Dear editor:

In the May 28, 2019 edition of the Powell Tribune, Yellowstone Superintendent, Cam Sholly, listed five “major strategic priorities.”  Number two was, “Understanding and responding to the effects of climate change.”

Twice in two years, I have visited Gardiner, Montana, for the purpose of counting park employee private vehicles commuting to work via their exclusive access road east of Roosevelt Arch. The vast majority went up the hill to Mammoth. 

Average count on two mornings in 2022 and one morning in 2023 was 150 vehicles each day.  Observation times were from 5-9 a.m. on all days — two in December 2022, and one in November 2023. I felt there was no need for another day of counting cars in 2023. Some things are obvious.

From 1996 to 2022 a full size 42-passenger motor coach hauled park employees from Livingston, Montana, to Mammoth. This coach has been replaced by two 15-passenger shuttles. One begins and ends in Livingston each day, the other begins and ends in Emigrant, Montana. The shuttles both have government tags, and are never filled to capacity. The same was true of the larger motor coach.

Allow me to jog your memory with some relevant, seemingly trivial newspaper headlines:  Billings Gazette, July 26, 2006 — “Report: Warming hurting parks”;  Billings Gazette, June 27, 2009 — “House OKs contentious climate bill”;  Bozeman Daily Chronicle, Nov. 27, 2010 — “Climate is changing Yellowstone”;  Cody Enterprise, Sept. 28, 2011 — “GYC: YNP suffering from climate change”;  Powell Tribune, Dec. 4, 2014 — “Climate is Changing”;  Billings Gazette, Dec. 27, 2015 — “Study:  “Winters warming in Yellowstone”;  Powell Tribune, Sept. 13, 2018 — “Changing climate concerns Yellowstone scientists.”

Last but not least, and out of chronological order:  Sept. 4, 2016, Billings Gazette headline: “Climate change questions at YNP.”  In that article, Yellowstone Center for Resources Director Jennifer Carpenter, stated, “Right now we’ve got a pretty small program in the park, and my intention is to grow that program so we can better meet the challenges of climate change in terms of what our response might be.” Some things are obvious. Growing a “program” is more important than an immediate goal-minded response.  

Here is my response: Immediately put the daily commuters on shuttles from Gardiner. This will reduce carbon emissions in the park, and ease congestion on the narrow and steep temporary Old Gardiner Road.   

Bus funding? Simple. Number five on Sholly’s List: “Build coalitions and partnerships.” Mr. Sholly can tap into, as he put it, an “incredibly generous philanthropic community.” Greater Yellowstone Coalition — GYC — immediately comes to mind.   

Yellowstone’s quaint little money laundering operation, Yellowstone Forever, peddles climate change field seminars, and operates guided tours on shuttle buses. They are experienced in climate change and bussing. They might even offer consulting services.

Former Yellowstone Superintendent Mike Finley developed the first employee bus route from Livingston in 1996. Is he still with the Turner Foundation? Give him a jingle, Mr. Sholly.

How about good ol’ fashioned shake downs? Look to Hollywood. Shame them into saving Yellowstone through the new BUS program — Buses Unquestionably Save! Suggestion: If, by chance, a wandering star found himself in hot water in the park, he should make restitution with a contribution. Lobby for added fines — much like victim restitution — to help fund BUS.

Step back and look at your operation, Mr. Sholly. Before requiring the public to board buses to ease congestion and protect park resources, lead by example. Otherwise, zip it!

As for media, why am I doing your job? How about an exposé on the real National Park Service once in a while?  Hold them accountable.   

Steve Torrey

Cody