Yellowstone National Park officials, in a draft report to the World Heritage Committee regarding the health of the national park, say they are making strides in reducing impacts tied to pollution and visitation.
The report, currently open to public comments, points to reduced runoff from mine tailings into the park, reduced air pollution tied to over-snow vehicles, and seeming success in beating down Yellowstone Lake's populations of non-native lake trout, a species that has posed a threat to the lake's native cutthroat trout.
The report was required by the World Heritage Committee, which back in 1995 had listed Yellowstone as a World Heritage Site In Danger, a designation stemming from a variety of threats, including those posed by a proposed gold mine just outside Yellowstone's northeast entrance. While the designation was dropped in 2003, the Committee had requested annual reports from the park on various issues, such as wildlife populations and related conservation goals, as well as relations with stakeholders.
The current report notes that:
* More tolerance is being gained for bison moving into Montana during the winter months;
* "There are more grizzly bears today, occupying a larger area in the (Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem), than there were in the late 1960s prior to the closure of the garbage dumps";
* Park staff are working on a "climate change response strategy" that "focuses on monitoring trends in temperature, precipitation, snowpack and runoff throughout the area and integrating that information into ongoing studies about wildlife and vegetation", and;
* Park staff continue to monitor activities inside, and outside, the park that could impact Yellowstone's geothermal resources.
The report states that the Park Service has not set day-use limits for visitation numbers, but notes that "the park is in the process of increasing entrance fees and implementing an overnight backcountry use fee, which may result in increased recreational use costs to visitors."
Public comment on the report is being taken through January 11. You can find the entire report, and comment on it, at this site.
Comments
Don't hate either. In fact I respect them both. It's wasting money I hate. I highly doubt those sites gain meaningful visitation from being on the World Heritage Lists. I been to 5 of the 6 you cited (some several times) and wasn't even aware that any of them were on the list.
I suppose you believe folks should fall for those "whos who" solicitations as well.
EC, there are only a handful of countries that aren't a member; one of which is probably your favorite stomping grounds - Somalia. I'm sure you can live life as a libertarian warlord there, so if you haven't looked into it - you should. I'm sure you could run the gamut there.
Regardless, the parks that are world heritage sites in this country, mainly the Smokies, Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, Yosemite, Glacier, and Olympic are well visited, have no shortage of international visitation, and are internationally noted, and renknowned, because they meet a stringent criteria that make them eligable.... Many of these places fuel billion dollar a year tourism industries for their states and surrounding communities. The cost that goes into prepping a paper for the UNESCO committee is at best minimal. Why do you hate scientists and science so much, EC?
Oh, so you didn't even know you were standing in a world heritage site? I guess the UN is tooo secret. Maybe the hidden armed UN guards standing behind every tree, rock, and park sign were too camoflauged. Only 22 sites meet the criteria in the US, and many of those are the most popular parks in our country, and many are ran by the NPS...The reason many of these places are popular is because they meet this criteria that puts them in elite status. There are a few sites that are part of the 22 that are not that heavily visited, but they still meet the criteria because they are either ancient indian burial mounds, or ancient dwellings that are well preserved. Many of our USFS wilderness areas (especially some of the earliest designated ones from the 1964 wilderness act) don't even meet the criteria. I actually think with how things are going, having the UNESCO designation brings more weight to a place in terms of how well protected the ecosystem or cultural resource is then being designated a "US National Monument" that is ran by the BLM in conjunction with the USFS. But hey... whatever floats your boat. And without googling it, can you name ANY national parks in Somalia? Thought so.
You really think the WHS criteria has a material impact on how our parks are operated? Other than to cost them monies on wasted paperwork and cosmetics, I can't conceive of a thing they would do differently.
I find it ironic that one who believes so adamantly that parks should be shut off from people and their impacts would be boasting so proudly about the hordes that WHS designation supposedly brings.
Once again, many of these places have large protected ecosystems (backcountry) that require some physical endurance and exertion to reach. I've spent enough time in these places to know that this is the case in almost any place. You have the frontcountry, and the backcountry. The backcountry in national parks tends to be some of the wildest i've encountered, and that's because it's protected from other things such as hunting, and resource extraction. Many USFS wilderness areas mismanage the wildlife because the state agencies are in control of it, and it seems only the rocks are truly protected. At least in the NP's that is not the case.
And yes, being designated a UNESCO site helps aid in it being better protected, which in turn helps put it on the map, which in turn has an effect in spurring the international noterietry that leads to those interested in nature to visit them.
Many of the National Parks I want to see abroad, are also world heritage sites. It matters. And I work within one of these WHS. I see results with my own two eyes constantly.
I definitely agree that the designation isn't perfect, and is not the "endgame" by any means. Management strategies seem to always be fluid and evolving, throughout the evolution of conservation. When a place gets put on the "UNESCO danger list", that's a sign that it could potentially be booted off the list, and even Yellowstone was once on that list. The Everglades are on the list now. And I think any of our National Park that isn't designated wilderness is a travesty. Many biosphere reserves are wilderness, and so are quite a few of the World Heritage Sites, but Glacier, Yellowstone, Smokies, and Grand Canyon need to be upgraded from the half-assed wilderness they currently manage it as. It's a fight that needs to happen, and many times it's the parochial locals that fight hard to keep that process from happening. That would solve a lot of those issues in the GC, except for perhaps water being released from Glen Canyon. That's an issue that goes way too deep across state water rights, and the political fight over western water will always be quite severe. The great human migration could occur over the next few decades just because of water resources getting scarce in the interior west. It's already an issue over the development that the tribe wants to do on the little colorado.
LOL - So we want our parks on the WHS list to bring hordes of people to areas that should be designated wilderness.
EC, when you get a clue to what I posted, please respond in a way that doesn't resemble mindless trolling. Until then, you should probably stick to real estate forums. Obviously, my post makes sense if you know anything about wilderness and "proposed wilderness". We've discussed these issues many times here. Many of these parks contain both frontcountry areas, and large backcountry areas that can be designated wilderness. Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, Glacier and the Smokies all have large areas that can be wilderness. You obviously, don't pay attention, so either educate yourself on these issues or quit being a useless troll. The proposed wilderness areas will not effect the front country, or people like you that don't go into the backcountry and wilderness areas. It's hard to have intelligent conversations on here with people like you here just potshotting in every direction. First you were here screaming about "losing our soverignty." Which is a giant laugh, and just another mindless blurt from the trollerdome.