P
Is anyone else sending them in? This is more important than you may think. The park may not be an important place for real snowmobilers, but is the primary front in the battle for all snowmobiling.
It is also a blatant example of the arrogance and political biases that run rampant in the land use, environmental and science communities these days.
Only today to get any comment in… believe me, any comment, even one paragraph supporting restoring snowmobile access will be counted. There are sure to be many opposition ones….
I’m sickly and it is late but this is what I sent…
Dear Park Service,
I am writing to comment on the Winter Use Plan, Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. My comment contains several considerations pertaining to winter use and access; my personal experience with the park, impact review, and justice consideration.
The first and last time I visited Yellowstone was late January 1987. My family and friends stayed in West Yellowstone at a rental condo and were fortunate to spend a half-day in the park by snowmobile on the road to and from Old Faithful. In 1987 there were enforced rules for the preservation of the park, its wildlife, and safety of the visitors. Rules such as speed limits, wildlife clearance, travel limits to specified roads, road-viewing points, and designated parking areas. At age 16 I found this to be a “boring” snowmobile ride; all the while; understanding that this was a marvelous opportunity and a precious chance to witness a truly special place. This appreciation of what I was witnessing and keen awareness of the rules was primarily from the proud tutelage, and self-appointed “guide”, my mother, a Forest Service employee, enthusiastically leading the group by camera and semi-confident factoids. My mother returned to West Yellowstone early February 2009 to find the trip into the park to be forbidding and, even worse, cost prohibitive. This was very disheartening to my mother, a 35-year veteran forest service employee, who spent one long summer and fall away from home (1988) as a member of a national team battling the Yellowstone fires. The park entry restrictiveness and high cost has been my and many of my friend’s primary consideration not to visit West Yellowstone or other park side communities; the other is the aberrant crowding of Yellowstone in the summertime.
I am an Endangered Species Act habitat professional well aware of the need for natural space, connectivity between limited habitats, and the inevitability of management within our modern landscape. Impact is an interesting term… Impact such as roads, infrastructure, construction & maintenance, 24/7-wheeled vehicle allowance, human foot, bicycle, and other travel presence, unnatural trail construction & maintenance, pet presence, and many more are allowed and even celebrated by the national park service. Maybe there needs to be a reminder that the winter vehicle use represents 1% of the annual visitation and a fraction there of the annual “Impact”. While there have been some (admittedly few) abuses of the rules for winter use the fact remains that snowmobiles represent a very small impact to the park. Snowmobiles are limited to the existing roads which make-up a very small area within the park. The roads and off road area can be accessed by other winter visitors enabling sanctuary from noise concerns. There are many studies showing that human afoot or traveling by way of a non-motorized vehicle more detrimentally impacts wild life than that of a motorized vehicle.
*Parker et al. (1984) suggested that greater flight distances occur in response to skiers or individuals on foot compared to snowmobiles and that unanticipated disturbance may have a more detrimental effect. Freddy et al. (1986) and Freddy (1986) also reported that responses by mule deer to persons afoot, when compared to snowmobiles, were longer in duration, more often involved running, and required greater energy expenditures.
References:
*Sime, C. A. 1999. Domestic Dogs in Wildlife Habitats. Pages 8.1-8.17 in G. Joslin and H. Youmans, coordinators. Effects of recreation on Rocky Mountain wildlife: A Review for Montana. Committee on Effects of Recreation on Wildlife, Montana Chapter of The Wildlife Society. 307pp.
*Parker, K. L., C. T. Robbins, and T. A. Hanley. 1984 Energy expenditures for locomotion by mule deer and elk. Journal of Wildlife Management 48(2):474-488
*Freddy, D. J. 1986. Responses of adult mule deer to human harassment during winter. R. D. Comer, T. G. Baumann, P. Davis, J. W. Monarch, J. Todd, S. VanGytenbeek, D. Wills, J. Woodling, editors. Proceedings II. Issues and technology in the management of impacted western wildlife: proceedings of a national symposium; Feburary 4-6, 1985. Glenwood Springs, Colorado. Boulder, Colorado: Thorne Ecological Institute.
*Freddy, D. J. W.M. Bronaugh, and M. C. Fowler. 1986. Responses of mule deer to disturbance by persons afoot and snowmobiles. Wildlife Society Bulletin 14(1):63-68.
Also while attending the Society for Ecological Restoration Symposium Northwest, February 2010… There were presentations where results of recent studies showed increased predation, altered behavioral response due to and nearby manmade foot and bicycle trail systems where less behavioral anomalies were observed near motor vehicle roads. For those of us who consciously observe wildlife during many situations know this to be true. Shouldn’t Best Available Science concentrate on predominate detrimental impact?
