Ithaca 37
New member
No Snowmobiles
Source: Copyright 2004, New York Times
Date: August 21, 2004
Byline: Editorial
When it comes to snowmobiling in Yellowstone National Park, the Bush administration seems to have a hard time understanding what science has to tell it. So here's the bottom line: no snowmobiles. They're bad for wildlife, bad for rangers, bad for visitors, bad for the air and bad for the very idea of what Yellowstone stands for. That was the National Park Service's conclusion after careful study during the Clinton administration, and it was backed up by further study even after George Bush took office. But now, given a deadlock in the courts, the National Park Service is proposing new rules that will allow up to 720 snowmobiles a day into the park for three years. That is just slightly fewer than the current average of 765 snowmobiles a day.
At this point in the debate, the question is no longer whether the snowmobile issue has been examined carefully enough or whether advocates on both sides have had a chance to express their opinions. The question is this: Why is the Bush administration working so hard to cram snowmobiles down the public's throat? It isn't to protect the snowmobiling economy of West Yellowstone, Mont., nor is it to protect snowmobilers and snowmobile manufacturers, who have access to hundreds of miles of trails in the Yellowstone region outside the park. The reason the Bush administration keeps backing snowmobiles in Yellowstone is to protect a vision of wild lands that is fundamentally invasive and ultimately extractive. The very idea that a natural landscape could be off limits seems to be anathema to this administration.
The National Park system is strapped for money, underfinanced and understaffed. The Bush administration has yet to satisfy its pledge to make the system financially whole. Yet it continues to waste time and money trying to defend and manage a policy that has no support among the service's own scientists or those at the Environmental Protection Agency. The result has been a bizarre crusade whose only justification is politics.
Originally posted at: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/21/opinion/21sat4.html
Source: Copyright 2004, New York Times
Date: August 21, 2004
Byline: Editorial
When it comes to snowmobiling in Yellowstone National Park, the Bush administration seems to have a hard time understanding what science has to tell it. So here's the bottom line: no snowmobiles. They're bad for wildlife, bad for rangers, bad for visitors, bad for the air and bad for the very idea of what Yellowstone stands for. That was the National Park Service's conclusion after careful study during the Clinton administration, and it was backed up by further study even after George Bush took office. But now, given a deadlock in the courts, the National Park Service is proposing new rules that will allow up to 720 snowmobiles a day into the park for three years. That is just slightly fewer than the current average of 765 snowmobiles a day.
At this point in the debate, the question is no longer whether the snowmobile issue has been examined carefully enough or whether advocates on both sides have had a chance to express their opinions. The question is this: Why is the Bush administration working so hard to cram snowmobiles down the public's throat? It isn't to protect the snowmobiling economy of West Yellowstone, Mont., nor is it to protect snowmobilers and snowmobile manufacturers, who have access to hundreds of miles of trails in the Yellowstone region outside the park. The reason the Bush administration keeps backing snowmobiles in Yellowstone is to protect a vision of wild lands that is fundamentally invasive and ultimately extractive. The very idea that a natural landscape could be off limits seems to be anathema to this administration.
The National Park system is strapped for money, underfinanced and understaffed. The Bush administration has yet to satisfy its pledge to make the system financially whole. Yet it continues to waste time and money trying to defend and manage a policy that has no support among the service's own scientists or those at the Environmental Protection Agency. The result has been a bizarre crusade whose only justification is politics.
Originally posted at: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/21/opinion/21sat4.html
