7 ms·

10+ years ago I visited Yellowstone in the winter, and thought it would be cool to rent a snowmobile. I've never felt like such a jerk as when I blazed into a

10+ years ago I visited Yellowstone in the winter, and thought it would be cool to rent a snowmobile. I've never felt like such a jerk as when I blazed into a national park alongside dozens of other yahoos atop our loud, polluting machines spewing exhaust everywhere. Our group, from one rental company, would periodically cross paths with groups from other companies, so who knows how many of us there actually were. At one point en elk or moose or such was near the road, and it was immediately surrounded by ten or so snowmobiles, each trying to see how close they could get before taking a photo. I looked it up at the time and I think the Clinton administration tried to curtail the snowmobile invasion, only to face such opposition from operators that they gave up. This is why we can't have nice things, I guess.

dboreham 10y ago
I haven't kept track of the exact situation today, but afaik the scene you describe is not allowed any more. Last time we were in the snow-accessible part of the park in winter (2 years ago) I don't believe any snowmobiles were allowed. The time before that they were allowed but only in guided groups and they had to be low-emission/low-noise machines.
Theodores 10y ago
I cycled through Yellowstone, down from Montana. I had high hopes for the place in part because I was meeting some friends there and it was Yellowstone!!! Yet, by the time I got there I had seen the big fauna/flora I was expecting to be 'park exclusive'. So, bear walks across the road, straight in front of me in broad daylight, I think 'just a bear!' not realising that this just does not happen. Instead I am thinking of how great it will be to finally get to the park where I can see the bears properly!!! So, by accident of circumstance, I ventured through the park the low-carbon way, without the RV, snowmobile, hunting rifle, BBQ, plastic chairs or anything else. I was amazed the park had dual carriageways with overpasses for the traffic. I found my time in the park to be slightly frustrating and the time in the greater area more satisfying. The hordes of RV tourists and their eagerness to photo anything that moved was probably the thing that made it not so fun to be in the park. I should say that bicycle + Yellowstone is a very good option as you can camp anywhere in the National Park campgrounds with no expectation to book. The RV people have to book aeons in advance and can't just casually turn up before dusk to get a pitch. I am sure that cyclists annoy motorists on the park roads, it is apparent that you are annoying others - queue of traffic behind says that. But I am not sure motorists are aware that they might be a 'yahoo' of sorts. I am not sure that being a 'yahoo' is actually that wrong, perhaps it is the regular RV that is more insidious, as there the RV owner has taken everything to the park that cyclist types like myself have gone to the park to escape! TVs, motors, outside music - all nice things but nuisance and unnecessary too. Obviously the park should be closed to all traffic that emits emissions, to make the place a nice drive for Tesla owners and cyclists. Then we could have lots of people driving their ICE car to the park to then hire some electric transportation. That would be better income for the snowmobile operator types.
- dsfyu404ed 10y ago
  it is apparent that you are annoying others - queue of traffic behind says that Fun fact: lots of states have something like "if there's more than X cars following you you should pull over and let them pass" in their driver's manuals and driver's ed programs. >to make the place a nice drive for Tesla owners and cyclists So basically rich people and a few non-rich people who are really dedicated to cycling. That seems to be a pretty much direct contradiction with the purpose of the national parks.
  - hueving 10y ago
    Yeah, rich people and people with disabilities or kids.
  - Theodores 10y ago
    Oh I completely understand about accessibility but then... Let's build those motorways up to the geysers and up to those mountain tops and maybe straight to the bottom of the Grand Canyon too! It is only fair if every person is to be able to get there. In the 'ban ICE vehicles' model you could walk or go on horseback. However, logistically a bicycle would make the most sense due to miles covered per calorie. Poor people have no more rights than rich people to trash the planet with their vehicle emissions. These people that are 'really dedicated to their motoring' do not have a clue about how their actions deny the road to others, e.g. those that would cycle if they were not scared of motorists. Now if there were bus services (non ICE!) in National Parks then everyone would be able to get around, right? But public transport is an insult to American values.
  - soundwave106 10y ago
    Yellowstone really isn't a place to go to if you want to avoid queues of traffic on the main roads. Cyclists can move over and let people pass, but bison herds frequently jam the road as well. Bison aren't terribly likely to understand these sorts of rules. :) (Last time I was there, I occasionally heard a honk during a "bison jam". That did not help anything.) National parks (at least in the US) have a semi-contradictory purpose of preserving the land for future generations and provide for the enjoyment of the same. Yellowstone is a very crowded park, but the good news is that it's only the "big landmarks" that tend to be this way; most of Yellowstone is not directly accessible by road. All of the day hikes my wife and I did (eg Fairy Falls, Mount Washburn, etc.) were not terribly crowded at all. I can imagine backpackers actually getting some serious solitude. I don't see a need to go as drastic as "ban all ICE vehicles" because keeping some things very accessible fits the public interest of enjoyment. It would be interesting to explore the idea of more cycling paths in parks, because cyclists are relatively low impact, and my perception of Yellowstone was that the number of long cycling-friendly trails was fairly low.
dsfyu404ed 10y ago
It sounds like the people in the group we're the issue, not the medium. This is the same arguement we have in tech over tor and other technologies that facilitate "bag things". Just because you can't pick good people to go snowmobiling with doesn't mean those who can't shouldn't be able to enjoy the public land their tax dollars help pay for. I don't even do motor-sports but your puritan, uncompromising, sierra-clubish view of how public land ought to be used is exactly why there isn't overwhelming support for public resources like that. >only to face such opposition from operators that they gave up. Having opposition means just about nothing. There's a bunch of pissed off idiots on both sides of any issue.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
fpgaminer 10y ago
Last time my wife and I went to Yellowstone in the winter, we ended up with a private tour in an old bombardier. It wasn't supposed to be a private tour, but we went so early in the winter season, just days after the park re-opened, that there was hardly anyone taking tours. So it turned out to just be the two of us. It was absolutely splendid, the park was gorgeous as usual, and everything was fresh snowfall. We loved that tour, but there was one rather sad story our guide told us. Before the more recent, stricter rules on snowmobiles went into effect, people would take whatever cheap snowmobile they could get their hands on into the park. Of course, the cheaper the bike, the cheaper the engine, which meant most all the snowmobiles used very inefficient, and very dirty two stroke engines. Just imagine the exhaust from a gas powered lawn mower or chainsaw, magnified several times. In winter, there's a phenomenon called an atmospheric inversion caused by the cooler air of the season. The inversion stops all vertical movement of the air, so exhaust from snowmobiles, instead of dissipating, collects and lingers near the ground. Our tour guide is telling us this because during the peak of the winter seasons in the park, the rangers manning the entrances would often complain about the air quality. The entrances were particularly problematic because so many vehicles would be stopped there waiting to get into the park. Any time an inversion hit, all those fumes would get trapped. Nothing was ever done about this until, one day, a park ranger passed out and died. He was a friend of our tour guide. This finally pushed them to add an air quality measurement station to the park entrance. Not too long after that, they started cracking down on snowmobiles. Nowadays, only low-emission and low-noise snowmobiles are allowed into the park. I have no idea if the story is true or not. But it's sad to think a park ranger had to die for such an obvious problem to get solved. There are other sad stories about how we've managed Yellowstone. But it's a beautiful park, and it makes me so happy that, even if we goof sometimes, at least we are smart enough to put that land aside for generations to enjoy.
hueving 10y ago
There are rules regulating the snowmobiles now, so this is not how the park is today.
narrowrail 10y ago
It is well-known for ~30 years that Yellowstone is a parking lot in the summer months. I lived in the area for a few years, and early spring touring on skis through the southern entrance has been/is preferred.