Snowmobiles have become the scapegoat for the overwhelming misguided political activism falsely implying a concern for the environment or the preservation of national parks. Snowmobile use in Yellowstone is highly regulated; strict emission and noise standards that are not applied to other season “wheeled” use. I am saddened to say that much of our environmental and wildlife, policies and management are based on unsound science and more on personal biased beliefs and ideals. I realize this is human nature and the same can be said about many outdoors and sportsmen. The difference is that the public employees are paid from collective public money to find and use the best available science; not their personal bias developed from their individual lifestyle, associations, religious, cultural and/or political affiliations. While demonizing snowmobile use is popular, the fact is that snowmobile use is highly regulated and presents a minuscule amount of the detrimental “impact to our national parks or any other public lands. Most people who’d visit the park during wintertime are there respectfully and responsibly to witness the awesomeness of the park and our countries greatness for it’d preservation. Regulation and reduction of impact should be made where the most benefit is. The park department is there to manage the use. Manage the use allow for winter motorized access and opportunities for segregated motorized/non-motorized access.
I feel the previous actions of restriction and this impact statement intent is purely politically charged with absolutely no scientific relevance or honest park preservation intent.
I recommend immediately cutting non-winter (snow off) road travel by half and increasing the winter (on snow) travel access (as to allow park experience opportunities). Reestablish snowmobile access to the amount negotiated previously (at least a third snowmobile-sided use compromise) at the 1400/ day limit; allow a quarter (up to 350/ day) of private snowmobiles meeting current emission and noise standards to be allowed(still only 5-10% of annual visitors). Allow for limited permitted self-guided park access with travel plan and designated routes allowing for experience options (want to look at swans, or elk longer, access options ski/snowshoe access, etc…). Allow non-motorized access and area designations off limits to vehicles (sure there is substantial currently, but make it official again). This is a huge compromise from pre 2000 & earlier snowmobile rules and allows lower cost access, more management flexibility while maintaining the original benefit and enjoyment of future generations ideals that the park system represents.
Otherwise a future congress / administration / courts may approve a return to the limit of 3000+ snowmobiles a day with no access regulation or means of meaningful management tools by the park officials and scientists. This is more than reasonable, as snowmobile use / access is very low impact; but in the spirit and agreement that the park should be less crowded than is can be primarily for the experience and true preservation. I’d also like to see a use plan designated for all other seasons and park access for realistic science based impact / use review and management.
Thank you for your continued dedication to our National Parks, aside from politics.
Thanks for keeping us informed Blue Ribbon Coalition, Christopher and the rest of the folks on the front line!
It is also a blatant example of the arrogance and political biases that run rampant in the land use, environmental and science communities these days.
Only today to get any comment in… believe me, any comment, even one paragraph supporting restoring snowmobile access will be counted. There are sure to be many opposition ones….
I’m sickly and it is late but this is what I sent…
Dear Park Service,
I am writing to comment on the Winter Use Plan, Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. My comment contains several considerations pertaining to winter use and access; my personal experience with the park, impact review, and justice consideration.
The first and last time I visited Yellowstone was late January 1987. My family and friends stayed in West Yellowstone at a rental condo and were fortunate to spend a half-day in the park by snowmobile on the road to and from Old Faithful. In 1987 there were enforced rules for the preservation of the park, its wildlife, and safety of the visitors. Rules such as speed limits, wildlife clearance, travel limits to specified roads, road-viewing points, and designated parking areas. At age 16 I found this to be a “boring” snowmobile ride; all the while; understanding that this was a marvelous opportunity and a precious chance to witness a truly special place. This appreciation of what I was witnessing and keen awareness of the rules was primarily from the proud tutelage, and self-appointed “guide”, my mother, a Forest Service employee, enthusiastically leading the group by camera and semi-confident factoids. My mother returned to West Yellowstone early February 2009 to find the trip into the park to be forbidding and, even worse, cost prohibitive. This was very disheartening to my mother, a 35-year veteran forest service employee, who spent one long summer and fall away from home (1988) as a member of a national team battling the Yellowstone fires. The park entry restrictiveness and high cost has been my and many of my friend’s primary consideration not to visit West Yellowstone or other park side communities; the other is the aberrant crowding of Yellowstone in the summertime.
I am an Endangered Species Act habitat professional well aware of the need for natural space, connectivity between limited habitats, and the inevitability of management within our modern landscape. Impact is an interesting term… Impact such as roads, infrastructure, construction & maintenance, 24/7-wheeled vehicle allowance, human foot, bicycle, and other travel presence, unnatural trail construction & maintenance, pet presence, and many more are allowed and even celebrated by the national park service. Maybe there needs to be a reminder that the winter vehicle use represents 1% of the annual visitation and a fraction there of the annual “Impact”. While there have been some (admittedly few) abuses of the rules for winter use the fact remains that snowmobiles represent a very small impact to the park. Snowmobiles are limited to the existing roads which make-up a very small area within the park. The roads and off road area can be accessed by other winter visitors enabling sanctuary from noise concerns. There are many studies showing that human afoot or traveling by way of a non-motorized vehicle more detrimentally impacts wild life than that of a motorized vehicle.
