Thanks for sharing this, Jan. The Grand Teton layoffs are another clear example of how these cuts aren’t just about short-term savings—they’re about weakening the entire system. Cutting supervisors while reinstating seasonal workers without the people who train them is setting them up to fail.
And you’re absolutely right—calls and direct action matter. The more noise we make, the harder it is for them to push these moves through quietly. Appreciate you spreading the word and for your support in this fight!
I've been very worried that under the new administration the NPS and BLM were going to be changed into auctioneers for the western public lands to be sold to the public. If they have their way, the freebooters will sell the west off to the highest bidders and what is now Yellowstone might wind up a Russian crony of Trump's private resort and Yosemite the property of some off-shore oligarch.
I hear you, Michael. We’ve seen this playbook before—starve a public institution, let it fall apart, and then claim the only solution is privatization. They’ve done it with the Postal Service, they’ve done it with public education, and now they’re doing it with our public lands. The goal isn’t to fix anything—it’s to shift control (and profit) into private hands. The scary part now is that they’ve got congress and the courts and a penchant for ignoring any established norms/laws. Appreciate you reading and keeping this conversation going!
Land Desk and now you are my go to sources for developments in the American west..privatization, extraction, gentrification, the industrialization of the landscape. All very undesirable developments for an old man who has been out here a long time.
Means a lot to hear that. We’re hell bent on doing our part to stem the tide here. I think about that often how depending on your generation you’d imagine that some of these battles would be won by the time you reach elder statesman status and the disappointment that must accompany the feeling to the contrary.
Thank you for this excellent article. You put the big corporation scheme (literal land grab) in plain language that makes a compelling argument. There is a lot going on in our country today so I appreciate you keeping the focus on the importance of OUR outdoor spaces. They belong to the American people - not corporations!
Really appreciate this, Connie! The more people see what’s happening, the harder it becomes for them to keep selling the ‘public lands are a burden’ narrative. These spaces belong to all of us—not corporations, not extractive industries, and definitely not private gatekeepers. Thanks for reading and for standing up for our lands!
Excellent article and no question about it the current administration is trying to privatize every public service. And the Billionaires can rake in more billions.
Thank you for this great article and framing! It makes the case sound so obvious. One layer of complexity that I’m curious to get your thoughts on is the quality of the jobs. I feel like a common story around the west is that there were generations of good jobs where you could make a solid middle class life at the mill, in the mine, etc. Then that way of life dried up because of (choose environmental regulations, resource scarcity, conservation, globalization, depending on what side you are on). While the outdoors economy is an economic powerhouse, how many of those jobs can you raise a family on vs seasonal work at the brewery or bike shop? And to be clear I am totally for public lands even if they don’t make economic sense. I just would like to have a stronger case in my head in case of debate or people who are not so sure.
My understanding of the issue goes like this: The decline of resource jobs in the West isn’t just about environmental regulations—it’s part of a much bigger economic shift. Resource depletion played a major role, as many of the best timber, coal, and mineral deposits were heavily extracted in the mid-20th century, leading to declining yields. At the same time, globalization allowed companies to source materials from cheaper markets overseas, and automation reduced the need for workers. The boom-and-bust nature of resource-based economies also made these jobs inherently unstable—when resources were overexploited or prices crashed, towns built around a single industry often struggled to recover. Corporate consolidation made things worse, as small mills and mines were bought out by multinational corporations that prioritized profit over local employment, sometimes moving operations abroad where labor was cheaper. Meanwhile, the broader U.S. economy was shifting toward services, technology, and tourism, leaving fewer opportunities in traditional extraction industries. Environmental regulations did play a role in some cases—like the spotted owl protections affecting logging in the Pacific Northwest—but they were often more of a scapegoat for deeper economic forces. Many industries were already in decline before major regulations took effect.
That said, I think there’s also a bigger trend at play—jobs across the board don’t support the same middle-class stability they once did. It’s not just resource extraction. A retail worker at a department store used to be able to buy a house and raise a family, and that’s no longer the case—not because the job itself changed, but because wages stagnated while housing, healthcare, and education costs skyrocketed. So to me, the question isn’t just whether outdoor jobs can replace old extraction jobs—it’s how to build an economy where any industry can provide stable, well-paying work. That’s going to take a mix of policy, workforce investment, and a shift in how we think about wages and economic sustainability.
