Earlier this year, I spoke about how recent Forest Service budget cuts are set to make public land use all the worse. How the trails we ride or use, how fire mitigation and seasonal workers would be affected by the nearly $750 million cut.
But based on a report from Outside, those budget cuts are going to affect snowmobilers and in the worst way possible. Say, goodbye, to some of your avalanche reports as the folks who put those together, along with avalanche mitigation, are all going to be affected by said cuts. And that just might mean more backcountry injuries or deaths.
Great work, Congress.
According to Outside, after the budget cuts were announced, as well as after the Forest Service's Chief Randy Moore told his staff that they'll have to do more with less or not be able to do certain things, "The news sounded alarm bells within the Forest Service’s 14 avalanche centers, which are based in California, Utah, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana, Idaho, Washington, and New Hampshire."
Those centers primarily operate with seasonal employees, i.e. those most affected by those budget cuts, which "perform critical work during the winter at some of these centers. They venture into backcountry areas early each morning to observe snowfall and dig pits into the snowpack, looking for signs of avalanche danger. They work alongside year-round forecasters to process this information and combine it with weather data. And some of them also write the daily avalanche reports that appear online."
Dwayne Meadows, the executive director of the Bridger-Teton Avalanche Center, put it more plainly, "Injuries and fatalities will likely be the result of this cost-saving measure."
Each year, an average of around 30 people die from avalanches. And that's with good reporting. Without it, without the ground work that these seasonal supposedly non-essential workers do, that's likely to go up. More people will be injured and more people will die. All because no one wants to fund the programs and ventures that ensure safety within our public lands. All because no one wants to give up a fraction of defense spending. All because no one wants to confront that wildfires are continuing to grow due to climate change, which in turn requires more of the Forest Service's budget.
I do think there are ways for the agency to better manage its lands, as well as reduce costs. I mean, it's the federal government. It's designed to be slow, beauracratic, and spend more money than it needs to. This, however, isn't one of the areas I'd be inclined to save some money on.
