h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: Yellowstone National Park, USA- Part III: The Park Years - A3164906
Author: Scandrea & Tracer- Dreaming for another two years - U186740

FINALLY!

It's here! The third part of my human history of Yellowstone! Have fun tearing it apart, guys! I've still got to do the geology!

Well I like it! As in your previous articles, its well researced, informative, and fun to read. One thing, when the liberals tried to exclude Snowmobilers from the park, they INTENTIONALLY used faulty data to prove their case. It ultimately backfired and the ban was lifted, but it did force the manufactuers to start a new line of 4-stroke powered offerings aimed at the rental buisness' around the country. Just for the record, Snowmobilers tend to be VERY enviromently aware and took said attack quite personally. Remember folks, honesty is the best policy.

Hey spynxxx!

Could you link me to the site where you got that information? I hadn't heard of that before. Ah well! That's what PR is for!

I was going off memory of the original dispute in 2001, but when I did a search, I found that the fight is ongoing. Try www.offroad.com/snowmobile and you'll find up to date material.Hope it helps.

I don't know- maybe my view of off-roaders has been coloured because of some inconsiderate jerks who constantly vandalized my family's land when I was a kid. But all that industry site says is that the data were faulty- doesn't give an indication how. I went off the published study. Anyway, as I understand it, two-stroke engines were already on the outs because they were difficult to maintain.

Most off-roaders may think they are environmentally conscious, as in they don't litter, clean up after themselves, etc. and those that don't are in the minority. However, if they'd go back through the places where they ride, I think they'll find a different story. In the case of my family's land, trails were torn into ruts, patches of wildflowers were mowed right through, someone turned an oppossum into road pizza, and two of the ten buckeye trees that we had planted up there had been run over, likely by an ATV. Obviously, not all off-roaders are like this, but as in the examples I've given here, it only takes one or two to cause some serious damage.

I firmly believe that off road vehicles should be limited to private property, either the vehicle's owner or someone he has got permission from, and beneficial uses on federally owned lands- these include for rangers, park workers in National Parks and ranchers grazing on public lands. I guess that came out a little in the article...

You're right, it does only take one idiot to ruin the fun for all and its true for just about everything. The data I was refering to dealt with vehical emissions {snowmobiles} and was written in the mid 70's. It was trotted out and used to institute the original ban in 2001. As to land use, if I were in your position, I'd probley start shooting people, but thats just me. I agree that restrictions NEED to be instituted, but I take exception to lieing to acheive the objective. This is what caused me to leave the Siearra Club.

Why was the Park designated? I don't quite understand who decided it should be a National Park... and was there legislation to back up the designation?

Good entry btw

The study I am speaking of came from 1998.

Frenchbean, I thought I discussed that in my earlier entry? I'll go back through, take a look, and make amends!

OK- I addressed the pre-park bits in my earlier article.

Anything else?

Hello S&T
I'm not sure you can assume that somebody reading this entry will automatically have read, or even want to read, the others about Yellowstone Can I suggest that you put links into your other entries so that stuff about designation of the Park can be easily followed up? Alternatively, summarise what you said in the other entry in this one, so that each entry stands alone?

Frenchbean

I would put links in, but the sub eds would have to change them when this got picked. Should I do it anyway?

I'm not sure Perhaps when it gets picked, just point the eds towards post 11 on this thread That should do it.

Thank you!

Anything else that I've forgotten about?

At the beginning: 'Ametur' -> 'Amateur'.

Pedantic, I know, but:
what it meant to have a 'National Park!' -> what it meant to have a 'National Park'!

i.e. swap around the exclamation mark with the closing quote mark.


I recommend that you drop in to see your sub-Editors for the first two parts of this series and advise them to add links to the other parts. It seems the h2g2 Editors are editing A3407447. And MiniMy is editing A3356516.

Well done on this excellent entry.

Okey-dokey!

I changed those few things- anything else anyone can think of?

Well I thought of emigrating to New Zealand, myself, but... oh, you mean thoughts to do with your Entry... sorry.

Hi,
Just reading your entry – haven’t hunted down the other two parts but I’m finding this interesting and entertaining on its own – well done

Bear (Yogi) with me on this one I’m going through it with a fine tooth comb!

A few minor editing points…

Para 2: “sleepless nights worried” -> sleepless nights worrying ??

Para 3: Just a style thing – last sentence seems very choppy – can you reduce the commas?
Also you have national park with no capitals and later National Park – I would go WITH the capitals personally

Growing pains second para: “the framers had not” – don’t understand framers???

Railroaded: “traditional economic value except timber, the” -> traditional economic value, except timber, the ???

Yellowstone Today – 3rd para: “for economic gain, continiue” typo
continue

Same para: “White Houses” do you mean house?

In summary a super read – I really enjoyed it – Thanks

Only one thing to add – I knew of it through cartoons as Jellystone park long before I knew of the real Yellowstone – maybe I’ll get to visit one day…

Good luck

Speller

Thanks Speller! I made the suggested changes!

And you'll have to hunt in the "Pending Article" section of H2G2 for the other two- they've already been approved!

Anything else?

Anyone still subscribed to this?

Your Guide Entry has just been picked from Peer Review by one of our Scouts, and is now heading off into the Editorial Process, which ends with publication in the Edited Guide. We've therefore moved this Review Conversation out of Peer Review and to the entry itself.

If you'd like to know what happens now, check out the page on 'What Happens after your Entry has been Recommended?' at EditedGuide-Process. We hope this explains everything.

Thanks for contributing to the Edited Guide!