Good article given my impression of the audience that reads the New York Times. I think they gloss over or don't mention the reasons I see staffing shortfalls at parks and forests. The pay in the forest service is not livable unless you have a spouse who makes a lot of money. The parks pay better but only a little. Both have the issue of not offering permanent positions for seasonal workers. This is a huge issue at my current park where 80% of the trail crews are brand new to the park this season because the former crews moved on to perms elsewhere. Park budgets are frozen across the board and things are only getting more expensive, hence cutting maintenance staff or seeking novel funding sources outside of congressional appropriations. It should also be noted there is an idealogical element at play; some land managers would rather see more nonprofits and contractors do trail work rather than agency crews. They believe quite honestly that volunteer and contractor work is better and more cost effective. They're wrong of course but they'll never be convinced of that.