Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-13T15:10:07.122Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Politics in Action: Wolves, Snowmobiles, and Bison andthe Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2008

Soleiman Kiasatpour and
Christopher Whitfield
Soleiman Kiasatpour
Affiliation:
Western Kentucky University
Christopher Whitfield
Affiliation:
Western Kentucky University
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Faculty are always grappling with how to get their students toactively participate in learning about politics. Interest in activelearning, service learning, and other pedagogical approachesdemonstrate this concern. At the same time we are witnessing aparallel and related mission promoting civic engagement. Forexample, the American Association of State Colleges andUniversities' American Democracy Project has a civic engagementseries in which it collaborates with campuses across the UnitedStates to encourage increased political participation and civicawareness of topics such as the stewardship of public lands and juryservice, to name a few. What can instructors do in the classroom tobring these learning methods together and accomplish these goals? Wesuggest that outlining and describing the political dynamics ofinterest group activity in an interesting issue area, and thenrequiring students to advocate on behalf of these interests in classrole-play scenarios and other exercises, help to accomplish activelearning, which may lead to greater civic engagement.The authors thank Michael J. Yochim for hisinsightful comments on earlier versions of the manuscript andGeorge L. Mehaffy, vice president for Academic Leadership andChange at the American Association of State Colleges andUniversities and the founder of the American Democracy Project,for organizing our visit to Yellowstone National Park.

Information

Type
THE TEACHER
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 41 , Issue 1 , January 2008, pp. 193 - 206
Copyright
© 2008 The American Political Science Association

Faculty are always grappling with how to get their students to actively participate in learning about politics. Interest in active learning, service learning, and other pedagogical approaches demonstrate this concern. At the same time we are witnessing a parallel and related mission promoting civic engagement. For example, the American Association of State Colleges and Universities' American Democracy Project has a civic engagement series in which it collaborates with campuses across the United States to encourage increased political participation and civic awareness of topics such as the stewardship of public lands and jury service, to name a few. What can instructors do in the classroom to bring these learning methods together and accomplish these goals? We suggest that outlining and describing the political dynamics of interest group activity in an interesting issue area, and then requiring students to advocate on behalf of these interests in class role-play scenarios and other exercises, help to accomplish active learning, which may lead to greater civic engagement.

It is clear that, in order to increase our students' civic engagement and interest in politics, we need to focus on case studies and class activities that are relevant to their lives. One particular context that is broad enough to bring in multiple disciplines, yet is narrow enough to stir passions across different populations, is the politics of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE). In particular, two contentious political issues—gray wolf reintroduction and possible delisting and winter use of the park, are analyzed in depth. A third and equally important topic, bison and brucellosis management, is briefly introduced. These three issues vividly demonstrate how myriad interest groups, government agencies, and individuals frame the discourse and compete and compromise in the policy-making arena. These conflicts may seem unique to Yellowstone. However, each can be used as a model of a political interaction involving similar issues. We provide a list of potential topics that can be the focus of similar “Politics in Action” scenarios in the appendices. The first part of the paper outlines the three policy issues as each has been played out in the real world. The second provides the framework for teaching the Politics in Action of each issue while providing the necessary background and bio sheets on each key group to jump start a role-play or simulation scenario. The appendices present a sample Politics in Action role-play using the wolf reintroduction issue, other classroom activities, a listing of other potential application topics, and a list of sources for further reading.

Interactive Learning

Before delving into the policy issue areas that we focus on in this paper, we provide an overview of how others have attempted to make their coursework more interactive. Many have highlighted the usefulness of active learning teaching methods in a number of courses in the field. Shellman (2001) implements an active learning simulation of German elections in a comparative politics course; Cutler and Hay (2000) use an issue-based role-play to teach the political economy of environmental politics; and Hensley (1993) utilizes role-play in a constitutional law course in which students “become” attorneys and Supreme Court justices and write advocacy papers. Other simulations have helped us to develop our approach. These include Smith and Boyer (1996) and Dougherty (2003), who have discussed how simulations have helped enhance classes on international relations and Middle East politics. They also emphasize the pedagogical goals that such active learning exercises accomplish. Endersby and Webber (1995) utilize a traditional focus by recreating “iron triangles” or sub-governments in role-playing games in Congress, interest groups, and public policy courses. Brock and Cameron (1999) and Shellman and Turan (2003) have argued that following the Kolb model of experiential learning in political science courses is not only effective but necessary. The Kolb model includes the four stages of learning: abstract conceptualization, active experimentation, concrete experience, and reflexive observation. All of the aforementioned studies directly or indirectly suggest that experiential or active learning can be promoted through role-play and simulation activities. They also argue that by contextualizing decision-making and applying concepts and theories to real world situations, their approaches encourage more student learning and interaction. The “Politics in Action in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem” case study and role-play, as well as other possible applications presented here, also seek to achieve these different stages of learning with the intention of promoting civic engagement. In addition to promoting active learning, we argue our approach is also likely to foster greater civic engagement. We believe that the exercises presented here, which flesh out the multiple issues and conflicts in the GYE, are relevant to all three “kinds of citizens” that Westheimer and Kahne (2004) delineate—the personally responsible citizen, the participatory citizen, and the justice-oriented citizen. The issues presented here are relevant and interesting enough that students will be more likely to get involved in the proposed exercises than topics that seem more removed from their actual lives. As a result they will, hopefully, become more politically engaged in the real world.

