Motorized Travel Continues
Final Winter Plan Reduces Snowmobiles in Yellowstone Park
By Lucia Stewart, 9-24-07
 |
|
 | |
| Snowmobiles lined up at West entrance. Photo by Jim Peaco and used courtesy of Yellowstone National Park. | |
|
The National Park Service released the final Winter-Use Environmental Impact Statement for Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks — the fourth such study in less than 10 years with a total price tag of $10 million. Not to mention, a long-running controversy.
Under the new plan, 540 snowmobiles and 83 snowcoaches would be allowed a day into Yellowstone National Park. Snowmobiles still requiring the use a commercial guide and quiet, cleaner engine technology.
The plan will be implemented in the 2008-2009 season, therefore still allowing 720 snowmobiles a day for the upcoming season.
But the numbers of visitors using snowmobiles — historically in the thousands — has steadily held to an average of 250-290 snowmobiles a day over the past four years.
The 2004 adopted policy that required snowmobiles to travel with a commercial guide and make use of the cleaner engine technology increased the cost of traveling by snowmobiles and decreased the number of available snowmobiles that met standards.
Meanwhile, visitor use of snowcoaches has escalated by 67 percent in the past four winters.
The draft EIS, released in March this year, was almost identical to the 2004 interim plan, allowing 720 snowmobiles and 78 snowcoaches. It received 122,190 public comments from March to June, of which 73 percent said snow coached should be the only form of motorized transportation allowed into Yellowstone National Park.
The EPA’s public comments on the draft EIS stated the Park Service’s plan didn’t go far enough to protect air quality, human health, wildlife and quiet spaces. Noise from the current motorized winter-use is documented as continuing to create noise problems exceeding the park’s thresholds.
Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks are scheduled to open on December 19.
Here are the other changes put forth by the EIS:
Sylvan Pass, outside of Cody, Wyo. will no longer receive avalanche safety measure as the NPS sees the use of the howitzer or helicopter for avalanche control to expensive and difficult with unnecessary risk. Four-miles of the park’s East Entrance will be groomed for motorized on-snow travel to allow drop-off for non-motorized users, but no longer allowing snowmobiles.
Snowcoaches will need to meet emission and sound level requirements by the 2011-2012 season in Yellowstone National Park.
In Grand Teton National Park:
The Continental Divide Snowmobile Trail between Moran Junction and Flagg Ranch would be discontinued.
Grassy Lake Road would allow 25 snowmobiles a day, with no guide or emissions requirements.
Ice Fishing on Jackson Lake can be accessed by 40 unguided snowmobiles, but require emission standards, appropriate fishing gear and a valid Wyoming fishing license.
For the entire plan, click here.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Sssshhhhhh - Fall is upon us, Winter is Nigh!
Better to close the Park for the winter than to require emplyees supervising and directing every visitor. In a very short time the Park has gone from have fun, obey simple rules to: We will take you, show you, and supervise you so that you don't mess with OUR PARK. Yellowstone is held captive by the bureauocracy.
Let people who want to be caged go in snow coaches. Allow the rest of the public to also enjoy the park.
I really can't support folks who ride like they think all accessible public land is a motorcross track, or the snowmobile/4-wheeler equivalent. Keep the power, speed, noise, dust and smoke in the appropriate venue. We don't allow people to drive around town like maniacs in NASCAR Stock Cars or Formula One machines. We need to realize the same inappropriateness of race-ready Off-Road-Vehicles in the Park and most areas of the National Forests as well.
I'm hoping the manufacturers and marketers will pick up on this. After all, they stand to sell twice as many machines.
Somebody better wake up and smell the coffee, and get a handle on greens. They are busy pushing eveyone else out. they brought in wolves to remove ranchers, and they are trying to push infected buffalo onto ranches. Some of them admit they hate cattle and they want ranchers gone. Most of them come up with lofty reasons to reach the same goal, but all are dangerous to an American way of life.
As for wolves and bison - PROVE IT!!
Several studies have shown that animals are more stressed by folks on foot than the sound of engines. Do we just ignore those studies so that the greens can continue to be subsidized in their exclusive use of YNP?
