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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes we need to mandate that everywhere can be accessed by people sitting in giant piece of shit 2 ton internal combustion driven wheelchairs because they're too lazy to use their muscles. Total American cult of car mindset.
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.
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.
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.
I like the one from last year where some idiot decided to have a soak in a hot spring so he and his sister went into a off-limits area of a geyser basin. Attempting to test the waters at one with his fingers, he slipped and fell in. By the time the rangers got there, his body was at the bottom of the pool but, due to a lightning storm, they had to abandon recovery until the next day. When they got there the following morning, the body was mostly gone, having been dissolved by the acidic waters.
I visited Yellowstone last year for the second time and people there were doing the same stupid things they were doing 20 years ago when I first went.
Some of it is unexpected - for example, caps and water bottles being blown off of people's heads or off of handrails into Mammoth Hot Springs - but some of it is just plain stupid (for example, crowds of people encircling a bear to take photographs or people walking up to the elk to pet them.)
All of this happens despite the presence of park personnel continuously walking through all of the areas that have been turned into exhibits, and despite everyone having at least a cell phone camera to take photographs from a safe, non-polluting distance.
I live near Yellowstone and visitors doing stupid things is a common source of local amusement and bemusement. A local bar had a sign outside last year that said : "Thinking about throwing a baby Bison in the trunk of your car? Come inside for a drink instead."
There are in addition many more incidents that don't get covered beyond the local paper: Bison gorings, people falling off cliffs, a guy got trampled by a moose. A little outside the park, but a local guy got electrocuted by a bear that had itself been electrocuted by a fallen power pole. A party of school girls were "pinned down" for several hours by a black bear. It's endless. These are just the incidents I recall off the top of my head, besides the nationally reported stuff like Canadians traipsing through Grand Prismatic Spring and various people beinv eaten by bears.
Also check out the videos of park and fish+game staff using explosives to dispose of moose carcases in the field.
> A local bar had a sign outside last year that said : "Thinking about throwing a baby Bison in the trunk of your car? Come inside for a drink instead."
I was wondering the backstory behind this sign, and apparently someone actually did this.
"What started out as an apparently well-intentioned move by tourists who placed a young bison in the back of their vehicle because they believed it looked cold, has ended in no small sadness.
On Monday, officials at Yellowstone National Park revealed that the calf had to be put down after being rejected by its herd."
Sorry, I thought that one was widely-known so did't include the details -- it was covered on the late-night comedy shows at the time I seem to remember.
Another one I remembered since posting the list above was the tourists who broke several toilets in the park due to standing on the seats. There are now signs, some in Chinese, in the park's public toilets advising not to stand on them..
Heh, in Asia sit-down toilets are rare in the country-side. They use a squat-style toilet with foot pads, the water trap is just below ground and you "flush" by pouring a small bucket of water in the hole when finished. But usually if you have the means to travel to the US from Asia you're afluent enough to have seen a sit-down shitter before. They do exist in Asia/China.
It's not that they have never seen them, its a public/private division. Many Chinese homes have sit down toilets in their bedrooms bit squat toilet in the first floor since that is a public area. Standing on a sit toilet is more about not wanting to let your butt touch a public toilet than not knowing how to use one.
> broke several toilets in the park due to standing on the seats
Amusingly, one of my early memories of newspaper reading was that a lady had won a lawsuit for breaking her ankle that way (yes, in the US, why do you ask? ;-)
Apparently they hit you when you turn your back to them and they will toss you in the air. Sometimes more than once.
> On June 2, an Australian man was taking photos within five feet of a 2,000-pound bison in the same area when the bull suddenly charged him, hooking him with its horns and tossing him into the air several times. Incredibly, the man lived.
Not surprised people ignore the warnings about staying back 25 meters. At Algonquin park in Ontario, Canada we came across a giant male moose and everyone was staying well back. Then a Chinese tourist family walked right up to it within a few feet to take a photo. A man attempted yelling at them to stay back but they ignored the warning. Nothing happened but it really bothered me, mostly because they entirely disrespected the animal.