The Politics in Action of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem is a subset of the much broader “politics of the earth” that Dryzek (1997) analyzes using a “discourses” conceptual model. Discourse is defined as, “a shared way of looking at the world” (Dryzek 1997, 8). The following is an applied and modified version of the “environmental discourses” approach. Specifically, we employ a focused case study of Politics in Action in the Yellowstone ecosystem. By looking at the politics of individuals and groups living near and far from a major national park, the internal conflict over preferences of the “citizen” and the “consumer”—that are within each and every one of us, as well as, the conflicts among groups, are revealed (Sagoff 2005).

Students first see how actual groups and individuals framed the debate and what language, symbols, and rhetorical devices they employ in support of their causes. Thus, they analyze the environmental discourses at play. Then they are introduced to the institutional context; the agents and motivations of the actors; and the legal and juridical constraints. Finally, they identify the outcomes, which are typically transitory and up for renegotiation. Depending on the type of course and the discipline, one or more of these elements can be the main focus of the class activity. The basic framework is broad enough to be implemented in ecology, political science, introductory public policy, environmental politics, and political behavior courses. A variety of vehicles can be used to deliver the information—structured debates, role-play scenarios, and simulations, depending upon the course, class size, and level. For example, in upper division courses on interest groups and political behavior, the role-play format can be implemented throughout the term or over several weeks in small group format. In more introductory courses, such as American politics classes, which tend to be larger in size, Politics in Action can be utilized as an in-depth case study. Ultimately, our main goal is to provide a framework along several salient and, we hope, interesting issue areas that can be utilized to model other interactions that encompass local and region-specific concerns.

Yellowstone National Park and the National Parks Debate

The national parks, and Yellowstone in particular, provide a historically rich backdrop for the study of political action. Millions of people visit the parks each year. In 2005, for example, 273,488,751 people visited the parks, which was a small drop from the year before. In 2005, Yellowstone National Park had 2,835,651 visitors (Statistical Abstract 2005). The national parks are considered to be one of the last pieces of wilderness in the United States. The establishment of the national park system was itself the result of the give and take among those who wanted development at all costs, conservationists intent upon efficient use, and preservationists. However, as Steinberg (2002) argues, the story of the creation of the parks is typically couched in the context of “a battle over ideas of nature” (italics in original) that ignored the effects of conservation, and that both strands of conservationists (the efficient use and preservationists) “sought to bend nature to conform to the desires of humankind.”

Yellowstone National Park and its surroundings, also known as the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE), is a vast area that includes areas of three states and many rural communities as well as the park itself. The GYE covers an area of over 18-million acres, while the park itself is 2,219,789 acres (Greater Yellowstone Coalition and National Park Service). In addition, there are over 28 different federal, state, and local government agencies along with a host of private ownership interests that claim jurisdiction over different parts of this area (Clark and Harvey 1990).

Passions are high as advocates consider wolves and bison, “charismatic mega fauna” and the snowmobilers argue that snowmobiling is an escape and the liberty of any American. The battle over ideas and the debate over the effects and the outcomes continue to this day. How this battle plays out and unfolds is what politics is all about. While Harold Laswell's (1938) “who gets, what, when and how” is a good description of the Politics in Action of the Yellowstone ecosystem, E. E. Schattschneider's approach in which politics is never “merely a question of getting something,” nor is it a matter of power and awe, but more a matter of persuasion, seems more fitting (Schattschneider 1969). According to this definition, “[politics] is the search for a common ground on which disputing parties can agree freely to coexist at least temporarily; and as an activity, it is characterized by bargaining, trading, information, influence, judgment and accommodation” (Mileur 1992). At the same time, it should be noted that the controversies over wolf reintroduction or delisting; winter use of the park; bison and brucellosis management; and other problems involving the GYE are considered “wicked problems”—problems with no clear set of possible solutions that involve stakeholders who have radically different frames for understanding the problem.