I hope this link will work:
http://books.google.com/books?id=tklr52p-AzEC&pg=PT241&lpg=PT241&dq=wildlife+response+to+humans+on+foot&source=web&ots=kn0Jvee0sX&sig=9Sz0BBEUyvq7eu1UesuhzNIhfHg
or
http://www.nps.gov/yell/parkmgmt/upload/2006wildliferpt_finaldraft.pdf
So perhaps we need to totally close Yellowstone in the winter and give all wildlife a break from ALL humans.
Yes, when people use the backcountry they leave waste - and responsible people KNOW how to "Leave NO Trace" - they also know that in Winter and early Spring that wildlife is Extra stressed by human presence and Educated folks stay away from the wildlife and take Extra care!
LOW Impact users of the Parks spend money too - so NO need to subsidize them; don't bother with the arguement as to who spends the MOST money - that doesn't give anyone MORE rights!!
Actually your suggestion of closing the Park(s) on certain seasonal basis has some merit!
This sytem is inconvient for some - far from perfect for others (especially for the selfish), but is responsible to the WHOLE system: economic, ecological and personal. You can always get what you want - when you want it ; at least if your are adult about it. Also - try to read between the lines and don't take all remark as LITERAL!!
Hey Marion,
Is there anything being done today by anyone at all you have a positive reaction to? Is there any form of progress you support? Do you like clean air and water? Because the same people you freakin' verbally lambast day in and day out on this website do what they do, not only for themselves, but for the overall good of our society and country. That's right, environmentalism is not about YOUR destruction, it's about preventing (or limiting) natural destruction. What the hell is your problem?
Also, don't use the word "subsidy" if you can't do it correctly. For example, if you are a rancher, you are subsidized like no other. That's a correct application of the word. Backcountry skiers are NOT subsidized by you, nor are backpackers. Also a correct past-tense application of the word.
I love cows. Moo.
If we must limit the use then do it fairly. Why develop the criteria to meet only your desires? Close the Park or limit the number on a first come first served basis. If it's one snow shoer, one snowmobile and one 4 wheeler then so be it. You use the word selfish. Your approach fits that word!
All over the world, uses of Public facilities have limiting criteria; NO art museum allows people to walk around with BOOM boxes blasting music (not even Mozart's) or smoking Cuban cigars or letting small children run around and disrupting the atmosphere of the facility! First come, First Serve - "still" needs behavior criteria!
Even snowmobiler that I've met in the backcountry or ATV users - know about "Leave NO Trace' (I suggest you look them up) techniques and pratise them, BECAUSE it is the correct behavior for all involved. Unfortunately, and the few I've met agree, these fokks are FEW and Far between the numbers encountered. Only one person NOT properly trained in human waste disposal, even in Winter, can contaminate an entire water shed for months and make 100's to 1,000's sick with their waste!
The techniques were developed by various and highly experienced people/schools and then checked with scientific/quantitative data and results. You can dispute the FACTS/TRUTH - like people who sell tabacoo or use that product, but that just shows how slanted and closed minded they are. When "I" see data that PROVES I'm wrong - I admit it and chnage my mind!! Try it!
I visited Yellowstone a couple years ago in the winter and went on a tour in a snow coach. During my visit there were so many snowmobiles it was a nightmare. The noise was too much, I could smell their fumes all over and half of the snowmobile operators were kids.
The argument Marion and sweed7 are promoting is just silly and ill informed. Snowmobiles are louder then cars, they produce more exhaust fumes and create more traffic, not to mention most of the people driving them into Yellowstone are not experienced users, they just rent them for a few hours.
We as a society regulate some activities for a reason; we can't kill wild animals willy nilly out of season; we can't drive our 4x4s up and down streams and we need to regulate traffic in our most precious national treasure.
It is remarkable that only you are good enough to have no impact, so of course in your mind that means that only you can use those places. BAT snowmobiles are too noisy for your impaired tender ears, but non-BAT snow coaches are no bother at all....that is until the snowmobiles are gone, then enviros will come up with a reason....their poor ears again if nothing else.