I highly suggest reading the book Death in Yellowstone: Accidents and Foolhardiness in the First National Park. It goes over a long history of really stupid people (along with some extremely sad stories) who have died in the park.
There are similar books documenting deaths in both Yosemite and Grand Canyon. While a number of the deaths are accidents or wrong-place-wrong-time things most are caused by the person doing the dying. Example: those who chose to swim in the pool just above Nevada Falls in Yosemite and getting swept over the falls.
If you concentrate hard enough, you can feel a distant, cleansing, tingling sensation... that's Darwinian gene pool improvement, which is powered not by death itself but the collective goosebumps of everyone who heard about the mode of expiry actively discouraging such idiocy in the future.
One less foolish person to deal with. It's awful when something like this happens to a child but adults who are wilfully stupid about their own safety often seem equally comfortable inflicting their stupidity on everyone else.
It's one thing to take a calculated risk and die because the gamble didn't pay off or you made some error in your risk calculus. It's quite another to just ignore the clearest possible warnings that something is a Bad Idea That Will Kill You. I don't really feel any sympathy in the latter case.
I assume you think it'd be awful if it happened to a child because even if they knew they were not meant to, they won't be fully understanding of the potential tragedy & suffering it would cause.
Why can't we extend that sympathy to adults who also might not been fully aware of the consequences as well?
Adults that are capable of rudimentary reading are made aware of the consequences. There are signs all over that list the consequences of pissing in the town well, a list which ends in "...or death". We collectively told you to not do $STUPID_THING_THAT_COULD_END_IN_DEATH, and you did it anyway because you think you have a special exemption, and don't give a second thought to trashing the commons. I'm not saying that the punishment should be death, but it doesn't sadden me if that's how it turns out. If they weren't killed by the sulphuric pools, a bison, or a bear, it would have been something else that involves someone holding their beer.
Breaking the rules/doing something a little risky can lead to some of the most magical moments in your life.
Death for someone attempting to seek escape and joy in their life seems like an excessive punishment - mockery isn't necessary.
I feel terrible for what happened in this instance, but there have been a handful of moments in my life where looking back I suppose they could of also ended similarly. Don't regret them in the slightest though - they enriched my entire life.
It was only a few weeks ago people were celebrating Amazon's philosophy of if a mistake is made, it's never the individuals fault it's the systems fault. Could we not also perhaps apply this philosophy to safety notices/warnings/education in this tragedy?
> Breaking the rules/doing something a little risky can lead to some of the most magical moments in your life.
Sure. But part of the reason for that is that those actions are risks.
> seems like an excessive punishment
I didn't see any kind of punishment in the story. I saw a consequence for an action. He didn't die because he broke the rules. He died because he made a fatal mistake by slipping into a hot, acidic pool.
> I feel terrible for what happened in this instance
I feel sorry for the people that he hurt as an indirect result of his actions, but not for the guy himself.
> it's never the individuals fault it's the systems fault. Could we not also perhaps apply this philosophy to safety notices/warnings/education in this tragedy?
I strongly disagree with Amazon's philosophy, in that case. From what I've heard, there are many, many posted warnings, marked trails, and rangers patrolling to educate people. The park's almost 9,000 km^2. At some point, you've got to consider that a best effort was made to provide guidance for safety, and anything that happens as a result of going against that guidance is on whoever did it. He died because he did something stupid, not because the signs/rangers/trails/his 2nd grade teacher didn't stop him.
> It was only a few weeks ago people were celebrating Amazon's philosophy of if a mistake is made, it's never the individuals fault it's the systems fault. Could we not also perhaps apply this philosophy to safety notices/warnings/education in this tragedy?
It has been established in court that the National Parks System is not required to make National Parks safe (families of dead tourists suing for more fences and safety rails and so on) because an intrinsic part of the value of the parks is exposure to nature without a glass wall in front of it. A few people dying horribly is a price the rest of us are willing to pay for that value.
> Breaking the rules/doing something a little risky can lead to some of the most magical moments in your life.
I agree. But some people lack the ability to judge the risk/reward ratio. For those people, we have signs--which unfortunately treats all risky behaviour the same.