The content of the persuasion and the methods employed by the actors in the Politics in Action of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem demonstrate the importance of interpreting science as well. The various arguments for and against snowmobile use; reintroduction or delisting the wolf; and/or allowing bison to graze freely all utilize science and expert testimony. As a result, we believe that students from disciplines such as biology and chemistry who take political science classes could be actively encouraged to focus on the scientific evidence proffered by the various sides of the debate in the role-play or other suggested classroom activities. This would also potentially help with civic engagement by encouraging active participation in politics for non-political science majors.

Politics in Action serves multiple pedagogical goals. It can function as a case study of the entire policy cycle or of specific parts of the cycle, such as agenda setting. It can also be used to show interest group activity, issue advocacy, and/or conflict resolution. One approach could focus on how groups frame the issue. This perspective is conducive to courses that emphasize writing and critical thinking or that have an active learning application component.

Political scientists have often emphasized the importance of metaphors and framing in policy-making. Stone (1997) and Lakoff (1996) have highlighted the importance of media representation of problems and narratives in the policy-making process. The proposed exercise is geared towards showing students how critical framing is and why one should pay close attention to the discourse surrounding the issues. A frame is an implicit organizing idea (Gamson 1992, 3). In addition, any policy issue has its own public discourse or a “particular set of ideas and symbols that are used in various public forums to construct meaning about [that issue]” (Gamson 1992, 24). Having students identify the symbols and metaphors and frames that each side of an issue uses to pursue their policy objective helps them become better critical thinkers and consumers of political information. For example, students can be provided with (or asked to research and locate) a set of articles and URLs that they can examine and create lists of the key language that constructs the social and political meanings of the debate. Canis lupus (the gray wolf) has been called a “predator,” “carnivore,” “a keystone species,” and “iconic.” One proponent of state laws on wolf management declared, “Our ancestors realized long ago that the wolf is a unique critter—a killing machine and a breeding machine all rolled into one” (Balyeat 2002).

The politics of wolf reintroduction clearly demonstrate the significance of names and labels (Nie 2003). When Canadian wolves were first brought to Yellowstone, they were called an “experimental” population, which means if they wandered outside the park they could be shot since they were not officially protected by the Endangered Species Act. According to the state of Wyoming's plan to delist the wolf in accordance with its designation as “predator,” the wolf can be shot on sight. As “trophy game,” the wolf falls into a different category. When wolves were first reintroduced in Yellowstone, one goal was to create a “viable and recovered wolf population.” The definition of a “breeding pair” and or “viable population” is just as influenced by politics as by biology and ecology.

As McBeth and Shanahan (2004, 319–20) have argued in the context of Yellowstone National Park and the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, “frames are constructed to sell or market to citizens and influence policy outcomes.” They argue that the conflicts among the various groups and individuals in Yellowstone are value-based, which is intensified by two macro-level trends: “the embedded marketing culture” and the “rise of consumerism.” These trends have transformed what were once “conceived exclusively as democratic linkage mechanisms”—interest groups, the media, and elected officials—into “policy marketers.” As a result, we argue, a thorough understanding of how groups frame the issue is a valuable application exercise in the political science classroom.

Framing an issue occurs at multiple stages. Defining a condition as a problem in need of a public policy solution is the first step. A historical review of the issues at play in the GYE reveals how the extirpation of the wolf led to an increased elk population, which led to a decline in vegetation, which caused soil erosion. Whether these conditions need a public policy solution is a matter of how they are defined and/or redefined (Lowery and Brasher 2004).

Focusing on the actors and the way they frame the debate also lends itself well to the study of organized interests. Looking at the type of interest groups that are involved, their size, organizational abilities, and determining how well they utilize intensity and whether they are efficient enhances the learning experience. Politics in Action of the GYE provides a real life scenario to help with a lecture on interest groups in an American politics class or a more advanced class on public policy. In fact, this framework can be used to illustrate the role of issue networks, advocacy coalitions, policy networks, and policy communities. Thus, the class can make connections among local, state, national actors, and institutions that influence the policy-making process. The debate over the park straddles local, state, and national levels, so the importance of cooperative federalism and not-so-cooperative federalism can both be addressed as well.

