PollutionEssay Preview: PollutionReport this essayOutlinePollution in the backcountry1. Bush over turns Clintons plans to ban snowmobiles in Yellowstone National Park. (pro)a. Yellowstone will continue to be polluted and degraded. (con)2. Business, Industry and environment.a. Two opinions presented by each side3. Identifying problems with the over turning of the Clinton administration ban.4. Identifying problems with the pollution in off road vehicles.5. Identifying propaganda techniques used by either side.6. How credible is each side of the debate?a. What are the credentials for each side?7. Which side impressed me as being the most empirical in presenting their case?8. Are there any reasons to believe the writers are biased?9. With which side of this debate do I personally agree with?Pollution In The BackcountryAs the population grows in this country we are developing and expanding areas that have never seen the population like we are seeing these days. There are almost 1200 people who live in the small community of West Yellowstone that thrives on tourism. There is good turnout in the summer and in the winter snowmobiling keeps the small town going. Over the past five years the Government and multiple environmental agencies have tried to shut down snowmobiles in the National Park for pollution reasons. How would this affect the environment? How would this affect the local industry? I will go through each side of this debate that has been taking place.
On July 18, 2004 the House of representative voted not to ban snowmobiles from the Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Park areas. “Since 1996 the government has completed three major official assessments of snowmobiles impact on the Parks in winter” (The New York Times, 2005). The government is now on the fourth tried and true three year study to try and get the facts the public is looking for. There are many viewpoints on this subject and I think it is hard to find the facts that have not been altered or slanted by people with their own opinions. By the year 2007 the facts are supposed to be presented and addressed to the House of Representatives.
There are many ways to look at this subject. One is by the industry and how this subject could affects the local businesses. I personally would feel an affect of the banning of snowmobiles in the park. I work for a company that manufactures snowmobiles and the grooming equipment that keeps the trails open. There is a great amount of revenue that comes from the thriving industry. There are some 85,000 visitors each winter that generates over 30 million dollars throughout the three surrounding states. The other way to look at this subject is the pollution that these snowmobiles create. “Tests have been done to prove that just one snowmobile creates the same amount of pollution that of 100 automobiles” (The New York Times, 2002). They generate up to 68% of all the carbon monoxide and up to 90% of all the hydrocarbons emitted in the park. This has been proven to be a huge factor when it comes to nature along with the plants and animals in the area.
Travis-Marks said in an email to the author:
In a recent press release from the California Department of Forestry, the California Department of Forestry and Rehabilitarization (CEFBR) has proposed to allow companies operating in the park to sell and re-use these items in certain circumstances, including for landscaping, parking, public transport and road construction and maintenance. The proposed ordinance is directed at the “non-commercial uses” of these items, which were created in 1997 under the CFA legislation that was enacted to assist the California Department of Forestry and Rehabilitarization (DEFR) in developing a uniform policy to enforce the CFA.
Travis-Marks said in an e-mail to the author:
The proposal was proposed for a purpose of re-use. The proposed ordinance was originally approved in 1997 by the California Department of Forestry and Rehabilitarization (DEFR) with the prior knowledge of the California Department of Forestry-Reno Public Works (CFS) and the CFS’s local partners. As this is such an undercurrent of regulations it is important that any businesses who would be concerned with the usage of these items be made aware of the requirements regarding them, as these items will adversely affect the public health and welfare both for their operators and for the natural environment.
Travis-Marks said that the permit to sell this items is for noncommercial use and does not imply any commercial relationship where a buyer is trying to “sell/receiving commercial products.”
In other words, if this ordinance were to pass its current legislative head, then it would prevent local businesses from operating in the area.
The San Joaquin Valley Council made public “the following notice” during a meeting of the San Joaquin valley community at the end of January 2009. The list of concerns is here . A note to the public that reads: San Joaquin Valley Park – “It is with great sadness and sadness that I come to find out that the San Joaquin Valley Parks Authority (SVDPA) is passing into law a proposed law by the San Joaquin Valley Committee to ban all snowmobiles in and around the San Joaquin Valley Park Area. The proposed ordinance is a new and much expanded ban on all snowmobile use in the San Francisco Bay Area. It is the right thing for me to do. The proposed ordinance does not represent an endorsement of the San Joaquin Valley Park Association or its membership. It merely reflects the views of the CA DMV and its local partners. Further, the proposed ordinance is a clear conflict of interest. It may be unlawful for a business to use it for lawful purposes under the laws of the area, its residents, the state, or the federal Government. Such restrictions and enforcement will only be applied to the permitted business, while restricting its use of these items. Any such regulations that come into force by the proposed ordinance will not be applicable to the public and will be determined by the commission or any other governmental entity.”
The state’s attorney general, Tom Fitton of Washington, D.C., has repeatedly argued that it is not a violation of the Colorado law or the federal Clean Water Act to operate a vehicle that contains hazardous metals.
The permit to sell or re-sell the property is noncommercial, and it has no impact on the business.