*Parker et al. (1984) suggested that greater flight distances occur in response to skiers or individuals on foot compared to snowmobiles and that unanticipated disturbance may have a more detrimental effect. Freddy et al. (1986) and Freddy (1986) also reported that responses by mule deer to persons afoot, when compared to snowmobiles, were longer in duration, more often involved running, and required greater energy expenditures.
References:
*Sime, C. A. 1999. Domestic Dogs in Wildlife Habitats. Pages 8.1-8.17 in G. Joslin and H. Youmans, coordinators. Effects of recreation on Rocky Mountain wildlife: A Review for Montana. Committee on Effects of Recreation on Wildlife, Montana Chapter of The Wildlife Society. 307pp.
*Parker, K. L., C. T. Robbins, and T. A. Hanley. 1984 Energy expenditures for locomotion by mule deer and elk. Journal of Wildlife Management 48(2):474-488
*Freddy, D. J. 1986. Responses of adult mule deer to human harassment during winter. R. D. Comer, T. G. Baumann, P. Davis, J. W. Monarch, J. Todd, S. VanGytenbeek, D. Wills, J. Woodling, editors. Proceedings II. Issues and technology in the management of impacted western wildlife: proceedings of a national symposium; Feburary 4-6, 1985. Glenwood Springs, Colorado. Boulder, Colorado: Thorne Ecological Institute.
*Freddy, D. J. W.M. Bronaugh, and M. C. Fowler. 1986. Responses of mule deer to disturbance by persons afoot and snowmobiles. Wildlife Society Bulletin 14(1):63-68.
Also while attending the Society for Ecological Restoration Symposium Northwest, February 2010… There were presentations where results of recent studies showed increased predation, altered behavioral response due to and nearby manmade foot and bicycle trail systems where less behavioral anomalies were observed near motor vehicle roads. For those of us who consciously observe wildlife during many situations know this to be true. Shouldn’t Best Available Science concentrate on predominate detrimental impact?
Snowmobiles have become the scapegoat for the overwhelming misguided political activism falsely implying a concern for the environment or the preservation of national parks. Snowmobile use in Yellowstone is highly regulated; strict emission and noise standards that are not applied to other season “wheeled” use. I am saddened to say that much of our environmental and wildlife, policies and management are based on unsound science and more on personal biased beliefs and ideals. I realize this is human nature and the same can be said about many outdoors and sportsmen. The difference is that the public employees are paid from collective public money to find and use the best available science; not their personal bias developed from their individual lifestyle, associations, religious, cultural and/or political affiliations. While demonizing snowmobile use is popular, the fact is that snowmobile use is highly regulated and presents a minuscule amount of the detrimental “impact to our national parks or any other public lands. Most people who’d visit the park during wintertime are there respectfully and responsibly to witness the awesomeness of the park and our countries greatness for it’d preservation. Regulation and reduction of impact should be made where the most benefit is. The park department is there to manage the use. Manage the use allow for winter motorized access and opportunities for segregated motorized/non-motorized access.
I feel the previous actions of restriction and this impact statement intent is purely politically charged with absolutely no scientific relevance or honest park preservation intent.
I recommend immediately cutting non-winter (snow off) road travel by half and increasing the winter (on snow) travel access (as to allow park experience opportunities). Reestablish snowmobile access to the amount negotiated previously (at least a third snowmobile-sided use compromise) at the 1400/ day limit; allow a quarter (up to 350/ day) of private snowmobiles meeting current emission and noise standards to be allowed(still only 5-10% of annual visitors). Allow for limited permitted self-guided park access with travel plan and designated routes allowing for experience options (want to look at swans, or elk longer, access options ski/snowshoe access, etc…). Allow non-motorized access and area designations off limits to vehicles (sure there is substantial currently, but make it official again). This is a huge compromise from pre 2000 & earlier snowmobile rules and allows lower cost access, more management flexibility while maintaining the original benefit and enjoyment of future generations ideals that the park system represents.
Otherwise a future congress / administration / courts may approve a return to the limit of 3000+ snowmobiles a day with no access regulation or means of meaningful management tools by the park officials and scientists. This is more than reasonable, as snowmobile use / access is very low impact; but in the spirit and agreement that the park should be less crowded than is can be primarily for the experience and true preservation. I’d also like to see a use plan designated for all other seasons and park access for realistic science based impact / use review and management.
Thank you for your continued dedication to our National Parks, aside from politics.
Thanks for keeping us informed Blue Ribbon Coalition, Christopher and the rest of the folks on the front line!