What are the politics of the greater Yellowstone ecosystem? Appendix A looks at the history of the reintroduction of the wolf and the actors and their positions on this contested issue. This information provides the students with enough background to become familiar with the case and provides role selection choices and sources for further research. We also identify the key actors at the time of wolf reintroduction, those who may be involved with delisting, and the relevant interest groups with summarized mission statements. Also, a list of pertinent committees both at state and federal levels, which is not all-inclusive, demonstrates the different legislative arenas in which the issue is and has been debated. The information is presented in Appendix A as it would be for the student.

The reintroduction of Canis lupus (the gray wolf) is a topic that lends itself well to the study of politics. As argued by Wilson (1997):

social controversy [since the reintroduction of the wolf] remains because it is much more than a debate about wolves; it is a conflict between the advocates of two social movements—environmentalism and wise use—struggling to impose their own preferences for land use in the American West. Wolves are merely symbols delineating the battle lines of a much larger conflict.

The controversy has also been described as a battle between the “New and Old West.” New westerners are mainly urbanite environmentalists who use land generally for recreation, while old westerners live in smaller rural communities and make their living off the land (Stiles 2005). There is a clash of cultures between the two “Wests” that extends well beyond the wolf controversy (Quillen 1999). With the advent of the Internet and local and outside groups' ability to advocate on behalf of their interests, the battle to sway public opinion and influence state and national lawmakers has become open to more and more participants not only from the West (old and or new) but from all across America. As such, not only are students introduced to traditional interest groups, but they also are exposed to the role of social movements and advocacy coalitions. Students learn about how “average” citizens get involved in the politics of their communities and see that civic engagement is not necessarily complicated nor reserved for lobbyists and/or politicians.

The background sheet presented in Appendix A provides a foundation for the student to be able to begin research on the key dimensions of the debate over time and also serves as an overview of the key actors, organizations, and institutional and legal context. It can be used as a stand-alone briefing sheet of the issue and or in conjunction with more in-depth articles as assigned by the instructor. An extensive bibliography of relevant articles and sources is provided in Appendix E below.

Public land use is a major concern of many. Our students may be interested in how government policy affects their ability to use the national parks and forests. The snowmobile case or the winter use of the park issue focuses on this concern. We suggest that instructors may want to implement more than one role-play depending on size of class and student interest in the topics. The background on winter use is presented in Appendix B below.

This debate pits snowmobilers and some businesses against environmentalists and outdoor enthusiasts, such as skiers and advocates of snow coaches. It also is an issue for those trying to protect bison from leaving the park by using the packed trails created by snowmobiles. In general, there is a difference of opinion between what can be called “motorized” and “non-motorized” groups over wilderness and other social values.

The snowmobilers insist that they are “paying their way” through user fees that help with maintenance and up-keep of trails and that they work closely with the park's management in following all laws and regulations. Also, they believe that as the motto inscribed on Roosevelt Arch at the north entrance of YNP says: “For the Benefit and Enjoyment of the People,” their activity is permissible. They advocate for continued access to the park and other national forests. Specifically when it comes to YNP, they have suggested that in addition to commercially guided snowmobiles, a portion of snowmobiles should be “non-commercially guided” and “unguided.” The former, someone who has passed a certification process, could lead a small group of snowmobiles, and the latter, those who have viewed a short video on park use, could go into the park unguided. Furthermore, some advocate the reentry of non-BAT (best available technology), or in general two-stroke engine machines, because they do not get stuck in snowdrifts and are thus “safer” for the riders.

The controversy is replete with groups and individuals who have strong arguments for their position. For example, snowmobile advocates argue that the Continental Divide Snowmobile Trail is adjacent to plowed highways and should be open to non-BAT machines. Government officials such as former Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton toured the park on a snowmobile, and Mary A. Bomar, the new director of the National Park Service stated, “snowmobile use in the parks can continue without unacceptable impacts to park resources” (“Nominee Endorses Snowmobile Use” 2006). More recently, retired park officials announced that Yellowstone air quality improvement is tied to the sharp reduction of snowmobile numbers in the park (“Studies Show Yellowstone Air Quality Tied to Sharp Reduction in Snowmobile Numbers” 2006).

The continued debate is ripe for student discussion and allows for a variety of approaches in the classroom.

Bison and Brucellosis

Bison, or as commonly called, buffalo, and bison brucellosis management are also the subject of heated debate in the GYE. We suggest that this topic could also be applied in the class role-play but only provide a brief background here. Bison represent our heritage and we do not have to look far for evidence of the symbolic importance of this species. The United States Department of the Interior seal has a lone bison at its center. The herd in Yellowstone represents the last free-roaming herd that has occupied its native habitat (language from a bill introduced in the 109th Congress, H.R. 2428, The Yellowstone Buffalo Preservation Act, designates it as “the last remaining herd of wild and genetically pure American Buffalo”).

