Member since Apr 4, 2007




  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “Return of the Bubbleheads

Yellowstone the New Political Battlefield for Common Sense In the article by John S. Adams, there is a clear effort to promote the authority of the Park Service to continue with its efforts to ban snow mobiles in Yellowstone. All though the article does a masterful job at painting an overwhelmingly grim picture of unwanted effects that snow mobiles have on wild life and air and sound quality, it is all done with broad strokes of the pen and little in the way of real evidence. Once again, it seems to me that many who call themselves naturalists, or “concerned about the health of our natural resources”, think that all they have to do is talk about the issues in broad terms and then start passing laws, and the millions who actually have lawful access to these resources by virtue of being tax payers will simply adjust and move forward. I certainly agree that there needs to be limits to what the tax paying public can and cannot do while visiting our national parks. But, these limits need to be reasonable, and presented in a way that uses real science. They also need to put economic factors into the mix in a large way. In this article, the writer attempts to cast aspersions on a real attempt to save the park’s dwindling financial resources by Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior Paul Hoffman. The writer called him “politically appointed.” Did the fact that every president’s entire staff is “politically appointed” get by the writer? Was there any numeric dollar amount mentioned of the economic impact that occurs to an economy based on the item that one wants to ban? What is the amount of dollars that West Yellowstone’s snow mobile economy brings into the coffers of Yellowstone? How much more tax dollars are needed to replace the income banished by the ban on snow mobiles? For more than an entire generation, maybe two or three, the American public has been giving up rights and access to resources over nothing more than political arguments based on unscientific opinion. When many of these arguments are scrutinized by dozens or hundreds of scientists, instead of just one or two appointed individuals, the evidence is almost always brought into question once again. It is not empirical. Empirical evidence doesn’t need coercion; it doesn’t need further explanation. It just makes sense on its own merit; thus the term “empirical.” Like the weak argument over human contribution to global warming, there is no empirical evidence that it is necessary to cause total upheaval in entire communities over theories, postulations and arguments. The way that many see it, there is more danger that human kind will be forced to find ways to live in the near vacuum of the Moon and Mars in order to satisfy efforts to keep the Earth pristine, than by failing natural resources. Yellowstone cries out for more snowmobilers to enjoy and support the future of Yellowstone. So why are they limiting the very thing that ensures their future existence? Modify? Yes. Monitor? Yes. Ban? No! Not without cause. Stu Marks Educated Tax Payer

0 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Stu Marks on 04/04/2007 at 10:25 AM

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.

© 2018 Boise Weekly

Website powered by Foundation