New West Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming
In the autumn 2003 issue of Montana: The Magazine of Western History, geographer and public lands historian Michael Yochim [who today works for Yellowstone National Park], wrote an insightful essay that offers a chronology of the current controversy over snowmobiles and national parks.
In his story, Yochim references a modern act of vigilantism that reflects a unique brand of Western justice going back at least to the dawn of the American frontier:
“Late one December night in 1974 on Marias Pass,” Yochim wrote, “Glacier National Park ranger Art Sedlack put a bullet through a snowmobile. With this shot, Sedlack not only gained the upper hand in dealing with a group of law-breaking snowmobilers, he also became an instant hero to all who valued wilderness.”
Today in Montana, former ranger Sedlack remains something of a legend. The Montana Wilderness Association has an award, named in his honor, that it gives to citizens who act on their personal convictions to protect the environment. The prize isn’t meant to condone monkeywrenching or lawlessness; rather, it’s a conscious recognition that occasionally the safest protocol for doing one’s job doesn’t always mesh with what’s needed in the moment.
On another related tangent, the world today also understands the full fury that can be incited following a Danish newspaper ‘s publishing of a cartoon featuring Muhammad, the godhead of Islam, in a comic manner.
Riots broke out. People died. Tastefulness, it turns out, lies in the eyes of the beholder and the branch of religion they practice. It’s acceptable to be a suicide bomber who blows up a mosque in the name of Islam but blasphemy to provoke discussion about God with ink.
One could imagine, then, that perhaps John Sacklin, chief planner in Yellowstone Park, is right about now experiencing the same kind of emotions as the Danish newspaper cartoonist and perhaps a surreal but accidental spiritual connection to Glacier Park ranger Art Sedlack.
What Mr. Sacklin did was press his fingers against his computer keyboard at work and pass along, via email, a joke that had been circulating on the internet. He sent it to three members of the snowmobile industry.
That, it runs out, was a grave mistake.
The tongue-in-cheek satire suggested that a hunt on snowmobiles be created in and around Yellowstone, a take-off on Montana’s treatment of wandering park bison. “All shots must be fired from the front seat of a Chevy or Ford pickup truck,” the narrative reads. “No hunting on foot will be tolerated. Shooting at snowmobile drivers is discouraged unless they are non-residents [of Montana] or NPS [National Park Service] employees.”
As a result of Sacklin’s sharing, some people, with connections to the snowmobile industry, now want him removed from having any professional involvement with snowmobile issues in America’s oldest national park.
Whitney Royster, an environmental reporter with the Casper Star-Tribune, interviewed Kim Raap, a consultant who had managed Wyoming’s state trails program that includes building and maintaining recreation routes for snowmobilers.
According to Royster, Raap believes that Sacklin should be removed from being involved with the park’s current winter use study — the third major environmental review conducted on snowmobile use over the past decade. Millions of tax dollars have been spent reviewing and re-reviewing the question of whether snowmobiles should be allowed to continue existing as a winter transportation vehicle in the park or be completely prohibited.
“I would say it’s pretty poor taste to be circulating something like that from a government official,” Raap told Royster.
“Raap said individuals send joke e-mails, but Sacklin is in charge of the winter use study, and no one in the snowmobile industry thought it was funny,” Royster noted.
Added Raap: “I believe that John [Sacklin] should not be involved in this process, absolutely. This is a misbehavior that taints the process. Everybody’s goal is to get us through this process and end up with something that’s better that everybody feels was done above board.”
Sacklin didn’t invent the “joke”; he merely passed it on to members of the snowmobile industry with whom he has maintained a cordial and professional correspondence. He presumably never thought they would take offense.
Not to be outdone, the Bozeman Daily Chronicle published an editorial titled “Unfortunate e-mail taints Yellowstone winter plans” in which it painted Sacklin’s forwarding of the email as “an official communiqué from a public employee charged with helping set public policy on the public’s use of public real estate.”
“Official communique”?
“Yellowstone’s job,” the Chronicle opined on its soapbox as if Sacklin had actually been seriously endorsing a snowmobile hunt, “in this case, is to assess the scientific and economic affects of its policy options. It is not to advocate extreme political agendas. We have plenty of elected officials and special-interest groups to handle that part of the debate. The whole process gets tainted when a public employee — and particularly a supervisor — steps into the politics of the issue while supposedly gathering and analyzing unbiased, non-political information.”