Thank you for the thoughtful explanation! That makes sense - this has played out in the broader context of globalization and capitalism siphoning wealth to the top
Outside Magazine has a recent article stating that 16 of 17 supervisor positions in Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming were terminated. Supposedly, there are @5,000 seasonal workers jobs that were re-instated, but it is the supervisors that train these workers.
Please support the National Parks Conservation Association with a membership donation as this organization fights in Congress for our parks. Plus contact your representative in Congress to protest this scheme to privatize our parks and sell off lands. Download the app 5 Calls to get the phone numbers of your Congressmen and scripts to many current topics. Of course you can create your personalized message. The important thing is to keep making these calls!
John, I don’t blame your son one bit for thinking twice. Trust is hard to rebuild once it’s broken, and given how these cuts were handled, it’s clear that long-term stability for rangers isn’t a priority. One of the biggest pros of federal jobs is supposed to be stability and that has been robbed from all of them. The uncertainty that might be an effective motivator in Silicon Valley is very detrimental at scale to our government and I fear we’ve only begun to see the destabilizing effects.
And you’re right—this isn’t just about one job. When people like your son, who’ve dedicated years to these parks, walk away, we don’t just lose staff—we lose experience, knowledge, and passion that can’t be replaced. That’s the real cost of these cuts, and it’s exactly what those in charge are banking on people not noticing.
Appreciate you sharing all this, and I’d love to read that LA Times piece when you post it. The more people connect the dots, the harder it becomes to ignore what’s happening.
🙂 Will, Anything I can do to help! I’ve been drawing and posting a few crude political cartoons for this platform in recent weeks. I’ll have to give some thought on just how to create a bitting single pane cartoon on this particular subject. Have a great weekend!
Nah! You’re the expert. I am just a lover of the parks.
I have family skin in this game. My son has been a park ranger in Denali NP for seven years, and still does not know if he will have a job. The park’s education department was totally disbanded. Why? Because much of Denali’s is wrapped up in Native American history. Can’t have that! So no, it’s not just DEI being targeted, it’s history itself.
His dog sledding community (Healy), just 1/2 hour north of the park, is highly dependent on the park for supplemental income. If the park closes off access to sections of it, causing fewer tourists to come, it has a huge economic impact on the surrounding communities.
Cause and effect. A concept foreign to this administration.
John, this is exactly the kind of thing that gets lost in the broader conversation. It’s not just jobs getting cut—it’s history, education, and entire communities taking the hit. The fact that Denali’s education department was completely disbanded, especially given its deep Native American history, says a lot about what’s really driving these decisions.
And you nailed it on the ripple effect. When access is cut, places like Healy feel it first. Fewer visitors, fewer jobs, and a direct economic hit that nobody in power seems to care about. This isn’t just mismanagement—it’s a choice.
Really appreciate you sharing this, and I’m hoping your son and his colleagues get the clarity they deserve. They shouldn’t have to live in limbo because of these shortsighted and disconnected whims. The knowledge that is being lost, the brain drain that is happening will have incalculable long term consequences. Even if future administrations are more friendly toward public servants I think it will take a generation to repair the trust. Who would go into public service or go back into it now knowing the risks and volatility? It’s a true shame. Let’s hope we can stem the tide long enough for the pendulum to swing back the other way.
My son is seriously considering saying no, even if he is offered his job back. Because trust has been lost. He’s one of those guys and his wife too, who after moving to AK, have become integral parts of their dog sledding community. With his knowledge of the parks history, its environment and geology, visitors will lose that knowledge base. I call it a passion.
I am going to post another article from the LA times talking about how Trump and Musk may ruin their summer vacation plans.
It’s my hope that in getting more information out there to the public, that when this occurs, that they will connect the dots.
I just have this feeling that this topic, if experienced by enough of the public will make republican politicians cower.
This is a fascinating piece and I’ve only just dipped in so far. What immediately came to mind is the ‘c’ word - colonialism. Now that Neoliberal Capitalism has encircled the globe it has nowhere left to go - there is no Terra Nullius left to pillage , no more land to steal from indigenous peoples. Capitalism having exhausted and toxified most of the globe it logically must turn inward and devour that which it held up as “cherished”.
There are only two ways to actually make money - you can lend it and levy interest or dig it out of someone’s else’s land.