dboreham 10y ago

I haven't kept track of the exact situation today, but afaik the scene you describe is not allowed any more. Last time we were in the snow-accessible part of the park in winter (2 years ago) I don't believe any snowmobiles were allowed. The time before that they were allowed but only in guided groups and they had to be low-emission/low-noise machines.

Theodores 10y ago

I cycled through Yellowstone, down from Montana. I had high hopes for the place in part because I was meeting some friends there and it was Yellowstone!!! Yet, by the time I got there I had seen the big fauna/flora I was expecting to be 'park exclusive'. So, bear walks across the road, straight in front of me in broad daylight, I think 'just a bear!' not realising that this just does not happen. Instead I am thinking of how great it will be to finally get to the park where I can see the bears properly!!! So, by accident of circumstance, I ventured through the park the low-carbon way, without the RV, snowmobile, hunting rifle, BBQ, plastic chairs or anything else. I was amazed the park had dual carriageways with overpasses for the traffic. I found my time in the park to be slightly frustrating and the time in the greater area more satisfying. The hordes of RV tourists and their eagerness to photo anything that moved was probably the thing that made it not so fun to be in the park. I should say that bicycle + Yellowstone is a very good option as you can camp anywhere in the National Park campgrounds with no expectation to book. The RV people have to book aeons in advance and can't just casually turn up before dusk to get a pitch. I am sure that cyclists annoy motorists on the park roads, it is apparent that you are annoying others - queue of traffic behind says that. But I am not sure motorists are aware that they might be a 'yahoo' of sorts. I am not sure that being a 'yahoo' is actually that wrong, perhaps it is the regular RV that is more insidious, as there the RV owner has taken everything to the park that cyclist types like myself have gone to the park to escape! TVs, motors, outside music - all nice things but nuisance and unnecessary too. Obviously the park should be closed to all traffic that emits emissions, to make the place a nice drive for Tesla owners and cyclists. Then we could have lots of people driving their ICE car to the park to then hire some electric transportation. That would be better income for the snowmobile operator types.

