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.
Support Essential Coverage of Essential Places
Comments
Why is the Park wasting its money on this? What athority does the World Heritage Committe have to "require" a report. If they want a report, let them prepare it.
With the US being a member of UNESCO they are obliged to follow the UNESCO regulations, e.g. the following:
There in lies the problem. Why would we ever forfeit our sovereignty to another entity?
Deleted comment.
Wolves are in the report.
Because every other civilized country in the world is a member, too?
So what. I don't see that as a reason to forfeit our sovereignty or waste our money.
"forefeiting our sovereignty".. Thanks for the continuous laughs, EC.
Basically, if the US government didn't want to make the "World Heritage List", then they could gladly not bother with it. Obviously, being on the list signals that a National Historical site, or National Park meets a set standard of criteria to make it onto an elite list.. They DON'T have to make the list, but it would be kind of weird if the world's first National Park, and one of the most important ecosystems in the US didn't meet most of the standards to be included on a prestigious list. It's sort of like Mensa International - one can be entirely gifted and brilliant and not have to apply just to get a label. I see you easily fall for conspiracy theories.... not suprised. And seriously, having that label brings in interntional tourism and big money. Quit yer' gripin', especially when you don't understand what you are griping about.
And they should "gladly not bother" and put those dollars to work in the parks instead of wasting them to satisfy some foreign beauracracy. You may be amused by those wasted funds, I am not.