I’m on your side in preserving public lands but you are really stretching with this analysis. Your cited JEC report directly states the data "may not reflect a causal relationship between public lands and economic growth". Simply put, the Outdoor Recreation sector is not only dependent on public investment. There are many other factors at hand, and the type of public investment matters too. How do you definitively know people would stop spending if there were fewer visitor centers or less trail maintenance (to take your stated examples)? Personally I spend thousands every year on bicycle equipment and never visit public lands. Just goes to show how absurdly broad the Outdoor Rec segment is. Your sources list things like RV and boat sales as significant drivers of growth... Hell the sector probably includes firearm sales. Ironically, a lot of those things are probably more dependent on cheap gas than anything else.
Again preservation is important but I don't think we should be chasing Outdoor Rec revenue as the goal here, at least as you've defined it... And to link the two directly is misleading. Lands should be preserved as a public good, not as a pretense for economic growth.
I hear you on this, and I agree that public lands should be preserved as a public good first and foremost—not just as a means to drive economic growth. The Outdoor Rec segment is definitely broad, and not all of it is directly tied to public land access. But I do think there’s a meaningful relationship between investment in public lands and economic activity in the communities around them.
It's less about saying "if we cut visitor centers, people stop spending" and more about recognizing that when these places are maintained, accessible, and well-funded, they support sustainable economic benefits—especially in rural areas where outdoor tourism is a major driver. That said, I completely agree that economic growth shouldn't be the primary justification for conservation. The value of these lands goes far beyond dollars. This article is merely pointed out that even the economic argument does not hold water, far from it.
This is so important to understand. I went to the Grand Canyon the first weekend it reopened in 2020… *Everyone* that worked there was soooooo excited to be working again: Restaurants, hotels, park rangers, food trucks, gift shops, everyone.
National Parks are a whole mini economic ecosystem, where tourists spend a *ton* of money
Very well stated! It's the Defund, Dismantle, and Divest playbook and it seems to already be working. The economic output alone is reason enough to fight for our public lands.
If we need another reason...Steven Davis, in his book, In Defense of Public Lands, makes a compelling case that public lands provide critical "ecological services" beyond their economic value. He highlights how forests, wetlands, and grasslands act as carbon sinks, helping to mitigate climate change, while public watersheds filter pollutants and supply clean drinking water to millions. These lands sustain biodiversity, climate stability, and long-term environmental health—benefits that private ownership often fails to prioritize.
Exactly. Defund, Dismantle, Divest. The playbook is the same across agencies—starve them of resources, break their ability to function, then claim privatization is the only solution. It’s happening in real-time, and once these lands are in private hands, they’re gone for good.
Steven Davis makes a great point, and it’s something that gets lost in these debates when everything is framed around “economic productivity.” Public lands are doing far more than just driving tourism dollars—they’re literally keeping ecosystems and communities alive. Carbon sequestration, clean water, biodiversity, climate resilience—these are things private industry has no incentive to protect. Once a public watershed is polluted, once an intact ecosystem is fragmented, there’s no market mechanism that will magically restore it.
That’s the fight: keeping these lands in public hands, not just for their monetary value, but because they provide something irreplaceable. And the more we let the opposition frame it as a “use it or lose it” economic discussion, the more ground we lose.
We have to make it clear—these landscapes aren’t “underutilized” because they’re not industrialized. They’re already working 24/7, just not in a way that shows up on a quarterly earnings report.
Appreciate this conversation—these are exactly the points we need to be hammering.
Yes to all of this. Thanks for highlighting all of this. "We have to make it clear—these landscapes aren’t “underutilized” because they’re not industrialized. They’re already working 24/7, just not in a way that shows up on a quarterly earnings report."
Thanks so much Kristen! There’s just so many out there that prove this point. I tried to keep it to the most compelling without overwhelming but there are many, many more.
Thanks for sharing this, Jan. The Grand Teton layoffs are another clear example of how these cuts aren’t just about short-term savings—they’re about weakening the entire system. Cutting supervisors while reinstating seasonal workers without the people who train them is setting them up to fail.
And you’re absolutely right—calls and direct action matter. The more noise we make, the harder it is for them to push these moves through quietly. Appreciate you spreading the word and for your support in this fight!
What an incredible article! You are to be commended for fighting fire (excuse the metaphor) with cold, hard facts.
