predict you will not see a balanced federal budget in your lifetime.

Glyptodon• 2 years ago

I don't really know what reform you're expecting. It doesn't really make sense that we could afford to hire people to maintain a trail system in the '60s and '70s, and now, with 50+ additional years of economic growth and ostensibly increased productivity, we can't. I suspect it has less to do with needed belt tightening, so much as mandated administrative bloat plus endless tax cuts.

kbos873• 2 years ago

What portion of the national budget that is devoted to spaceflight would it take to shower the USFS in riches? I'd much rather see it going to the latter.

ceejayoz5• 2 years ago

USFS received $9.23B in 2024. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12396/3

NASA's is about $25B. Bigger, but both are pretty small in the overall Federal budget.

MaKey• 2 years ago

Spaceflight is arguably one of the better uses of public funds, so I'm curious why you picked exactly this topic.

nerdponx4• 2 years ago

Because currently the manned spaceflight component of NASA is more like a jobs program than a useful contributor to science and space exploration.

llamaimperative8• 2 years ago

How exactly is it useful? Seems to be only rather fringe science experiments going on (neat, of course!) and vague pre-work for going multiplanetary, which IMO is not a super compelling idea upon inspection.

Honest curiosity here, I don't know what a lot of the purpose is!

snapplebobapple2• 2 years ago

my money is on irrational hatred of a certain billionaire. Lets wait and see what they say.

dyauspitr• 2 years ago

Why on earth would you try and take money away from spaceflight rather than the host of other ridiculous things we fund. How about what percentage of oil subsidies?

nerdponx4• 2 years ago

Ethanol subsidies. Part of the demented legacy of the Bush era. And it's only getting sillier: https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/biden-team-sets-out-e...

bacheaul• 2 years ago

Spaceflight is not what you want to be picking as a point of comparison if you want to talk about funding government agencies.

The amount the U.S. military spends annually on air conditioning in Iraq and Afghanistan: $20.2 billion, according to a former Pentagon official. That's more than NASA's budget.

https://www.npr.org/2011/06/25/137414737/among-the-costs-of-...

missedthecue• 2 years ago

What we pay for what we get is insane though. Imagine what SpaceX (or other enterprising group of engineers) could do with a guaranteed $20B of annual funding.

ninetyninenine7• 2 years ago

Military and healthcare are the astronomical expenses that dwarf both space and the usfs.

Both are plagued with inefficiencies but the military is largely the most useless expense because we aren't at any huge risk that justifies this level of spending.

macintux• 2 years ago

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/10/us-elec...

“Americans on November 5 will be electing a wartime president. This isn’t a prediction. It’s reality.”

red-iron-pine5• 2 years ago

the huge risk that justifies this level of spending is maintaining the global socio-economic system.

and that may not have been in jeopardy a decade ago but there are groups actively, openly, and unambiguously aimed at destroying that, e.g. Russia and China's "no limits partnership". Which has show that it will invade and annihilate people.

The middle east is also popping off, and you have the Yemenis shooting at cargo vessels off the coast.

jauntywundrkind• 2 years ago

The only exception to the hiring freeze are the roughly 11,300 firefighters hired by the agency every year.

You probably wouldn't need first responders if you could hire & not fire all the people you have proactively managing your lands. (So many face-palms.)

blinded2• 2 years ago

That sucks. Its tough work, if you live near any of these trails and frequent them they have volunteer days which are totally worth doing.

It practically means trails won't get the love they deserve and it will be harder to make use of the resource.

embedded_hiker• 2 years ago

There are volunteer groups that do a large percentage of the trail maintenance in some areas. There is the Pacific Crest Trail Association with their local chapters. In Washington state, there is the Washington Trails association. In Oregon, there is Trailkeepers of Oregon, who I volunteer with almost every weekend. There are also numerous local groups across the western US.

blinded2• 2 years ago

Yep! 10/10 would recommend.

cc101• 2 years ago

I'm a camp host for a USFS campground. It takes 3+ seasonal employees to clean the bathrooms, remove the trash, monitor the chlorine content of the drinking water and repair things. Together they maintain a dozen or so campgrounds.

