# Snowmobiles banned in Yellowstone National Park! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 19, 2008, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/snowmobiles-banned-in-yellowstone-national-park/468612 "2008-10-19T03:48:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2008, 7:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/snowmobiles-banned-in-yellowstone-national-park/468612/21 "2008-10-20T07:59:11Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > But did you read my cite from a few posts ago that noted that studies had shown that thermal inversions in the winter worsen the effects on air quality, and that wildlife stick closer to the areas near roads in the wintertime? I mean, I don’t think that the people who conducted those studies failed to notice that the park is huge, and that the **average** impact of snowmobiles over its **whole area** would be, as you note, pretty insignificant. The trouble seems to be that the impacts are more **concentrated** in the areas most heavily used by people and wildlife in the winter months. Unless the studies show that thermal inversions are different in Yellowstone Park than any other place on the planet then they are a temporary event. and by temporary I’m talking about hours and not days. > [@Kimstu](#): > > Well, apparently the National Park Service wanted to make sure they didn’t fall for any such attempt, which is why they conducted all those studies on snowmobile impacts. I’m not sure what you think the Court ought to have done when they looked at the conclusions of the studies. Should they just have said “Well, these conclusions agree with what the tree-huggers want, so we’ll have to reject them”? > > That sounds like an idea worth considering, although personally I’d prefer more tree-hugger days and fewer snowmobile days, but the proportions could be adjusted to balance access against impacts as necessary. Fine with me. but again, were comparing Winter with the other seasons and it is represents a much reduced level of pollution so it basically revolves around any habitat concerns. There is the short-term consideration of recent fire devastation that can be factored into this. I would expect human interaction to increase over time as wildlife increases. > [@Kimstu](#): > > I think my point still stands about the nature of the snowmobiles, though: they just aren’t a very sensible choice as a form of transport for traveling in groups, at slow speeds, with frequent stops, through a wilderness area. A van, as you point out, would be about as disruptive, would have the same capacity, and would be better in terms of pollution, efficiency, and noise. I’m not disagreeing with your point but this is a park to be enjoyed by all. It should only be limited to habitat damage and that is something tangible that can be measured against a specific set of goals. It’s like the ANWAR debate. It was thought that the pipeline would decrease the caribou population. Turns out it didn’t and they love it. Great ,build the dam pipeline and move on to real unsolved issues. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/snowmobiles-banned-in-yellowstone-national-park/468612.md?page=1)