Talk:Yellowstone National Park

Primary Resources

I'm adding references/ inline citations to some wonderful digitized primary resources on Yellowstone that might be of interest to historical researchers. There are quite of few of them, so I will be selective and not go overboard.

Conservation versus Exploitation of the Yellowstone Park

As Yellowstone was the first National Park in the world,the development of conservation is closely linked with the park.After watching an inspiring and also shocking documentary by Ken Burns about the park,I believe it should be essential to have an article linked to the main section about the contrast between the competing forces of conservation and exploitation of the Yellowstone park.Trees that were wide enough had roads cut through them is one example of the barbaric attitudes of those times.The development of understanding about nature and "wilderness" is an important part of science and is known as ecology.I'm sure wikipedia editors can find a way to link Yellowstone to this subject.ThanksErn Malleyscrub (talk) 08:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Conservation biology and Conservation (ethic) link to Yellowstone NP, but this article does not link to those. I think it should and appropriate sources added, if necessary. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Historical Opposition to Park

The section of the history of the founding of Yellowstone does not mention local opposition to the the park; I have not the time right now to look further into this information, but an article from the New West Environment states: After the creation of Yellowstone NP in 1872, the Helena Gazette opined “We regard the passage of the act as a great blow to the prosperity of the towns of Bozeman and Virginia City….” Montana’s Congressional representatives were so opposed to the park that they introduced bills into Congress every session for twenty years to undesignate the park. When these attempts to dissolve the park failed, they tried other mechanisms to eliminate the park, including an attempt to split off the northern part of the park so a railroad could be built. To justify removing this area from the park, Montana’s delegate characterised the Lamar Valley as “wholly unattractive country”, hence not worthy of park protection. Others proposed damming the Yellowstone River just below Yellowstone Lake for hydroelectric power. This too was prevented—but only by the intervention of dreaded “outsiders” from the Eastern United States. http://www.newwest.net/topic/articlenrepa_local_interests_and_conservation_history/C73/L38/ If these facts can be verified from other sources, including various newspaper articles from the time period and the actual bills introduced to Congress, such opposition by Congressional representatives to the park should be mentioned briefly in the history of the formation of the park. I will look for other sources verifying this opposition when I have time. Anyone who has time please give it a shot. Nnoell (talk) 21:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I think care should be taken in trying to lump all the incidents and events you lay out above under a single caveat: Opposition to the Park. The attempted exploitation of park territory and resources (northern range for the railroad) and (dams for irrigation in the Cascade Corner and Yellowstone River) are well known and documented in Yellowstone-A Wilderness Besieged, Bartlett (1985) as well as The Yellowstone Story, Haines, 1996. The Yellowstone Lake dam proposals are mentioned in that article already. Almost all legislation has some opposition, and Yellowstone experienced its share of attempts by politicans to do something different with a public resource and use Yellowstone as a pawn for other political purposes. the Helena Gazette opined “We regard the... comment is really just a piece of trivia, not real tangible opposition because it was made at a time (1872) when very few people really knew what this Yellowstone Park thing was all about. All the Helena journalists could percieve was that a lot of square miles of Montana and Wyoming territory was being taken off the table and draw the conclusion that it would indeed hurt the local economy. How wrong they were. It can hardly be characterized as serious opposition, but more as a premature opinion that proved itself to be oh so wrong. IMHO adding cryptic comments on this to the Yellowstone article would be misinterpreted and adding lengthy explanations so that all the facts and the context of those facts are presented would be to much for the article. A standalone article, addressing all the various attempts to change the park from its original enabling legislation might be an interesting read.--Mike Cline (talk) 22:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that cryptic comments or lengthy explanations should not be present in this article, reserving these for a separate article if someone feels so inclined to work on it; *however*, a couple sentences briefly mentioning the presence of such a *significant opposition* is historically pertinent to mention because by *not* mentioning significant opposition there is the problem of implying that there was *no* significant opposition, which is untrue. I suggest a sentence that simply states, "There was considerable local opposition to the Yellowstone National Park during its early years. Local media and government persons expressed fear that the regional economy could not thrive if there remained the strict federal prohibitions against resource development within park boundaries." SOURCE: "Beauty and the Beet: The Dam Battles of Yellowstone National Park" Author(s): Michael J. Yochim Source: Montana: The Magazine of Western History, Vol. 53, No. 1 (Spring, 2003), pp. 14-27 Published by: Montana Historical Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4520481 Accessed: 18/02/2010 19:06 That's just one source from an initial search and read through, I'll look into those books you've mentioned - thanks! Nnoell (talk) 02:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The article doesn't mention every mammal species, every tree species, every plant species that exists there either...the "opposition" to the park's creation or continuance deserves little more than a mention...likewise, there is but one short paragraph regarding Bison that are slaughtered to "prevent to spread of brucellosis"...a more related subject that has much to do with the scope of the park...opposition to the park's creation may deserve a referenced comment or two...the tourist dollars the park provides to gateway communities and much of the surrounding region makes the park creation opposition of the 1800's a pretty old punchline at this point.--MONGO 12:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, it seems that its agreed that as long as its brief the opposition should be mentioned. I will add the above sentence and references.Nnoell (talk) 01:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

I had to work on areally hard project and I almost gave up untill I saw this page. Thanks! P.S. Pfly, in Chief Joseph? the ? is a different color. You should edit that. Again thanks! Dreamland Master (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Re Gray Wolf and Endangered Species Status

FYI - The Gray Wolf is listed as an Endangered Species [1], however the population of wolves in Yellowstone is not (same reference). By including the phrase Gray Wolf, an endangered species, one gives the immediate impression that they are endangered in YNP. They are not, in YNP they are an experimental population. I think the endangered aspect adds nothing to the jist of this article but confusion and concur with its removal.--Mike Cline (talk) 09:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

This came up in an unrelated discussion in another venue. in the poking around which grew out of that, I found this, which says that as of August 13, 2008--A federal judge had ordered the Bush administration to restore endangered species protections for gray wolves in Greater Yellowstone and the northern Rockies until the full case can be heard in court. Also see this September 28, 2008 source which says that in the week previous Washington protected the wolves all over again. I note that the relevant entry at the source you linked above is dated 01/28/2008 -- prior to the sources I've just mentioned. I don't know what has happened on this since 2008, but I thought I would mention this info here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)