As a camp host I occasionally do these tasks when these employees are absent as well as my usual duties. For this I theoretically receive a small stipend. I say theoretically because the payroll operation is so understaffed it is five months behind in paying me.

Without the seasonal staff, I don't see any way the USFS can keep the campgrounds open as well as do many other functions.

I don't think many Americans understand how 40 years or so of declining agency budgets have hollowed out the staffing of many government agencies.

bearjaws2• 2 years ago

Don't worry, soon we will outsource these services to private companies for 5x the price, but then the budget will get approved due to lobbying!

Then we will ask why we even have the government owning parks in the first place, and privatize the national parks!

You will pay $500 to park and you will like it!

jonnycoder• 2 years ago

I say convert it all to dispersed camping. Leave the zoos, I mean national parks, to the common overcrowding. Let us have our forests back. It’s obvious that their policies have led to many of it burning down in mega fires that get so hot it kills every living thing in its path.

theli0nheart• 2 years ago

I don't think many Americans understand how 40 years or so of declining agency budgets have hollowed out the staffing of many government agencies.

Can you provide a citation for where you’re getting this data indicating that the USFS budget has been declining over time?

Based on the data I found, the USFS budget has increased steadily from 2011-2024 [0]. The 2024 budget was $9.3b [1] versus $5.1b in 2011 [0]. The 2025 budget was cut from 2024, but still higher than the 2020 budget.

[0] https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46557

[1] https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12396

alwa• 2 years ago

Doesn’t this mainly go to wildfire suppression, and in fact as wildfires have multiplied over that decade, hasn’t the service regularly raided its normal accounts in order to cover its bills for fire prevention and control?

Swizec• 2 years ago

The 2024 budget was $9.3b [1] versus $5.1b in 2011 [0]

For context: Just keeping up with inflation puts the 2011 budget at $7.1b in 2024.

They also claim to have "13 billion dollars contributed to the U.S. economy by visitor spending each year"[2].

Investing $9b into $13b of revenue sounds like a great use of government funds to me.

[2] https://www.fs.usda.gov/about-agency/newsroom/by-the-numbers

binoct• 2 years ago

While that’s a large change, it’s worth keeping in mind more than half the difference is just inflation. $5.1b in 2011 is $7.3b in ‘24

S201• 2 years ago

The overall Forest Service budget has indeed been increasing, but it's nearly all going to wildfire fighting. I recently wrote about the state of forest road funding and went in depth on this here: https://ephemeral.cx/2024/09/losing-access-to-the-cascades

Overall, in 1995 16% of the Forest Service budget was dedicated to wildfires. By 2015 it was 52% and by 2025 it’s projected to be upwards of 67%. Without large amounts of additional funding it is virtually guaranteed that the Forest Service’s budget will continue to be siphoned away by firefighting needs.

ElectronCharge• 2 years ago

It's hard to imagine how these services are being cut when we're running a $1.8 trillion deficit this year. Clearly the priorities of our current FedGov admin are askew.

One hopes things will improve after November 5...

whaaaaat3• 2 years ago

This pattern has been played out time and time again. The next steps will be:

"Camp bathrooms are always so dirty, and there's never anyone to staff to help!"

"How can the bureaucracy fail so badly, I don't know why we even pay for the USFS if this is the best they can muster"

"We should privatize this. Maybe we could even sell naming rights. Colgate campgrounds, anyone?"

"(Private companies continue to run shitty camp, citing 'hey, at least we're better than the USFS')"

"Remember how the USFS failed so badly? You can't trust the government to do anything!"

It's been the playbook of every government agency that has not been funded properly for about a generation now (thanks, Reagan). Slowly defund a service so the quality degrades, then complain about the quality and say you couldn't possibly fund the service if the quality is that low.

It drives me up the wall how bleeding obvious this is, time and time again, and yet, here we are, doing it again to the USFS, one of the most important agencies we have in (for instance) ensuring people have access to nature, preventing wildfires, managing our timber stocks, and sequestering carbon.

starspangled5• 2 years ago

But this is the government failing! What's more, privatizing it to buddies with uncompetitive corrupt bidding processes and terrible contracts would also be government failure.

jjav• 2 years ago

This pattern has been played out time and time again.