> Could we not also perhaps apply this philosophy to safety notices/warnings/education in this tragedy?
There's a whole industry for that. For example, GM/Ford have dashboard cutouts they use for trials against them. They are example dashboards with warnings for every single thing their lawyers could think of. At some point, users just ignore the warnings. Some users never look at any. You can't get everyone to cooperate, accidents are going to happen. The point at which users ignore warnings, or how they respond to them in general are being actively studied.
That's why I made the distinction from people who take calculated risks. Death in this case is not a punishment, it's just a consequence. When someone is surrounded by warnings saying 'don't get killed in this very obvious and irreversible way' and still goes ahead I feel fine about mocking such poor choices, for the same reason I laugh every time Wile E. Coyote runs out of cliff.
I think though if you're going to break rules in a national park, you're best off considering your impact on the environment left behind and the others experiencing it with you.
At some point, you have to expect personal responsibility. If there weren't any safety signage at all, then there'd be more sympathy. But when you actively reject safety signage that is there to help you, then you're the one who is rejecting the care of others. In that case, why waste sympathy on those people who took those risks and rejected the a priori help?
This isn't a complex sociopolitical scene like an underclass of drug-users trying to escape from their hellish reality, where cause and effect are hard to disentangle. It's people on holiday assuming that they're special and the safety signage doesn't apply to them. It's pretty straight-forward.
I think there is a reasonable argument to be made that part of the problem is over-encompassing safety rules in general, to the point that so many can be safely ignored (hello, Prop 65 in California) that it leaves people numb to the fact that some are real.
I am not sure how far I would take that line of thought, but I do think there's something to it.
I agree that wrapping everything in safety warnings is no more effective than doing without them and expecting everyone to rely on some unspecified common sense.
Soaking in most springs in the Park is illegal. However, the illegality is not based on the level of danger for a given spring.
Soaking is a great idea if done carefully. There are several places in YNP where it is allowed, officially or semi-officially.
In fact, every time I visit Yellowstone NP (like 5 times a year) it strikes me how silly it is that people are kept and are happy to stay on boardwalks and paved roads. They might just as well watch the BBC documentary and save everyone the trouble. If you are outdoors you should hike, swim, wade and sense the warm thermal waters. YNP is the most regulated and civilized park I know. I think this is sad.
Driving to Yellowstone on an interstate is probably more dangerous anyway.
There are millions of people travelling to these areas every year. As this article outlines, even a few thousands of people per year travelling unrestricted in this park in its first few decades of popularity has lead to long-lasting damage of park features that we are still deprived of experiencing in their original states more than a hundred years later. Visitors today continue to pollute the pools with garbage and wander off the marked areas to 'soak' in them despite the pleas, warnings, and boardwalks meant to deter this behavior.
Allowing millions of tourists from around the world, many without any respect or knowledge of how to conduct themselves in the wild in such a way as to leave minimal impact, would lead to a rapid and permanent destruction of the very park features that make the area worthy of preservation and visiting.
Your perspective on things doesn't work in a world with 7+ billion people who are increasingly able to travel to popular destinations. The trail and boardwalk restrictions in the park make it possible for all visitors to enjoy park features in perpetuity rather than all features being destroyed by a single selfish generation.
Soaking in a hot spring seems unnecessarily risky. There's too much chance of substantial temperature change. Better to soak in a pool that's fed from a hot spring. Rather than mess with park police, find hot springs where it's allowed.
Locals know places where it is relatively safe to soak in the hot water. Heck, you can go to Chico and pay a few bucks there to soak in the same water at no risk and drink a beer..
If there's a couple million people on the whole continent, sure. But the park doesn't have the restorative capacity for everyone who goes there to do what you propose which is pretty selfish and ignorant.
If it's on the way stop by Thermopolis WY. Charming little town and soaks are encouraged. They even have several bathhouses fed by the springs and it's a wonderful experience. I especially enjoy the hot spring fed steam room.
For one thing, we enjoy sharing the story, which is a useful cultural trend because it causes us to spread information about dangerous events and prevent people from being injured in the future. This is not quite as accurate as scientific data, but it can take advantage of neural circuitry which is not useful for science.