Thank you! And metaphors are welcome here :)
I've been very worried that under the new administration the NPS and BLM were going to be changed into auctioneers for the western public lands to be sold to the public. If they have their way, the freebooters will sell the west off to the highest bidders and what is now Yellowstone might wind up a Russian crony of Trump's private resort and Yosemite the property of some off-shore oligarch.
I hear you, Michael. We’ve seen this playbook before—starve a public institution, let it fall apart, and then claim the only solution is privatization. They’ve done it with the Postal Service, they’ve done it with public education, and now they’re doing it with our public lands. The goal isn’t to fix anything—it’s to shift control (and profit) into private hands. The scary part now is that they’ve got congress and the courts and a penchant for ignoring any established norms/laws. Appreciate you reading and keeping this conversation going!
Land Desk and now you are my go to sources for developments in the American west..privatization, extraction, gentrification, the industrialization of the landscape. All very undesirable developments for an old man who has been out here a long time.
Means a lot to hear that. We’re hell bent on doing our part to stem the tide here. I think about that often how depending on your generation you’d imagine that some of these battles would be won by the time you reach elder statesman status and the disappointment that must accompany the feeling to the contrary.
Thank you for this excellent article. You put the big corporation scheme (literal land grab) in plain language that makes a compelling argument. There is a lot going on in our country today so I appreciate you keeping the focus on the importance of OUR outdoor spaces. They belong to the American people - not corporations!
Really appreciate this, Connie! The more people see what’s happening, the harder it becomes for them to keep selling the ‘public lands are a burden’ narrative. These spaces belong to all of us—not corporations, not extractive industries, and definitely not private gatekeepers. Thanks for reading and for standing up for our lands!
Excellent article and no question about it the current administration is trying to privatize every public service. And the Billionaires can rake in more billions.
Thanks Dick. Totally agree. That's the gameplan.
Thank you for this great article and framing! It makes the case sound so obvious. One layer of complexity that I’m curious to get your thoughts on is the quality of the jobs. I feel like a common story around the west is that there were generations of good jobs where you could make a solid middle class life at the mill, in the mine, etc. Then that way of life dried up because of (choose environmental regulations, resource scarcity, conservation, globalization, depending on what side you are on). While the outdoors economy is an economic powerhouse, how many of those jobs can you raise a family on vs seasonal work at the brewery or bike shop? And to be clear I am totally for public lands even if they don’t make economic sense. I just would like to have a stronger case in my head in case of debate or people who are not so sure.
My understanding of the issue goes like this: The decline of resource jobs in the West isn’t just about environmental regulations—it’s part of a much bigger economic shift. Resource depletion played a major role, as many of the best timber, coal, and mineral deposits were heavily extracted in the mid-20th century, leading to declining yields. At the same time, globalization allowed companies to source materials from cheaper markets overseas, and automation reduced the need for workers. The boom-and-bust nature of resource-based economies also made these jobs inherently unstable—when resources were overexploited or prices crashed, towns built around a single industry often struggled to recover. Corporate consolidation made things worse, as small mills and mines were bought out by multinational corporations that prioritized profit over local employment, sometimes moving operations abroad where labor was cheaper. Meanwhile, the broader U.S. economy was shifting toward services, technology, and tourism, leaving fewer opportunities in traditional extraction industries. Environmental regulations did play a role in some cases—like the spotted owl protections affecting logging in the Pacific Northwest—but they were often more of a scapegoat for deeper economic forces. Many industries were already in decline before major regulations took effect.
That said, I think there’s also a bigger trend at play—jobs across the board don’t support the same middle-class stability they once did. It’s not just resource extraction. A retail worker at a department store used to be able to buy a house and raise a family, and that’s no longer the case—not because the job itself changed, but because wages stagnated while housing, healthcare, and education costs skyrocketed. So to me, the question isn’t just whether outdoor jobs can replace old extraction jobs—it’s how to build an economy where any industry can provide stable, well-paying work. That’s going to take a mix of policy, workforce investment, and a shift in how we think about wages and economic sustainability.
Thank you for the thoughtful explanation! That makes sense - this has played out in the broader context of globalization and capitalism siphoning wealth to the top
Outside Magazine has a recent article stating that 16 of 17 supervisor positions in Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming were terminated. Supposedly, there are @5,000 seasonal workers jobs that were re-instated, but it is the supervisors that train these workers.
