All the MAGA morons are saying, "I didn't vote for this". Kind of too late.
=================================================
‘I didn’t vote for this’: As DOGE guts a $1.2 trillion industry, rural Trump voters and tourists are paying the price
Jessica Wong
Wed, January 7, 2026
Terry Zink has spent his entire life in the woods.
As a 57-year-old third generation houndsman from Marion, Montana — a town tucked into the Flathead National Forest — Zink hunts mountain lions and bears while running a small archery target business.
He also voted for Trump, but after the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) implemented deep cuts to the federal agencies that manage America’s public lands in 2025, Zink is openly second-guessing his vote.
“You won’t meet anyone more conservative than me, and I didn’t vote for this,” Zink told Politico (1). “You cannot fire our firefighters. You cannot fire our trail crews. You have to have selective logging, and water restoration, and healthy forests.”
Across Montana, the impact is already being felt. Hunters are running into overgrown trails, ranchers are watching as drought resilience and wildfire mitigation funds are frozen, and outfitters and guides — who brought in roughly $314 million to Montana in 2024 — are dealing with staffing cuts that have affected their business.
And this isn’t just happening in Montana.
A $1.2 trillion economy at risk
Versions of this scenario are playing out across the west, with real consequences for rural jobs, small businesses and the cost of hunting and fishing on public lands.
Since early 2024, the federal workforce that manages America’s public lands has shrunk by about 20%, dropping from 79,070 employees to 63,141 by September 2025, according to the Center for American Progress (2).
The cuts have hit these specific agencies the hardest (3):
U.S. Forest Service: Approximately 3,400 jobs cut
National Park Service: Approximately 1,000 jobs cut
Bureau of Land Management: Approximately 800 jobs cut
Roughly 97% of Bureau of Land Management employees work outside of D.C., often in small remote towns where federal agencies are among the biggest employers (4). When ranger stations close or seasonal crews disappear, the economic fallout can spread to local gas stations, restaurants and diners, as well as hotels and motels.
According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, outdoor recreation generated $1.2 trillion in economic output in 2023, made up 2.3% of U.S. GDP and supported five million jobs (5). States like Montana, Alaska, Vermont and Hawaii rely on outdoor recreation at twice the national average. In Montana alone, the sector pumped $3.4 billion into the state economy in 2023 (6).
Meanwhile, all of this economic impact hinges on public lands being accessible, properly staffed and well maintained.
The impact on your wallet
Cuts to agencies that maintain public lands can sound like an environmental issue, but the cuts can also have an impact on the economy as well as your wallet. Here’s how:
Rural jobs are disappearing
Research from Headwaters Economics shows that rural counties with significant federal land have historically seen stronger job growth than other states. In fact, western counties with 30% or more protected federal land saw 345% job growth over 40 years, compared with just 83% growth in counties with no federal public lands (7).
The 2025 job cuts will surely affect these percentages, and stalling job growth in counties with significant federal land could have a negative economic effect on local communities.
Small businesses are getting squeezed
Outfitters can’t run trips without permits, ranchers need grazing approvals, and guides depend on maintained trails and open access.
With fewer staff at the federal agencies that manage America’s public lands, permits are piling up. One Colorado outfitter told reporters in May 2025 that his permits for the year were already behind schedule, leaving his entire season and his income in limbo (8).
This kind of backlog could lead to trip cancellations and dwindling business for outfitters and guides, which means the tourists coming into town for said trips may not be spending money and contributing to the local economy. In 2024, national park visitors spent $29 billion in nearby communities, generating $56.3 billion dollars in total economic output, according to the National Park Service (9).
Potential privatization could be costly
According to the Center for American Progress, Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) tried to slip language into Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” that would have made millions of acres of public land eligible for sale. A bipartisan backlash killed this initiative, but Lee has promised to keep pushing (10). In fact, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum has repeatedly called public lands “America’s balance sheet,” framing them as assets waiting to be sold (11).
Today, Americans can hunt, fish, hike and camp on public land for free, or close to it, but the access has a real dollar value. On private land, hunting leases usually cost around $10 to $50 per acre, but these costs can vary. A basic 200-acre lease can cost anywhere from $2,000 to $10,000 a year. In prime hunting states like Texas, Kansas and Illinois, prices can jump to $25 to $60 per acre (12).
For now, Americans still have access to public lands for these activities, but if states inherit land that they can’t afford to manage, selling the land becomes the easiest option. In fact, the state of Nevada kept just 3,000 acres out of the original 2.1 million that it received from the federal government (13). And when states sell off public land, free access to it can disappear quickly.
As for Zink, he’s still in the woods, hunting and running his business. But like many, he’s watching closely and wondering how long the land that sustains his livelihood will stay public, accessible and affordable.
Article sources
We rely only on vetted sources and credible third-party reporting. For details, see our editorial ethics and guidelines.
Politico (1); Center for American Progress (2); Mountaineers.org (3); Inside Climate News (4); Bureau of Economic Analysis (5); Bureau of Business and Economic Research (6); Headwaters Economics (7); NPR News (8); National Park Service (9); Axios (10); PBS News (11); Land App (12); National Wildlife Federation (13)
This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind.
No comments:
Post a Comment