I wish more people would recognize it's a standard playbook, quite intentional.

gosub1002• 2 years ago

thanks, Reagan

Who's the president now and why is he absolved of all responsibilities?

potato37328425• 2 years ago

It's been the playbook of every government agency that has not been funded properly for about a generation now

Has the funding stagnated or has the mandate of these organizations expanded.

Way back when Regan was cutting things the median USFS camp ground "with bathrooms" probably had an outhouse and the fire rings were probably literally old truck rims tossed on the ground, If a camper wanted toilet paper or a grill they brought. And when they wanted to move the outhouse or add more campsites they probably didn't do a formalized environmental impact study (even if done in house that sort of stuff still costs something) because that wasn't considered within the scope of their jobs. Funding has not kept pace.

blindriver• 2 years ago

This is what happens when your deficit is increasing by $1 trillion every 100 days.

tacotruck• 2 years ago

Most of these crews were already short handed and in districts relying extensively on labor from youth conservation corps and private contractors. The private trail building sector has exploded in the last decade or so. More often than not the USFS (and other agencies with some variability) trail crews will work on high profile projects or simply as liaisons/project managers for the private outfits. Even though the work is often just scratching at dirt, building /maintaining trails and the structures they rely on is technical trades work and needs a local culture to maintain standards. Funding solutions should look towards the outdoor recreation industry and cutting fat in bloated non-profit admin. They benefit from selling the lifestyle and all its accessories while contributing relatively little to resource maintenance.

wumeow• 2 years ago

For those who are disappointed in this, don't blame Ukraine or defense spending, blame Republicans. The Forest Service budget is set by the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies subcommittee which is majority Republican. Their press release on the FY25 bill is here:

https://appropriations.house.gov/news/press-releases/house-v...

If you don't believe they're partisan, read through the "key takeaways" section. They are responsible for this budget shortfall. Their games of government shutdown chicken are also the reason the budget hasn't even been finalized yet.

trowflahbung• 2 years ago

Blame both Democrats and Republicans. There is more than enough money to go around in this nation, but they’re all too busy sending it abroad whether direct spending, frivolous military deployments, or subsidizing our own defense industry.

The whole system is rotten and corrupt.

0xdde• 2 years ago

I'm not following your argument. Even if there were less spending on these other items, there is no indication Republicans would support any more funds for the Forest Service.

ddingus• 2 years ago

This is not OK. We pay more than enough to fund the Forest Service.

And I live the Forest Service. They make my life better and I value that very highly.

I do not want private companies polluting our rec lands like they have done damn near everywhere else.

karaterobot• 2 years ago

This article from a backpacking website is better written and reported than most major newspaper stories I read. Good quotes, and even edited. Probably fact checked too! Kudos.

nerdile• 2 years ago

I would like to share this link with my outdoorsy friends, but the inability to opt out of cookies triggers my morals.

Dark pattern: "To opt out, click the link in the footer that you can't reach because this popup blocks it until you accept all the cookies"

93po• 2 years ago

ublock origin with annoyance filters

greenie_beans• 2 years ago

weird dogma hill to die on

caseyy• 2 years ago

1. Cut fire service funding and jobs

2. Cut forest service funding and jobs

3. “The forest fires are so bad this year, how could this have happened to us??”

coolhand2120• 2 years ago

Crazy how the money printer only works on some projects.

whoitwas• 2 years ago

People are not getting any smarter. Let's spend slightly less on "defense" and reinvigorate initiatives like the Forest Service and CCC!

iamleppert• 2 years ago

One potential alternative that springs to mind is to repurpose these lands for use with AI datacenters and power generation for AI applications. Locate an AI data center in these forested regions, that could help pay for the workers needed to maintain the land. Tesla Optimus robots could be made to do the jobs of at least 2-3 of these forest workers, and could be shut down and stored when not in use. This will eliminate the significant expense of having to seasonally offload workers, as it really changes it to be more of a storage vs. labor problem.

azemetre• 2 years ago

I’m not comfortable with the government giving more corporate welfare to some of the richest companies in humanity.

Also really not comfortable with giving more welfare to a single individuals company that routinely breaks the law and brags about firing unionized workers.

The Forest Service Is Losing 2,400 Jobs–Including Most of Its Trail Workers

Related Stories