Please support the National Parks Conservation Association with a membership donation as this organization fights in Congress for our parks. Plus contact your representative in Congress to protest this scheme to privatize our parks and sell off lands. Download the app 5 Calls to get the phone numbers of your Congressmen and scripts to many current topics. Of course you can create your personalized message. The important thing is to keep making these calls!
You nailed it Will!
John, I don’t blame your son one bit for thinking twice. Trust is hard to rebuild once it’s broken, and given how these cuts were handled, it’s clear that long-term stability for rangers isn’t a priority. One of the biggest pros of federal jobs is supposed to be stability and that has been robbed from all of them. The uncertainty that might be an effective motivator in Silicon Valley is very detrimental at scale to our government and I fear we’ve only begun to see the destabilizing effects.
And you’re right—this isn’t just about one job. When people like your son, who’ve dedicated years to these parks, walk away, we don’t just lose staff—we lose experience, knowledge, and passion that can’t be replaced. That’s the real cost of these cuts, and it’s exactly what those in charge are banking on people not noticing.
Appreciate you sharing all this, and I’d love to read that LA Times piece when you post it. The more people connect the dots, the harder it becomes to ignore what’s happening.
🙂 Will, Anything I can do to help! I’ve been drawing and posting a few crude political cartoons for this platform in recent weeks. I’ll have to give some thought on just how to create a bitting single pane cartoon on this particular subject. Have a great weekend!
Thanks John! I was partially inspired by our previous exchange to expand on this here.
Nah! You’re the expert. I am just a lover of the parks.
I have family skin in this game. My son has been a park ranger in Denali NP for seven years, and still does not know if he will have a job. The park’s education department was totally disbanded. Why? Because much of Denali’s is wrapped up in Native American history. Can’t have that! So no, it’s not just DEI being targeted, it’s history itself.
His dog sledding community (Healy), just 1/2 hour north of the park, is highly dependent on the park for supplemental income. If the park closes off access to sections of it, causing fewer tourists to come, it has a huge economic impact on the surrounding communities.
Cause and effect. A concept foreign to this administration.
John, this is exactly the kind of thing that gets lost in the broader conversation. It’s not just jobs getting cut—it’s history, education, and entire communities taking the hit. The fact that Denali’s education department was completely disbanded, especially given its deep Native American history, says a lot about what’s really driving these decisions.
And you nailed it on the ripple effect. When access is cut, places like Healy feel it first. Fewer visitors, fewer jobs, and a direct economic hit that nobody in power seems to care about. This isn’t just mismanagement—it’s a choice.
Really appreciate you sharing this, and I’m hoping your son and his colleagues get the clarity they deserve. They shouldn’t have to live in limbo because of these shortsighted and disconnected whims. The knowledge that is being lost, the brain drain that is happening will have incalculable long term consequences. Even if future administrations are more friendly toward public servants I think it will take a generation to repair the trust. Who would go into public service or go back into it now knowing the risks and volatility? It’s a true shame. Let’s hope we can stem the tide long enough for the pendulum to swing back the other way.
Thanks Will!
My son is seriously considering saying no, even if he is offered his job back. Because trust has been lost. He’s one of those guys and his wife too, who after moving to AK, have become integral parts of their dog sledding community. With his knowledge of the parks history, its environment and geology, visitors will lose that knowledge base. I call it a passion.
I am going to post another article from the LA times talking about how Trump and Musk may ruin their summer vacation plans.
It’s my hope that in getting more information out there to the public, that when this occurs, that they will connect the dots.
I just have this feeling that this topic, if experienced by enough of the public will make republican politicians cower.
This is a fascinating piece and I’ve only just dipped in so far. What immediately came to mind is the ‘c’ word - colonialism. Now that Neoliberal Capitalism has encircled the globe it has nowhere left to go - there is no Terra Nullius left to pillage , no more land to steal from indigenous peoples. Capitalism having exhausted and toxified most of the globe it logically must turn inward and devour that which it held up as “cherished”.
There are only two ways to actually make money - you can lend it and levy interest or dig it out of someone’s else’s land.
It’s colonialism and it always was.
Thanks Jez! That’s an interesting take I hadn’t considered. Maybe worthy of a future dive on a piece.