At issue are the migration patterns of bison from Yellowstone that often leave the park and move into Montana looking for food. These forays have increased during winter months, which some argue is caused by groomed roads, snowmobile paths, and/or by sheer population increase. That some of the Yellowstone bison are infected with or may carry Brucella abortus (brucellosis), a disease of the reproductive tract that may cause cows to abort, exacerbates the issue. There is much debate over the origins and effects of the disease, which accentuates the “wicked” nature of the problem (Meagher et al. 1994). Montana's cattle industry wants to remain a “brucellosis-free” designated state. Many worry that the bison and cattle may intermingle and cause an outbreak of the disease among cattle. However, there has not been one case of this occurring and the elk population also has the disease. Currently government and non-government agencies are implementing a brucellosis management plan that aims at keeping bison and livestock apart and preventing the potential spread of brucellosis to cattle from bison that enter Montana.

The bison and brucellosis management issue is similar to the wolf reintroduction and the winter use of the park topics in that it also demonstrates the multi-faceted and multi-step policy process. Clemons and McBeth (2001) capture the details of the bison issue in a case study in their policy text entitled, “Playing Politics: Bison, Brucellosis, Business and Bureaucrats,” and also address the importance of using language and problem definition in the Yellowstone bison controversy. Their work could be used as background reading if the instructor chooses to focus on the bison issue. What follows is a cursory look at some of the key actors and issues involved. Just as in the previous issues, many actors interact with each other and provide interesting roles to play out.

For example, the Buffalo Field Campaign protests the Montana Department of Livestock and the United States Department of Agriculture's joint program of hazing, capturing, testing, and ultimately the slaughtering of brucellosis-infected bison that cross the border into Montana. They insist that there has not been a documented case of bison transmitting brucellosis to cattle in the wild and that money and research should go towards vaccinations for cattle, not killing buffalo. Other agencies involved in implementing the plan are the National Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, and the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. The Montana Stockgrowers Association and local ranchers pressure the government agencies—and specifically the National Park Service—to help them protect their cattle. Some have argued that the issue has more to do with sharing grass with a 2,000-pound grazing animal than brucellosis. In addition, the state of Wyoming lost its brucellosis-free status in 2004 via elk, not bison. At the time, Wyoming Governor Dave Freudenthal declared the status downgrade as a “powerful blow to Wyoming's livestock industry.” Wyoming officially regained brucellosis-free status in late 2006.

As is evident, this topic covers a variety of issues and includes various actors and institutions that also lend themselves well to a role-play exercise. The importance of science and the adverse effects of losing “brucellosis-free” status demonstrate the complexity of this issue and makes for a more interesting and variegated role-play scenario. Local ranchers, environmentalists, animal rights activists, concerned citizens, politicians, and myriad state and federal government agency managers and officials are all involved. Many of the groups and individuals should provide interesting research subjects. Church Universal and Triumphant, for example, owns the 36,000 acre Royal Teton Ranch, which is right on the northern boundary of the YNP in Montana and covers a wide area of the main northern migration corridor leading out of the park. Buffalo rights activists accuse the church of reneging on a land exchange deal that would have provided winter forage areas for the bison. The church has been involved in other conflicts with both state and federal authorities as well.

The Politics in Action role-play and other classroom activities suggested here help to foster student-centered, open-ended, and real-world-like learning strategies. We believe students and instructors alike can benefit from this approach. It stresses student participation and helps lead to greater civic awareness of issues far from and close to home. Instructors can use the issues of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem in their courses or they can use these as a framework and incorporate some of the suggested local and regional topics to create an active learning environment.

Author Bios

Soleiman Kiasatpour teaches international politics, Middle East politics, and introductory American politics at Western Kentucky University. He has also taught an interdisciplinary American studies course, one of which focused on environmental politics. He is an active member of the WKU Political Engagement Project, an initiative of the American Democracy Project.

Christopher Whitfield is a 2006 graduate of Western Kentucky University with majors in Economics and Political Science. Upon graduation he was employed by United States Senator Mitch McConnell where he worked in foreign affairs, education, and health care. He is currently attending the University of Kentucky College of Law.