If there’s fodder for future story material in the Chronicle, it can be found in a thorough analysis of what the science actually says about noise and air pollution relating to two-stroke and the cleaner running four-stroke engines now mandated in the park. Instead of resorting to he-said, she-said, stories, as has dominated coverage of the Yellowstone debate by many outlets of the regional media, the paper would do well to help the public sort out the real facts since the public obviously is confused.
On February 13, the Great Falls Tribune published its own editorial encouraging Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer to take a hard look at the science that is supposed to be guiding snowmobile policy.
Here are a few snippets of what the Tribune found:
“The reason the Bush administration is under so much fire for its snowmobile policy at Yellowstone is because it ignores years of data by a range of scientists. Even the Park Service expressed concerns,” its opinion makers wrote and pointed to these bullet points:
“According to the document,” the Tribune adds, ” when the technology concept for snowmobiles was established, the Park Service ‘expected that snowmobile emissions would continue to improve. However, there have been no improvements in snowmobile air or sound emissions since 4-strokes were introduced in 2001.’”
As for the public comment process, which the snowmobile industry claims has been incomplete, the Tribune added: “Over the years more than half a million comments have been received by the park on its winter-use plans. They overwhelmingly oppose snowmobile use. In the most recent public comment period, more than 90 percent of those writing in had concerns about snowmobiles in Yellowstone.”
What’s puzzling is that the snowmobile industry and the Bozeman Chronicle would cite the joke as evidence that Sacklin is somehow biased against the machines.
Ever since the Bush Administration came into power in 2001, the President’s politically-appointed representatives at the Interior Department in Washington, D.C. have, in fact, worked together with industry to unravel restrictions imposed upon snowmobile use in Yellowstone first advanced by the Clinton Administration.
At every step of the way, Yellowstone officials, including career professionals like Mr. Sacklin, have publicly supported the flip-flop of policy, despite the new policy’s apparent contradiction of science which was used to support the snowmobile ban in the first place. There’s no question that Yellowstone staffers are under enormous pressure to bend in whatever direction the political winds blow.
A New York Times story written a few winters ago by reporter Katharine Q. Seelye revealed that the Yellowstone planning office, under Sacklin’s command, hadstalled the release of an internal study indicating that an all-out ban on snowmobiles was the best way to reconcile air and noise pollution problems caused by the machines. Sacklin at the time was considered a good foot soldier for the Bush Administration. It left environmentalists baffled because only a few months earlier Mr. Sacklin seemed to be arriving at opposite conclusions.
In fact, it was Mr Sacklin who was quoted in Seelye’s story as saying that the agency’s new preferred alternative of allowing snowmobile use to continue——[a policy decision handed down by Interior Secretary Gale Norton in concert with assistant Secretary Paul Hoffman, the former Cody Chamber of Commerce director] — sought what Sacklin called a “balance” between environmental concerns, on the one hand, and economic considerations on the other.
The park’s position, defended by Sacklin, was roundly criticized by environmentalists and, it is presumed, welcomed by the snowmobile industry.
Seelye reported: “Mike Finley, the superintendent of Yellowstone in the Clinton administration and now president of the Turner Foundation, an environmental grant-making foundation based in Atlanta, said that the existence of the internal report showed that the administration’s decision-making process on snowmobiles was “a sham.”
“They’re trying to re-cook the books but they can’t re-cook the science,” Mr. Finley said. “This is not based on science but on the politics of the red states,” those that President Bush won in the 2000 election.”
Ironically, back in the days when Mr. Finley was Yellowstone superintendent, Clinton was in the White House, and it appeared that a total phase out of snowmobiles was going to happen, members of the motorized recreation industry were rattling their rhetorical sabers with accusations that the Park Service had become a bastion for extreme environmentalism. Yellowstone had been deluged with thousands upon thousands of public comments, admittedly many were submitted as postcard form letters, supporting the snowmobile ban.
More recently, amid the Bush presidency, the same agency has suddenly been characterized as thoughtful and prudent and sensitive to the desires of citizens as the snowmobile industry would like to see the restrictions loosened up.
Where does that leave Mr. Sacklin? His superiors in Yellowstone, including Park Superintendent Suzanne Lewis, are standing behind their man in the hot seat. It is, as of this early date, still too early to tell if his consolation prize for attracting the ire of the snowmobile industry will be his nomination by environmentalists for the Art Sedlack award.
But whatever happened to Sedlack after he shot and killed a snowmobile? He did it, he said afterward, so that the snowmobile’s owner could no longer defy rangers who were trying to stop illegal trespassers into Glacier Park. It seemed to send a message that got the attention of terrain poachers. “Sedlack’s actions also drew attention from fellow NPS employees,” Yochim writes. “Yellowstone Park naturalist Paul Schullery suggested that Sedlack ‘had just done what we all had wanted to do, many times. Shooting the machine, someone remarked, was even better than shooting the driver. . . . There was no question in our minds that the man was a hero. There was talk of taking up a collection and buying him a [M]agnum. And a few days after the incident, a little note appeared on the ranger office bulletin board: ‘Snow machines will not be shot. They will be live-trapped.’”
