President Trump on Monday put a freeze on federal government hiring, an action that could have wide-ranging impacts for the National Park Service as it moves to hire thousands of seasonal rangers and other employees for the upcoming summer.
Beyond seasonal positions, there are many vacancies involving permanent positions that parks are trying to fill. Then, too, there are personnel who have been offered permanent jobs but haven't begun working and are wondering how the hiring freeze will impact them.
At the National Parks Conservation Association, President and CEO Theresa Pierno said the hiring freeze would adversely affect the National Park System.
“Protecting our national parks requires the dedicated efforts of tens of thousands of rangers and other Park Service employees every day, but much of their staffs are edging closer to retirement. Parks already have 10 percent fewer rangers and other staff compared to a few years ago," said Theresa Pierno in a prepared statement. "They cannot continue to be hampered by low staffing, and that’s exactly what will happen with this hiring freeze.
"Park rangers are already forced to do more with less because they don’t have enough staff to handle record-breaking crowds. If Congress and the administration don’t work together to better staff our parks, this will only make it harder for those remaining park staff to care for and manage America’s favorite places.”
Traveler has reached out to Park Service officials for their interpretation of the scope of the hiring freeze and will update the story when possible.
Comments
"conservatives doen't hate helping people. They hate the federal government taking their money and spending it in ways that were not authorized by the Constitution and that don't actually "help" the people. "
But they certainly don't mind taking it whenever they can find a way to get some of it.
Billdo, read the GAO report. It is very limited (and short term) in the scope of its analysis. It does say the was little reduction in employment primarily because OMB didn't enforce. It makes no assessment or conclusions regarding the longer term impacts. Perhaps you have some other report that indicates that. If so, I would enjoy seeing it.
Only from those willing to give it without duress
Jobs, jobs, jobs= privatize, privatize, privatize He is for companies. .Can you say private property. This land is not for you and I.
Folks without hearts and conscience always tend to miss that part of "promote the general welfare" in their self-declaration of what is and isn't in the constitution.
I'm surprised as many of them are cleanshaven as there are - looking oneself in the mirror with no soul isn't easy.
And folks that have not taken the time to read and study the Constitution tend to miss the fact that "promote the general welfare" was referring to designated powers that helped everyone, not non-designated powers meant to help specific people.
"And folks that have not taken the time to read and study the Constitution tend to miss the fact that "promote the general welfare" was referring to designated powers that helped everyone"
Exactly. And our founders were smart enough to know that everyone does better when everyone does better. That's why it's called "General Welfare."
There really is no difference between tax breaks for big business and a check to help a person who needs a hand up.
Meanwhile Trump is forcing the American people to pay for a $15 billion wall on the Mexican border. So much for budget hawks. This is where your tax dollars are going to go - walls and weapons. No more fun the the parks, it's time to suck it up. America First!