I’m on your side in preserving public lands but you are really stretching with this analysis. Your cited JEC report directly states the data "may not reflect a causal relationship between public lands and economic growth". Simply put, the Outdoor Recreation sector is not only dependent on public investment. There are many other factors at hand, and the type of public investment matters too. How do you definitively know people would stop spending if there were fewer visitor centers or less trail maintenance (to take your stated examples)? Personally I spend thousands every year on bicycle equipment and never visit public lands. Just goes to show how absurdly broad the Outdoor Rec segment is. Your sources list things like RV and boat sales as significant drivers of growth... Hell the sector probably includes firearm sales. Ironically, a lot of those things are probably more dependent on cheap gas than anything else.
Again preservation is important but I don't think we should be chasing Outdoor Rec revenue as the goal here, at least as you've defined it... And to link the two directly is misleading. Lands should be preserved as a public good, not as a pretense for economic growth.
I hear you on this, and I agree that public lands should be preserved as a public good first and foremost—not just as a means to drive economic growth. The Outdoor Rec segment is definitely broad, and not all of it is directly tied to public land access. But I do think there’s a meaningful relationship between investment in public lands and economic activity in the communities around them.
It's less about saying "if we cut visitor centers, people stop spending" and more about recognizing that when these places are maintained, accessible, and well-funded, they support sustainable economic benefits—especially in rural areas where outdoor tourism is a major driver. That said, I completely agree that economic growth shouldn't be the primary justification for conservation. The value of these lands goes far beyond dollars. This article is merely pointed out that even the economic argument does not hold water, far from it.
This is so important to understand. I went to the Grand Canyon the first weekend it reopened in 2020… *Everyone* that worked there was soooooo excited to be working again: Restaurants, hotels, park rangers, food trucks, gift shops, everyone.
National Parks are a whole mini economic ecosystem, where tourists spend a *ton* of money
Great point, Christina! And now to see them treated in such a shabby way is a real gut punch.
Do u have a source for that 1.1 trillion dollar figure?
Hey Jaron,
Here's a good one: https://outdoorindustry.org/press-release/u-s-outdoor-recreation-industry-soars-to-1-1-trillion/
Best,
Will
Thank you!
This is what happens when you try to run a huge government like a business but you’re a terrible businessman.
lol
Very well stated! It's the Defund, Dismantle, and Divest playbook and it seems to already be working. The economic output alone is reason enough to fight for our public lands.
If we need another reason...Steven Davis, in his book, In Defense of Public Lands, makes a compelling case that public lands provide critical "ecological services" beyond their economic value. He highlights how forests, wetlands, and grasslands act as carbon sinks, helping to mitigate climate change, while public watersheds filter pollutants and supply clean drinking water to millions. These lands sustain biodiversity, climate stability, and long-term environmental health—benefits that private ownership often fails to prioritize.
Josh,
Exactly. Defund, Dismantle, Divest. The playbook is the same across agencies—starve them of resources, break their ability to function, then claim privatization is the only solution. It’s happening in real-time, and once these lands are in private hands, they’re gone for good.
Steven Davis makes a great point, and it’s something that gets lost in these debates when everything is framed around “economic productivity.” Public lands are doing far more than just driving tourism dollars—they’re literally keeping ecosystems and communities alive. Carbon sequestration, clean water, biodiversity, climate resilience—these are things private industry has no incentive to protect. Once a public watershed is polluted, once an intact ecosystem is fragmented, there’s no market mechanism that will magically restore it.
That’s the fight: keeping these lands in public hands, not just for their monetary value, but because they provide something irreplaceable. And the more we let the opposition frame it as a “use it or lose it” economic discussion, the more ground we lose.
We have to make it clear—these landscapes aren’t “underutilized” because they’re not industrialized. They’re already working 24/7, just not in a way that shows up on a quarterly earnings report.
Appreciate this conversation—these are exactly the points we need to be hammering.
Yes to all of this. Thanks for highlighting all of this. "We have to make it clear—these landscapes aren’t “underutilized” because they’re not industrialized. They’re already working 24/7, just not in a way that shows up on a quarterly earnings report."
Yeah non “use” (by humans) is the wisest use in many instances but that doesn’t sit well with a lot of folks.
In a few weeks all this damage.
Thanks for putting so many facts in one article. Appreciate it and will share it!
Thanks so much Kristen! There’s just so many out there that prove this point. I tried to keep it to the most compelling without overwhelming but there are many, many more.