The odds are good that the snowmobile industry won’t find Schullery’s live-trapping comment to be funny either.
For his part in discharging his service firearm, Sedlack was suspended for two weeks without pay, and the Park Service, Yochim notes, held a hearing on the shooting. According to Yochim, the Park Service reached no conclusion but did send Sedlack to a refresher course at the Park Service law enforcement academy.
Todd, fascinating piece. So my question is, why is our supposedly centrist and pragmatic governor going to the mat for the narrow special interests behind Bush snowmobile policy? I sympathize with the business folk in West Yellowstone, but they don’t own the park, and the real power behind the pro-snowmobile promotion has nothing to do with them anyway.
The first thing that comes to mind is why he is sending joke emails on work time. If he doesn’t have enough work to keep him busy, perhaps he needs to have his position and the salary cut to reflect the hours he does work.
It seems pretty obvious to me that Mr. Sacklin has probably made up his mind to get rid of snowmobiles and was using the joke as a way of thumbing his nose at the snowmobile industry. That being said, if he stays on and does try to eliminate snowmobiles, it will be pretty easy to prove a preset agenda and bias in court.
Marion – Just a reminder, whether snowmobiles stay in Yellowstone or not isn’t Mr. Sacklin’s decision. Anyone who seriously thinks he or any other NPS employee could sway the decision needs a reality check.
A couple of thoughts for Jonathan and Marion:
First, relating to Jonathan’s question: One certainly cannot blame the snowmobile industry for recognizing a golden marketing opportunity which is to make their products available and visible to a steady supply of winter tourists in the world’s first national park. People love Yellowstone. The manufacturers know this. Having their sleds associated with Yellowstone is priceless PR and yields huge advertising opportunities.
As an aside, let me note that as a kid in Minnesota I grew up on the back of a snowmobile in winter and before I could drive a car my parents let me motor off to hockey practice on a snowmobile. I have no natural dislike of them. They are part of my fond memories as a kid. In fact, I have enjoyed my trips into Yellowstone on snowmobiles whether for work or play. But whether snowmobiles are suitable for Yellowstone is not a question that I can answer. It should be left up to the agency professionals, relying on their legal mandate, real science and compatability with the park itself.
Jonathan’s question provokes another question: Would the snowmobile “controversy” be as divisive as it is if there weren’t so much money at stake? Money, in the form of income generated by the snowmobile outfitters in West Yellowstone (whom I have great respect for in trying to capitalize on an opportunity) and the marketing value of Yellowstone recognized by the manufacturers? Aside from maybe the Blue Ribbon Coalition making waves on behalf of its membership of riders, I doubt whether it would realy be a major issue if left up to the sentiments of recreational snowmobilers who always have a huge number of miles of terrain available to sled on in the national forests and other public lands around the park.
As to the points made by Marion, here’s another question: Why is it that whenever a government agency makes a decision that we don’t agree with, we tar and feather the government workers with having an agenda? Yet when the public policy that gets implemented reflects our own values and political leanings, it is good government at work? Can government carry out good public policy if that policy is at odds with our own world view?
If there’s any agenda, I think it would be difficult for anyone to find concrete evidence showing that John Sacklin has a hardened plot to eliminate snowmobiles from the park. If you want to find an agenda, Marion, it is there, loud and clear, in the directives coming down from Sacklin’s superiors. Sacklin isn’t the architect of Yellowstone’s flip-flopping approach to snowmobiles. That’s coming from Washington.
I really love the statement ” I have sympathy for____________” fill in whoever environmentalists are trying to put out of business for their own pleasure. In this case they want Yellowstone for just themselves.
As for Mr. Sacklin having no input, his job is to evaluate winter use, so yes, he will have a big part in the decision making precess even if it goes to court, and it almost surely will. If they allow snowmachines without the childish addition of guides, the enviros will definately go to court and try to tie it up for years to keep the commoners out.
The motorized recreation industry loves the framing of “commoners” vs. “elitists”, but if you think about it it makes no sense (snowmobiles are pretty expensive, after all!). I’m not against snowmobiles, they’re a lot of fun, but I’ve never understood why it’s so difficult to have some areas where you have motor vehicles, and some areas where you don’t. And places where conservation is, by law and by the desire of most Americans, the paramount value would logically be places where you don’t have them. Further, as Todd has pointed out in other places, the economic impact of a snowmobile ban in Yellowstone is far, far more limited than the Blue Ribbon Coalition would have you believe.
