Volunteers Aren't the Solution to Staffing Cuts

Last February, shortly after the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) announced major cuts to personnel at the National Park Service, an anonymous Reddit user posted a plea to park managers on the r/ParkRangers subreddit:

“If you're in management, stop filling permanent and seasonal positions with volunteers. You're basically acting as a scab if you're backfilling NPS positions with volunteers. ...If the public does not feel the effects from the wrongful firings and cuts, then they won't see the importance of what we do as workers."

By most accounts, park superintendents did not heed this advice, and the common sentiment among park visitors this summer was exactly as this poster predicted. Despite the loss of personnel, most major parks made due with an influx of seasonal employees and dedicated volunteers who plugged the gaps left by the exodus of full-time personnel—picking up trash, managing retail stores, and coordinating search and rescue missions, among myriad other essential tasks.

Even at major parks like Glacier and Yellowstone, where managers reported feeling stressed and in “survival mode," visitors to these places hardly noticed. "It seems like it's very well maintained," a Glacier visitor told NPR after a visit in July, "The bathrooms we went to here yesterday were nice. Hopefully [the cuts are] not an issue."

Score one for the DOGE team.

But step away from America's most popular national parks and onto slightly less iconic public lands—the types of places where full-time positions haven't been backfilled with seasonal workers and armies of volunteers—and the cracks are starting to show. Consider, for example, the Enchantments, a spectacular region within the Alpine Lakes Wilderness of central Washington State, near the town of Leavenworth. They’re one of the most sought-after hiking and backpacking destinations in the Pacific Northwest, and this summer the area became, well, a literal shit show.

The Wenatchee River Ranger District, responsible for managing the Enchantments, had just one wilderness ranger on staff—down from 11 the previous year. That single ranger had to handle critical duties—including safety patrols, restroom upkeep, assisting hikers, and enforcing permits—across a vast and rugged wilderness.

A dedicated team of volunteers stepped in to help, but due to the popularity of the area, they were overwhelmed. These volunteers reported encountering overflowing pit toilets, trash-strewn trails, illegal campfires (in a region experiencing severe drought), and unmonitored permit systems, which increased crowding and ecological and safety risks.

The dire conditions drew the attention of Washington Congresswoman Kim Schrier (D), who sent a scathing letter in August to Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, Brooke Rollins, and U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, demanding a return to former staffing capacity to address the situation.

"Human waste has overfilled many of the 31 backcountry toilets found throughout the area." she wrote. "In the Core and Colchuck zones, the fragile and rocky alpine environment simply don’t have the soil type to contain or break down human waste in typical backcountry 'catholes.' This means that thousands of pounds of waste need to be flown out by helicopter. The USFS has no capacity with only one employee to carry this out and must rely on volunteers, as the job requires two to three."

All Americans should be grateful to the volunteers who stepped up this summer, taking on some of the least desirable jobs once handled by paid employees. Their perseverance shows how dedicated many Americans are to protecting public lands. But the issues faced in the Enchantments also demonstrate why volunteers are not a viable long-term substitute for permanent staff. Let's catalog some of the reasons that, despite heroic efforts, volunteers will ultimately fall short of addressing our critical needs.

• Volunteers can’t perform law enforcement or medical response, which are critical in parks. Liability concerns restrict the roles volunteers can safely and legally take on.
• Volunteers may come and go, depending on personal availability, seasonal interest, or local circumstances. This creates gaps in coverage and undermines long-term planning, especially for year-round needs like facilities maintenance or ecological monitoring.
• Volunteers aren’t “free.” They require recruitment, training, uniforms, equipment, and ongoing supervision by paid staff. When staffing levels are already diminished, agencies often lack the capacity to effectively support large volunteer programs.
• Managing public lands involves regulatory compliance, endangered species protection, cultural site preservation, and coordination with tribal, state, and local governments. These responsibilities require professional expertise that volunteers, however dedicated, typically cannot provide.
• Volunteers often come from nearby communities or groups with resources to give their time. Remote or underserved areas may not have enough volunteer capacity, leading to unequal service across the park system.
• Volunteers can be highly motivated in the short term, especially after a crisis (e.g., wildfires, floods, budget cuts), but sustaining energy and commitment over years is difficult. Burnout is common when volunteers are asked to cover roles once held by trained professionals.

Finally, we arrive at perhaps the biggest reason we should all be wary of an increased reliance on volunteers to manage our lands: it may create political cover for continued federal disinvestment, normalizing the idea that local groups and unpaid labor should shoulder responsibilities that are, by law, federal obligations. This is guaranteed to undermine the long-term sustainability of national public land management.

Volunteers are an excellent supplement and have performed heroically this summer. But they can never maintain the same depth of expertise, accountability, or institutional memory as career staff.

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Every Friday, our team shares critical stories about public lands from around the internet. This list could be exhaustive and exhausting, but our intent is to inform, not overwhelm. Instead, we choose three to five important stories you should be aware of—including at least one piece of good news.

The Good: ‘Incredible’ Win for Outdoor Recreation in Montana Land Deal "The Bullwhacker Road has long been one of Montana’s biggest ongoing battles between private landowners and public land advocates. Back in 2009, a judge sided with a private landowner to close the road, which remains the most reliable access to the northern portion of the Missouri River Breaks National Monument. ...Thanks to a land purchase announced Thursday by nonprofit American Prairie, the Bullwhacker Road—as well as 50,000 acres of previously privately owned land—is now available to anyone."

The Bad: Trump Shrank Staffing of National Parks. See How Many Are Struggling. "More than 90 national parks reported problems between April and the end of July stemming from departures, cuts and a hiring freeze, according to internal Interior Department data. Routine tasks like cleaning and stocking the bathrooms have gone undone. Fewer rangers have given tours and lectures. Visitor centers have reduced hours. And parks have lost millions of dollars because they are unable to staff entrances and collect visitor fees."

The Ugly: Congress Just Voted To Break Public Lands "For the first time ever, the Congressional Review Act is being used to invalidate Resource Management Plans. RMPs govern permitting on public lands, and are the product of broad scientific, legal, industrial, and community consensus that require decades of work from agencies like the Bureau of Land Management. The CRA is an incredibly powerful tool, which prevents the implementation of “substantially” similar regulations to replace the invalidated ones without Congressional approval."