Appendix A

Background Sheet for Wolf Reintroduction

Historical Background:

In 1872 Yellowstone National Park (YNP) was commissioned to be the first national park. Almost immediately, bounties were made calling for the extinction of wolves in Yellowstone and across North America. Many predators were poisoned and in 1926 the last of the wolves in Yellowstone were exterminated by drowning. In 1944 murmurs began to surface from conservationists, stating that exterminating the wolves may have been a mistake; the elk populations were rapidly rising, which in turn caused much of the brush and grasslands to be eaten away at a faster pace than when the wolves had been around.

In 1968 various environmental groups began the first real push for reintroduction of wolves. The idea was to control the elk population while also being humane to the animals. In 1972 the Environmental Protection Agency banned the use of poisons on animals because if one animal was poisoned and later eaten by a predator, then the predator would also be killed.

Finally in 1987 members of Congress from Utah and Idaho drafted a bill to re-enter wolves into YNP. These members realized that reintroduction would eventually happen and they wanted to make sure that the wolves were re-entered correctly and safely for all parties involved. Ranchers spoke out vehemently against the reintroduction because they believed the wolves would pose a danger for their cattle and the re-introduction meant, in many cases, that their ancestors had made a mistake in exterminating the species.

The plan to reintroduce the wolves was to place them in areas in Idaho, Yellowstone, and Glacier National Park so that a network could be placed for the wolves to be connected up to the Yukon. On January 12, 1995, 14 wolves were brought from Canada into Yellowstone, Idaho, and Glacier National Park. They were forced to stay in pens for several months, being fed road kill, before finally being released into the parks on March 21, 1995.

Now that wolves are to stay in Yellowstone, the largest battle has become how the ranchers and wolves can peacefully coexist, a project that the Defenders of Wildlife Organization works on throughout the year. By 1997 nine packs had formed in YNP. At the end of 2005, at least 118 wolves in 13 packs occupied the park. This represents a decline of 51 wolves (a drop of 30%) from 2004, the largest population decline since reintroduction. While the United States Fish and Wildlife Service's goals for wolf reintroduction and promotion of a viable population have been met, the wolf remains on the endangered species list today.

Many advocate the delisting of the wolf because according to the national population of wolves in the United States they no longer qualify for endangered status. However, the removal from the list must be done by each state and be approved by federal agencies. Conservationists are afraid that, because of their small numbers in each location, the wolf could once again be wiped out from existence.

Actors, Institutions, and Legal Context (actors may or may not be current)

Key Actors:

  • Senator Saxby Chambliss, chairman of the Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee
  • Senator Mike Crapo, chairman of the Subcommittee on Forestry, Conservation and Rural Revitalization
  • Senator James Inhofe, chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee
  • Senator Lincoln Chafee, chairman of the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Water
  • Former Congressman Wayne Owens of Utah's Second District who introduced the initial bill to reintroduce wolves into North America and specifically back into Yellowstone National Park
  • State Senator Gary Schroeder, chairman of the Idaho Resources and Environment Committee
  • State Representative John Stevenson, chairman of the Idaho Resources and Conservation Committee
  • State Senator Joe Tropila, chairman of the Montana Fish and Game Committee
  • State Senator Ken Hansen, chairman of the Montana Agriculture, Livestock and Irrigation Committee
  • State Representative George Golie, chairman of the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Committee
  • State Senator Gerald Geis, co-chairman of the Wyoming Joint Committee on Agriculture, Public Lands and Water Resources Committee
  • State Representative James Hageman, co-chairman of the Wyoming Joint Committee on Agriculture, Public Lands and Water Resources Committee
  • State Senator Bruce Burns, co-chairman of the Wyoming Joint Committee on Travel, Recreation, Wildlife and Cultural Resources Committee
  • State Representative Pat Childers, co-chairman of the Wyoming Joint Committee on Travel, Recreation, Wildlife and Cultural Resources Committee
  • Bruce Malcolm, former member of the Montana State Legislature and a Rancher on the outskirts of Yellowstone National Park. He represents the ranching point of view regarding the wolves.
  • Linda Thurston of Defenders of Wildlife, who represents those who advocate protecting the wolves and also fights for the wolves and ranchers to be able to live together peacefully.

Non-Governmental Organizations:

  • Madison Valley Ranchlands: To protect the ranching way of life and the biologically healthy open spaces on which ranching depends
  • Predator Conservation Alliance: Collect and use the best scientific information to determine each species' ecological condition, threats to their survival, and monitoring needs.
  • Defenders of Wildlife: A group that compensates ranchers for losses of cattle and sheep due to wolf depredation from the Bailey Conservation Fund. They also attempt to find ways for wolves and ranchers to coexist in the Yellowstone region.

