Yesterday's Boston Globe (Sunday, July 27, p.A17) published an article, "White House, experts clash over policy for Yellowstone", written by Jim Drinkard of the Associated Press. Mr. Drinkard wrote about the possibility of avalanches occurring on the east side of Yellowstone between December and February and how the Park Service decided to close that entrance during those months. The businesses in Cody, Wyoming being affected, naturally protested. Over 500 people came out to a meeting to make known their views. Their protests made it to the White House -- not too unusual considering Vice President Dick Cheney at one time represented Wyoming in Congress. The result of the White House getting involved is that the east entrance will stay open during the winter. To avoid avalanches, the mountainside will be blasted by howitzers and explosives dropped from helicopters, something the Park Service has been doing for years to keep mountain passes open.
In his article, Mr. Drinkard pointed out the absurdity of the cost needed to support this decision. In order for Cody businesses to reap the benefits of snow tourists, the U.S. government will have to spend over $3.5 million a year. Considering 463 people came through the east side into Yellowstone last winter, Mr. Drinkard calculated the cost to taxpayers will amount to about $8,000 per person.
1 comment:
After dedicating himself to the creation of the national park system and preventing America's most precious natural resources from being exploited for financial gain, I agree that Teddy Roosevelt would be very disappointed in current government officials' decision to use heavy artillery on these same, "protected" lands. While the choice between the economy of a small town and the protection of Yellowstone is a difficult one, I am embarrassed by our government's inability to reach a solution that does not involve an air strike on our own national parks. Are not even the grizzly bears safe from US military intervention?
Post a Comment