dsfyu404ed 10y ago
it is apparent that you are annoying others - queue of traffic behind says that Fun fact: lots of states have something like "if there's more than X cars following you you should pull over and let them pass" in their driver's manuals and driver's ed programs. >to make the place a nice drive for Tesla owners and cyclists So basically rich people and a few non-rich people who are really dedicated to cycling. That seems to be a pretty much direct contradiction with the purpose of the national parks.
- hueving 10y ago
  Yeah, rich people and people with disabilities or kids.
- Theodores 10y ago
  Oh I completely understand about accessibility but then... Let's build those motorways up to the geysers and up to those mountain tops and maybe straight to the bottom of the Grand Canyon too! It is only fair if every person is to be able to get there. In the 'ban ICE vehicles' model you could walk or go on horseback. However, logistically a bicycle would make the most sense due to miles covered per calorie. Poor people have no more rights than rich people to trash the planet with their vehicle emissions. These people that are 'really dedicated to their motoring' do not have a clue about how their actions deny the road to others, e.g. those that would cycle if they were not scared of motorists. Now if there were bus services (non ICE!) in National Parks then everyone would be able to get around, right? But public transport is an insult to American values.
- soundwave106 10y ago
  Yellowstone really isn't a place to go to if you want to avoid queues of traffic on the main roads. Cyclists can move over and let people pass, but bison herds frequently jam the road as well. Bison aren't terribly likely to understand these sorts of rules. :) (Last time I was there, I occasionally heard a honk during a "bison jam". That did not help anything.) National parks (at least in the US) have a semi-contradictory purpose of preserving the land for future generations and provide for the enjoyment of the same. Yellowstone is a very crowded park, but the good news is that it's only the "big landmarks" that tend to be this way; most of Yellowstone is not directly accessible by road. All of the day hikes my wife and I did (eg Fairy Falls, Mount Washburn, etc.) were not terribly crowded at all. I can imagine backpackers actually getting some serious solitude. I don't see a need to go as drastic as "ban all ICE vehicles" because keeping some things very accessible fits the public interest of enjoyment. It would be interesting to explore the idea of more cycling paths in parks, because cyclists are relatively low impact, and my perception of Yellowstone was that the number of long cycling-friendly trails was fairly low.

dsfyu404ed 10y ago

It sounds like the people in the group we're the issue, not the medium. This is the same arguement we have in tech over tor and other technologies that facilitate "bag things". Just because you can't pick good people to go snowmobiling with doesn't mean those who can't shouldn't be able to enjoy the public land their tax dollars help pay for. I don't even do motor-sports but your puritan, uncompromising, sierra-clubish view of how public land ought to be used is exactly why there isn't overwhelming support for public resources like that. >only to face such opposition from operators that they gave up. Having opposition means just about nothing. There's a bunch of pissed off idiots on both sides of any issue.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

fpgaminer 10y ago

Last time my wife and I went to Yellowstone in the winter, we ended up with a private tour in an old bombardier. It wasn't supposed to be a private tour, but we went so early in the winter season, just days after the park re-opened, that there was hardly anyone taking tours. So it turned out to just be the two of us. It was absolutely splendid, the park was gorgeous as usual, and everything was fresh snowfall. We loved that tour, but there was one rather sad story our guide told us. Before the more recent, stricter rules on snowmobiles went into effect, people would take whatever cheap snowmobile they could get their hands on into the park. Of course, the cheaper the bike, the cheaper the engine, which meant most all the snowmobiles used very inefficient, and very dirty two stroke engines. Just imagine the exhaust from a gas powered lawn mower or chainsaw, magnified several times. In winter, there's a phenomenon called an atmospheric inversion caused by the cooler air of the season. The inversion stops all vertical movement of the air, so exhaust from snowmobiles, instead of dissipating, collects and lingers near the ground. Our tour guide is telling us this because during the peak of the winter seasons in the park, the rangers manning the entrances would often complain about the air quality. The entrances were particularly problematic because so many vehicles would be stopped there waiting to get into the park. Any time an inversion hit, all those fumes would get trapped. Nothing was ever done about this until, one day, a park ranger passed out and died. He was a friend of our tour guide. This finally pushed them to add an air quality measurement station to the park entrance. Not too long after that, they started cracking down on snowmobiles. Nowadays, only low-emission and low-noise snowmobiles are allowed into the park. I have no idea if the story is true or not. But it's sad to think a park ranger had to die for such an obvious problem to get solved. There are other sad stories about how we've managed Yellowstone. But it's a beautiful park, and it makes me so happy that, even if we goof sometimes, at least we are smart enough to put that land aside for generations to enjoy.

hueving 10y ago

There are rules regulating the snowmobiles now, so this is not how the park is today.

narrowrail 10y ago

It is well-known for ~30 years that Yellowstone is a parking lot in the summer months. I lived in the area for a few years, and early spring touring on skis through the southern entrance has been/is preferred.