Government Agencies:

  • Wyoming Game and Fish Department: To conserve wildlife and to serve the people in capacities so that minimal deleterious effects from wildlife on people are observed.
  • National Park Service: The protection of the United States' National Parks and the preservation of those animals and plants that live within them.

Bodies of Law:

  • Endangered Species Act: “To conserve to the extent practicable the various species of fish or wildlife and plants facing extinction.”
  • The National Park Service Organic Act

Congressional Committees:

[bull ] Authorizing Committees

SENATE

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

National Parks Subcommittee

HOUSE

Committee on Resources

Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands

[bull ] Appropriating Committees

Both in the Senate and House

Committee on Appropriations

Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior

[bull ] Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee

—Subcommittee on Forestry, Conservation and Rural Revitalization

[bull ] Environment and Public Works Committee

—Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Water

[bull ] State of Idaho Committees: Resources & Environment; and Resources & Conservation

[bull ] State of Montana Committees: Fish & Game; Agriculture, Livestock & Irrigation; and Fish, Wildlife & Parks

[bull ] State of Wyoming Committees: Joint Committee on Agriculture, Public Lands and Water Resources Committee; and Joint Committee on Travel, Recreation, Wildlife and Cultural Resources Committee

Appendix B

Background Sheet for Winter Use of the Park

Historical Background:

In the 1920s, the first snowmobile was built with skis in front and a sprocket wheel and track system in back. It carried 12 people and was used mainly as an ambulance and as a taxi. In 1959 the gasoline powered snowmobile began to be produced that carried one to two people, and today a little over 100,000 snowmobiles are sold annually (snowmobilers.org). There are 1.3 million snowmobilers and $4 million a year in U.S. snowmobile sales alone (“Arctic Cats and Buffalo” 1997).

From the 1940s, winter use grew slowly until people began touring Yellowstone via snowmobile beginning in 1963. Soon, snowmobiling became so popular that by the 1980s, so many snowmobiles were entering Yellowstone that the National Park Service raised concerns about air and noise pollution, wildlife impacts, crowding, and degradation of the visitor experience. In 1990, the agency released a Winter Use Plan Environmental Assessment, which guided winter use for several more years without making any major changes (Yochim 1999).

Snowmobile use in Yellowstone National Park became a subject of heated debate when in 1997 the Fund for Animals sued the National Park Service (ombwatch.org). The claim was that the park's winter use plan violated the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act. Fund for Animals was concerned about the effects of groomed snowmobile routes on park bison. Since the late 1970s, bison have learned to walk upon the hard-packed routes, with uncertain effects on themselves and their population. As a result, the NPS agreed to prepare a new winter use plan and environmental impact statement (EIS) (Yochim 2004).

In 2001 the National Park Service proposed to ban all snowmobiles in the park, the so-called Clinton proposed ban, except for the use of snow coaches; the ban has been put on hold ever since (ombwatch.org). The Bush administration placed holds on the ban for further research and in hopes of developing cleaner running snowmobiles. Legislators have taken steps in the mean time to limit the number of snowmobiles in the park. Currently, there are 720 snowmobiles a day allowed in Yellowstone National Park that can travel along the 190 miles of roads as long as they are commercially guided, although only an average of 250 now venture out daily (greateryellowstone.org). Many worry that the increased regulations on snowmobiles are going to hurt the economy, while others cite the use of snow coaches as balancing out the difference in snowmobile revenue (Tollefson 2000).

Part of the plan that the Bush administration has introduced includes banning two-stroke engine snowmobiles in favor of the cleaner four-stroke engine snowmobiles. While the four-stroke are better for the environment, they still pollute and do not lower the noise levels very much (Snowmobiles Complain).

The current regulations have run for two years and will expire after the 2006/2007 winter so that the environmental data may be properly collected before again revisiting the issue of snowmobile bans (nps.gov). However, as that time is quickly approaching, it is likely that the current rules may stay in place for one more winter while the agency finalizes another EIS on the issue and hoped-for long-term rules. The debate continues.

