The arrogance exhibited by many who have voiced their sour grapes opposition to the recent announcement of Yellowstone keeping the eastern entrance open is glaring.

As Jim Drinkard writes for the AP, “The cost to taxpayers could run into the millions of dollars for a decision to accommodate a small number of tourists.” This statement alone reeks of backwards, wrong thinking. It completely ignores the mission of the National Park Service, and the main reason tax payers continue to pay for the luxury of protecting our national resources.

Yellowstone’s Sylvan Pass being cleared in the 07/08 winter. (Photo from NPS)

Are we to assume that every cost or program that the NPS expends is only justified if the benefit is enjoyed by a minimum number that must be in the millions? For whom is each gateway open if not first for the local businesses and citizens?

And, all though the title of his story, “White House reverses experts on Yellowstone policy” may not have been created by the author, it too is flawed. We are to assume that the so-called experts working for the NPS antiseptically arrived at their decision to destroy the economy of the tax payers geographically closest to the east entrance of Yellowstone because it was the best decision for the park. There is so much wrong with that way of thinking it is ridiculous.

Looking north east through Slyvan Pass

Ever since I was a child, growing up playing on the state park beaches, rivers and redwood groves of the northwest region of the US, the constant attitude I have read and heard from several who are employed in the upper ranks of the BLM, the Forest Service and the NPS is one of complete arrogance and contempt for the public they serve. Sometimes even a dose of irresponsible ignorance could be added to that as proven in the watershed battle in the Klamath region. Decisions there made by BLM directors in Southern Oregon and Northern California starting in the 80's through 2004 ended up destroying more than an entire season of grasses, shrubs fish and wildlife under the guise of "protecting the natural resources from commercial interests." It wasn't until a landmark statement from the National Academy of Sciences siting that officials responsoble for "shutting off the spigot" to local farmers were also responsible for the results that ensued. 

While in high school, I dated a couple of girls (not at the same time) and got to know their dads, Mr. Collins and Mr. Wheeler, who worked for the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. And, while working for Adventure-Crew I have had the opportunity to interview some rangers. Most of the rank and file rangers and officers with whom I have come in personal contact are not this way but, the decisions and posted statements that come from administrative offices are overwhelmingly made by those who lost or never had true perspective of their place and purpose.

Facilitating our resources for the masses is job one. If there are not hundreds or thousands of tax payers and other visitors entering the parks as often as possible, we might as well just do away with the park service all together. They will not be needed.

The AP story from July 24, 2008
Montana TV Station story from June 5, 2008
Yellowstone Park Page