For another, it promotes a sense of shared identity of rule-followers, by criticizing people who break rules, which promotes pride in following rules and prevents people from breaking them. This is important because when I read a sign telling me to do something it is necessary that I trust the person who wrote the sign if I am to obey.
But like all forms of humorous entertainment it is not as amusing when we deliberate on it for too long. And there is a pernicious feedback effect of callousness which can arise from the sense of collective identity mentioned in the second paragraph. The positive effects of such activities seem to be best utilized when many cultural mores are practiced together to smooth out the "errors".
OK. How about "enjoyed and was amused by in a reflective, sad, and melancholy way all the while pondering why we were put on this earth with a functioning brain only to waste it by doing stupid things after having been repeatedly warned not to"?
It improves their self being because they can imagine in their heads using hindsight and a loaded story they would never be that stupid.
AKA Darwin awards.
Hopefully at some stage culture can wipe out the attitude and replace it with something better then using they deaths of the uneducated poor and mental ill for our betterment.
Deaths of uneducated and mentally ill people are sad.
The person in that story was not mentally ill, beyond being stupid and refusing to heed plainly obvious warnings, and there's no evidence he was uneducated.
There's a difference. There's nothing noble or innocent about being selfish and stubborn and refusing to heed warnings meant to keep people safe who aren't familiar with the serious dangers in a place like Yellowstone.
> nothing noble or innocent about being selfish and stubborn
Are you saying that people deliberately choose to be "selfish and stubborn" to the point of getting killed, and yet this is not a form of mental illness?
Um, yes? If you think being selfish and stubborn qualifies as a mental illness, I suggest you go talk to a professional psychologist. I'm quite sure they'll disagree. People do stupid and reckless stuff all the time (esp. 16-25yo males as the other commenter pointed out); that doesn't make them mentally ill.
Yeah, heard that one too when we were there last winter. I think people are confused by the term "hot spring". Makes it sound like those bubbling pools are jacuzzis. But no, most of them are bubbling pools of _sulfuric_acid_! I guess people don't figure that out from the fart smells...
I proposed my wife in front of the "original" Geyser (actually the functioning one right next to it) in Iceland. The night we posted a photo a friend of mine emailed me asking if I was the a7le who threw the red paint into the Geyser. I didn't know what he was talking about, until I checked the news. Turns out an hour after we left, some "artist" decided that a pink geyser is going to be his art [0].
While I cannot resist wondering about the possibility of proposing in front of a pink Geysir ... still ... what the f4k is wrong with people?
Human nature is, well, nature. But you can take advantage of it as well.
Ever noticed the nice Gaussian distribution of people at a beach? There's a huge number of people close to the path from the parking lot, but the number of people drops off steeply with each step you take away from the entrance.
You'll find this elsewhere: I personally avoid national and CA state parks because they are crowded and pretty much ban dogs (a rule I support even though it keeps me out of them too). Wilderness areas, which are much less developed, or not developed at all, require a little bit of walking so are usually empty, and again, the farther you go from the parking lot the exponentially lower probability you have of encountering another person (or litter etc).
This is true of hunting season too (in CA): you see hunters in their cars parked by the side of the road, but hike in even a mile and you can't even hear a bang. (On the other hand in Minnesota I saw people out with their sled dogs all over the place).
PS: on the dog thing: a poorly trained dog can really upset the wildlife, and even a well trained dog that sticks next to you will affect the fauna. I always camp with a dog, but I am aware of how it affects my ability to Leave No Trace.
Please don't take HN threads on generic ideological tangents. They're invariably uninteresting. If you want to litigate capitalism vs. communism or something of that nature, please do it elsewhere.
Because in alternative economical systems, there's no scarcity of resources and authorities in charge have absolutely no motivation to save those resources up. Right?
If you label any situation of resource scarcity and misuse as "because capitalism", it just means you don't understand what capitalism and other economic systems are about.
in this case, it was the lobbying of the adventure tour businesses that demanded they stay in business, despite the obvious drawbacks of them continuing to pollute the park with noise and fuel waste.
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.