This ordinance, which has been passed by the San Joaquin District Court, follows a different approach from what was previously proposed by the San Joaquin Valley Board of Supervisors. The purpose of the ordinance is to create a new policy in the state to prohibit all activities associated with snowmobiles, which include selling or re-selling or re-using noncommercial items,
Travis-Marks said in an email to the author:
In a recent press release from the California Department of Forestry, the California Department of Forestry and Rehabilitarization (CEFBR) has proposed to allow companies operating in the park to sell and re-use these items in certain circumstances, including for landscaping, parking, public transport and road construction and maintenance. The proposed ordinance is directed at the “non-commercial uses” of these items, which were created in 1997 under the CFA legislation that was enacted to assist the California Department of Forestry and Rehabilitarization (DEFR) in developing a uniform policy to enforce the CFA.
Travis-Marks said in an e-mail to the author:
The proposal was proposed for a purpose of re-use. The proposed ordinance was originally approved in 1997 by the California Department of Forestry and Rehabilitarization (DEFR) with the prior knowledge of the California Department of Forestry-Reno Public Works (CFS) and the CFS’s local partners. As this is such an undercurrent of regulations it is important that any businesses who would be concerned with the usage of these items be made aware of the requirements regarding them, as these items will adversely affect the public health and welfare both for their operators and for the natural environment.
Travis-Marks said that the permit to sell this items is for noncommercial use and does not imply any commercial relationship where a buyer is trying to “sell/receiving commercial products.”
In other words, if this ordinance were to pass its current legislative head, then it would prevent local businesses from operating in the area.
The San Joaquin Valley Council made public “the following notice” during a meeting of the San Joaquin valley community at the end of January 2009. The list of concerns is here . A note to the public that reads: San Joaquin Valley Park – “It is with great sadness and sadness that I come to find out that the San Joaquin Valley Parks Authority (SVDPA) is passing into law a proposed law by the San Joaquin Valley Committee to ban all snowmobiles in and around the San Joaquin Valley Park Area. The proposed ordinance is a new and much expanded ban on all snowmobile use in the San Francisco Bay Area. It is the right thing for me to do. The proposed ordinance does not represent an endorsement of the San Joaquin Valley Park Association or its membership. It merely reflects the views of the CA DMV and its local partners. Further, the proposed ordinance is a clear conflict of interest. It may be unlawful for a business to use it for lawful purposes under the laws of the area, its residents, the state, or the federal Government. Such restrictions and enforcement will only be applied to the permitted business, while restricting its use of these items. Any such regulations that come into force by the proposed ordinance will not be applicable to the public and will be determined by the commission or any other governmental entity.”
The state’s attorney general, Tom Fitton of Washington, D.C., has repeatedly argued that it is not a violation of the Colorado law or the federal Clean Water Act to operate a vehicle that contains hazardous metals.
The permit to sell or re-sell the property is noncommercial, and it has no impact on the business.
This ordinance, which has been passed by the San Joaquin District Court, follows a different approach from what was previously proposed by the San Joaquin Valley Board of Supervisors. The purpose of the ordinance is to create a new policy in the state to prohibit all activities associated with snowmobiles, which include selling or re-selling or re-using noncommercial items,
The problems I see from overturning President Clintons ban on the park consists of many different aspects. First would be the controversy that the overturn has caused with the people involved, Environmentalists, Government officials and local businesses. Because of the overturn they are on the fourth study that does not come cheap to the taxpayers. “This new study will cost $2 million to $3 million — for a park that is annually under financed by nearly $23 million” (The New York Times, 2005). Some people believe that this study is just one more way for the Bush administration to modify the facts and show the people what they want to see instead of the cold hard facts.
To look at it from the other angle would include the advances in technology in just the past five years with the snowmobiles and how much cleaner they are. The older models have engines that I would call a two stroke. These engines are louder and have 50% more emissions than the new leading technology. There are many snowmobile companies that understand the high demands for cleaner emissions that their machines produce. Much of the research and development money being spent now is being flowed into new engine technology that will carry the sport of snowmobiling into the future.
There are many propaganda techniques that are used by either side of this issue. The top of the list is the amount of pollution that is being dispersed in the Parks and that there are alternative ways for the people of a America to tour the Parks via snow coaches or cross country skiing or even snow shoeing. Snowmobiles have become an easy way for the public to check out the National Parks. The other side of the propaganda is that shutting down the snowmobiles in the park could cause a city to have to shut down. This would have rippling affects that would go beyond just the locals but to the businesses that support the industry. I can see where either side is coming from. I think that there needs to be a line that is drawn to accommodate both sides. Of course this would not make either side happy but it would help ease the pain.
In the year 2002 on presidents day weekend there was over 3000 snowmobile visitors to the National Park. Some of the park rangers complained of dizziness and being light headed, some of the workers even asked for a gas mask because of the amount of exhaust that is emitted. I can hardly believe how far people will go to get the point across. As the tourists ride through the park they end up to old faithful. While checking out the scenery they noticed a Park Ranger with a handheld emissions air quality machine as a part of the scenery. The park is truly paying attention to the economical impacts that the “sleds” could have on the park. Rangers feel that they spending more and often much of their time monitoring the roads and speeds of the sleds rather than concentrating on more important issues.
Thanks to congressional legislation,