I'm sorry,but there is a big difference between using bathrooms and going on the ground. Folks that back pack in Yellowstone joke about "throne hill" where they leave a lot of waste. I have never heard a single person talk about taking one of the little baggies for waste into the back country, nor skiing. Snowmobilers can get to a warming hut and bathroom much easier than a skier and it is much harder for them to get to a private spot, so drop that bit of BS, you just think you are so superior your waste does not contaminate.
A subsidy is aid, support, or grant, that is the case whether it is free camping and use of the forests or whether it is a below market price for livestock. I would have no problem with everyone, including hikers, back country users, and ranchers paying a commercial market price to use forests, as long as the government paid for the fences, water supply maintenance, and paid the same fee to the rancher for the use of his land and meadows by wildlife. Most ranchers would come out ahead of what they are now paying. Yes back country users meet the definition of subsidized and to a much greater percent than ranchers.
Apparently a great many people used the Park for snowmobiling. They liked it. You didn't. When the snow melted there was little trace of them and the animals were still there. Of course they were from the unwashed 70% who aren't green. What right did they have to enjoy the Park. Especially Kids. Oh those rotten kids shouldn't enjoy the Park.
I know, all greenies know how to take care of their bodily waste and the none of the others do. They are just scumbags and should stay out of your Park.
Bye, I bet you still don't know how selfish you sound. I am done trying to help you.
Since the use of Public Roads/Lands requires: education, practise, testing and certification (i.e. the drivers license) and even people with all this background in the use of the roads make mistakes (usually from; laziness, arogance, defiance or so) - they are ticketed and in some cases SUSPENDED from the use of the roads; License Revoked!! The use of the backcountry trails/wilderness areas should have NO less education. Various schools across the national have done so for 40+ years and certified OVER 100,000 people 9as indivduals or leaders of groups and it has been PROVEN tio work. Just because the science doesn't support YOUR pt. of view doesn't make it pseudo - after all, again, smokers ignore that Facts every day. The Scientific method used here is the same used to treat cancer and to anyone with a hint of effort can be read and interpreted in generally the same way. If you don't like the truth - that is YOUR problem.
Also - remember, the 12 national surveys done in the past 17 yrs. concerning the use of Federal lands has always had the same general results; the "majority" side with restrictions of motorized vehicle use. The Founding Fathers (as someone is fond of saying) set things down to Evolve over time - NOT to remain static - that is evolutionary death. If you don't like it - that is your selfish problem and as the population grows and the land use grows - there will be MORE selfishness by people; get the hint about the ROOT of the probelm!!??
In addition; useing the phrase; "The Children" or blaming "Wildlife"
is one the most cheap devices in debate. Try some basic Forensic Debate techniques. One thing always comes to mind when "I" discuss issues like this, an old saying; "Rules are for FOOLS" - meaning simply; if people use common sense, based on sound science and aren't selfish - then LAWS won't have to be passed to restrict behavior, but every year MORE alws are passed to control; foolish, selfish, arogant behavior!!
ENOUGH SAID!!
Marion,
Your ignorance is astounding ("Yes back country users meet the definition of subsidized and to a much greater percent than ranchers"). Percent of what? I can't argue with ignorance, nor will I try. You are so out of touch with reality, you're not worth talking to.
Moooo!
It is time Drag these people into the 21st. Century!!
I hope people see the humor where I put it. Those who don't/can't/won't are to be pitied!!
Thanks to those of you that see things as they are - NOT just as some want them - for themselves!! I know, I know - it can be said that IT is applicable to ME. I don't think so, but at least I think!!
There is NO such thing as a FREE lunch in THIS Universe!
Just because YOU don't use something in the Federal system - doesn't mean you shouldn't throw in a fair amount for the benefit of ALL ; that what it means to be PART of a society/community. If you use it MORE - then you pay more! If you don't want to be a part of the World - LEAVE!!
Bon Voyage!!
I am glad to know you volunteer, there was an article in the billings paper not long ago complaining about the lack of help to build hiking trails and fix them up because of cut backs in the number of people available to do that, and it mentioned that they had no volunteers to help either....so of course they wanted more tax funding.
Most back country usage is free in this state, even though trash has to be hauled etc. there was a pretty famous toilet in the Tetons a few years that cost 25,000 per year to maintain...they took it out.