There are lots of things the government could do to make my business easier and more profitable. That doesn’t mean everybody else has some kind of moral obligation to support them.
Ah, but you do have motorized vehicles in Yellowstone, even without snowmobiles. Or is that the long range plan, to eliminate everyone who doesn’t have lots and lots of time off to hike, and leave their vehicle parked. I suspect the impact in the Lamar of all of the wolf watchers may equal the total impact of snowmachines spread out thru the whole of Yellowstone in the winter. On a chat line discussing winter jobs, one present employee mentioned driving snow coaches as a job, one is very noisy (the bombadiers, I believe) and one with a name I can’t remember gets about 2 mpg. No polution there, I’m sure, but not to worry if the skiers can dispose of the snowmachines, they can start on the coaches, then the autos next.
Everyone and everything in Yellowstone impacts the area to one degree or another. A lot of attention is paid to motorized transportation, but how much damage is being done by hikers and skiers by just the human waste they deposit on the ground. What will be the long term effect of this? No one knows.
Viva Sedlack. Viva Sacklin. Extend the season to all ATV’s!
Marion – do you think maybe government employees get breaks and lunch time? And could Sacklin be using his government computer to pass current thinking of the snowmobile opponents to the motorhead lobbyists as part of his interpretation of his job to keep them informed? I’m disgusted that he’d even have them in his address book.
The long range plan should be to not allow uses, like snowmobiles, that lead to additional stress for wildlife at vulnerable periods. Get some skis and live longer. OK – don’t poop on the snow while you’re at it.
It appears you have missed some articles. The wildlife does not appear to be stressed by the snowmobiles. I don’t remember right now what the effect of people on foot, but some studies have shown they cause more stress.
You can champion a governement employee using government time and equipment for his fun if you want, I don’t think it is right.
I have been watching the behavior and resulting impacts of the snowmobile crowd for nearly twenty years now. For the past five years, I have sincerely tried to force myself to get beyond my memories of the behavior and impacts that I witnessed during the 1990s. The situation in the Park in those days was so obviously horrible that even the most subhuman among us, even that gorilla that they talk to use sign language, could easily see it. Yet, the snowmobilers and the snowmobile industries lifted not a finger to moderate themselves. All they ever did was get defiant and belligerent. Over the past five years, I had gotten past my visceral disgust with them and had actually gotten to the point that I could cheerfully accept their presence under the current regulations, which actually allow for more slots than they actually fill.
Marion’s postings have, however, brought all of those horrible old memories of their boorish selfishness, childish attitudes, and trashy behavior flooding back over me. The truth is that they will never change and never even try to see anyone else’s side of the situation. They will continue to try to twist every event to suit their selfish wants, even if it hurts a hapless and harmless bureaucrat in the process. They will never budge even an inch toward compromise unless forced to do so. So, why should I? I suppose that I should thank Marion for liberating me from my own bledding heart compulsion to try to accept a rapacious special interest group that I truly detest on the basis of my own extensive experience with their bad behavior and character. Thanks to Marion; I actually feel better now and can joyfully proclaim that I truly do agree with HuTom. If the snowmobilers are going to persist with the kind of attitude exemplified by Marion here, then get them, all of them, every last damn one of them, out of Yellowstone National Park and back into the trailer parks where they belong. I guess I’m being too harsh on the trailer park crowd.
Marion you’re right. I have missed a few articles on snowmobiles and wildlife. Unless I’m in the mood for some dark humor I sometimes “miss”? the ones by the Norton operatives or the snowmobile lobbyists. Ah – but I repeat myself.
For example I skipped right by the one last year that said wildlife in snowmobile corridors didn’t panic when snowmobiles were present. Some species, or members of some species, will adapt to our presence, sometimes even growing dependent on our benevolent but bad behavior like feeding them.
To determine the actual snowmobile impact on wildlife in Yellowstone the corridors, many of which used to be prime winter survival areas, would have to be closed for a stabilization and recovery period of five or so years. It could include a no-skier period to help resolve your issue with poop left on the trail. The difference in wintering animals of all types between pre- and post-closing conditions could then be evaluated.
Of course that’s unlikely to happen, at least as long as the Norton virus is infecting the once world-class National Park Service. Too much greed and thrill masturbation with easy fixes like video games and snowmobiles. Not enough interest in wildlife. Or silence.
You may have missed a few articles too. This is an interesting one. “Elk and wolves show physiological stress responses to snowmobiles and the response is stronger when the intensity of snowmobile use is heavier,”
http://www.montana.edu/news/1023658202.html
And here’s a statement by an Interior official in May, 2000 before the Norton virus had time to completely infect: “As for snowmobiling’s impacts upon wildlife, winter is already the most stressful time of year for native wildlife in the parks and is the time of highest wildlife mortality. The rapid movement and relentless noise from snowmobiles adds considerable stress to native wildlife in the immediate vicinity and can cause significant disturbance of wildlife. For example, in the heavily used corridor between the town of West Yellowstone and Old Faithful, bison are regularly harassed by visitors on snowmobiles.”?
http://www.nps.gov/legal/testimony/106th/snowmobl.htm
They didn’t make the right decision by allowing snowmobile use to continue, but at least they weren’t in denial at that point.
An interesting aside is noting what market forces are doing re: winter access to Yellowstone.
Final figures are a couple of months off, but it appears that snowcoaches are advancing rapidly, at the expense of snowmobiles. Fans of snowcoaches note that driver/guides are both entertaining and knowledgable, and that conversations are continuous — you don’t need to stop and turn off snowmobiles to hear anything from your friends or guide.
Also, given the retrofits of some vintage Bombardiers, the fuel/pollution per snowcoach rider is a teeny-tiny fraction of even the cleanest snowmobiles — which haven’t improved their performances in the past five years, despite the promises of the industry.
Marion seems to be referring to that study that said 80 percent of Yellowstone wildlife don’t react to snowmobiles, which raises the question: how are the other 20 percent reacting?
Brodie,
I’m reluctant to continue posting after the nasty post above yours, but I will try one more time.
The other 20% might have been asleep (a joke I don’t recall any mention of them anymore than looking).
As for the snowcoaches, one at least has burned up, which isn’t great for the environment, several have stopped and the clients had to have a second machine come get them. The posts about the kinds mentions the bombadiers being very loud, maybe that is just for those inside, so it is okay. It also mentions the mattracks being bad in snow and very difficult to drive, one of those hit a tree. She also mentions the Purnoth as being a lot of fun to drive, but only gets about 2 mpg.
I never saw anything about the different kinds, the number of riders, etc.
I have never riden a snowmachine, I am just reluctant to take something away from one group of people just because another group doesn’t like it. I did take a snowcoach in twice, the first time they did take the tour I’d signed up for, there were 5 of us on it and fortunately we all wanted to take photos. The second time after I rented a room, took the trip in from Flagg Ranch they left me a note after supper that they had cancelled the trip the next day, so there I was.
Yea, commoners vs. elitists, that’s a good one.
I gotta give major props to the conservatives for being the real masters of manipulating the English language.
Let’s see, well, I grew up in a small Utah town where kids were grouped into two camps:
Those whose families could AFFORD the snowmobile/atv, the trailer, the budget for fuel and maintenance, oh, and don’t let me forget the one already mentioned in a previous post, time.
Those whose families couldn’t or (the very few) who could, but didn’t engage in the motorized amusements.
The kids in town whose parents bought them snowmobiles/motorcycles/atv’s were (rightly so) considered the “better off”? and “well to do”?.
For some reason there is this mindset, especially embedded into the rural person with internet access, that the higher classes are the ones trying to stop/slow down the atv/snowmobile assault on the west.
Give me a break!
I have friends and relatives that own/use all the mechanized toys now available, including snowmobiles, 4-wheelers, jetskis, etc.
I don’t know how much of their budget goes into supporting this “lifestyle”?, (and I don’t ask) but I guarantee you, your average middle class joe with three kids would be hard pressed to afford it.
So the next time you’re at the gas station filling up your F-350 and the machines on your trailer, give a moments thought to how much money it takes to do these types of activities.
Why do people ski, hike, mountain bike as opposed to the mechanized/motorized activities?
Well, not only is it cheaper by far, it’s easier in terms of getting to where you’re going, and then once there, getting going period.
No “support system”? of massive trailers, special tools and equipment and campers to keep you and your machine going.
Oh yea, I forgot to mention the campers, because, hey, isn’t a camper/trailer/motorhome only for the commoners?
Sure, I guess if you make 40k/yr and like another fat payment for something you’ll use 3-4 times a year…
The current “mechanized lifestyle” people impose on wilderness areas verges on the ridiculous.
Step back and take a look at all the crap people have bring along, just so they can say they want to “enjoy the wilderness”?.
Oh, but I forgot, hiking is for the wealthy elite…