A list of variations of solutions follow:

Actors, Institutions, and Legal Context (actors may or may not be current)

Non-Governmental Organizations:

  • The Wilderness Society: Supports the decision to ban snowmobiles in favor of snow coaches (wilderness.org)
  • The Greater Yellowstone Coalition: Favors the use of snow coaches instead of snowmobiles in order to “protect our parks for the safe enjoyment of all Americans and to pass them on, unimpaired, to future generations” (greateryellowstone.org)
  • The International Snowmobile Manufacturers Association: To promote the usage of snowmobiles, the growth of the industry, and to report the positive economic impacts from snowmobiles (snowmobile.org)
  • Blue Ribbon Coalition: Champions responsible use of public lands for the benefit of all recreationists by educating and empowering its members (sharetrails.org)
  • American Council of Snowmobile Associations: To keep lands open to the use of snowmobiles (snowmobilers.org)
  • Fund for Animals (http://www.fund.org/)

Government Organizations:

  • National Park Service
  • The State of Wyoming

Key Actors:

  • Former Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton: A strong advocate of continued snowmobile use in Yellowstone National Park.
  • Clyde Seeley of West Yellowstone: Advocates some limits to be placed on snowmobile usage, while still allowing people the freedom to use them if they choose
  • Jackie Matthews, owner of Blue Ribbon Flies: Against all snowmobiles in Yellowstone National Park

Appendix C

Politics in Action Classroom Learning Activities

Politics in Action Classroom Learning Activities

A) Yellowstone National Park: In-Class Wolf Reintroduction Role-Play

Purpose: Engage students in critical thinking and decision making in the context of the reintroduction (or potential delisting) of the wolf into Yellowstone National Park. By the end of the exercise, students should have a clearer understanding of the debate over the reintroduction (or delisting) of the wolf. Additionally, students should have a grasp of the key actors/organizations involved in the debate.

This exercise can be adapted to fit all class sizes. In larger classes, more groups may be needed, thus the instructor can assign additional roles from the list of key actors at the end of the exercise. Or more than one issue/controversy can be role-played.

Suggested Implementation:

  • Briefing: Instructor outlines the goals of the exercise depending on course and class level.
  • Role selection: Students are assigned or select roles from among the list of actors involved in a particular issue area.
  • Write a profile of the selected actor: Students identify the specific interests that each actor (interest group, member of Congress, industry lobbyist) represents and should be able to advocate on their behalf; this can be typically done via Internet research of available web sites and or a LexisNexis search of the media and identification of the actor/group's positions.
  • Format: Town hall meeting.
  • Debriefing: Five to 10 minute class discussion to identify new problems/solutions to the debate and/or each student will submit a one-page summary due the next class meeting—the summary may include the key positions of their actor/group, legal and historical evidence used to persuade the class, and an evaluation of who did well and who could of improved and how/why.
  • Assessment: This debate may be used as a student-graded engagement activity or it could be a graded class assignment.

Background

Students are given the historical background sheets presented above and are informed of the current context:

You are at the center of the increasingly heated debate over the reintroduction of the wolf into Yellowstone National Park. For the past several months, politicians, environmentalists, ranchers, non-governmental organizations, and governmental agencies have held hearings on the issue to gauge public opinion and support over the issue. Today is the culmination of months of debate. Key actors and representatives from non-governmental and governmental organizations have gathered at a regional summit for a final debate before sending the matter to Washington for a vote.

Each individual in your group will be assigned a different role. For the purposes of this exercise, you must assume the role of that individual. For example, if you become former Congressman Wayne Owens, research and present several reasons why the wolf should be reintroduced into the park. Focus on the historical and environmental significance of the wolf presence in the park. On the other hand, if you are Bruce Malcolm, a supporter of ranchers' rights, be prepared to discuss the negative effects that wolves will have on the livestock from surrounding ranches. You should be well versed in matters of livestock management and the potential monetary loss that will be incurred by your fellow ranchers.

Key Actors

Each member of the group should be assigned a different role. The following descriptions can be printed out and cut into strips or pasted onto index cards to distribute to the students. Depending upon the time available, students can prepare at home and be prepared to participate in the debate at the next class meeting. Conversely, in classes where time is a factor, a discussion about the key participants before students engage in the activity may be sufficient preparation.

Former Congressman Wayne Owens of Utah's Second District introduced the initial bill to reintroduce the wolves into North America and specifically back into Yellowstone National Park. A key supporter of the wolves, Congressman Owens has invested countless hours in the hopes that his efforts will result in the rightful reintroduction of the charismatic mega fauna.

Bruce Malcolm, former member of the Montana State Legislature and a rancher on the outskirts of Yellowstone National Park. As a rancher, Malcolm understands and shares the objections that his fellow ranchers have with regards to the wolf. Specifically, Malcolm and other ranchers are upset over the potential economic and livestock losses that they will most certainly incur.

Linda Thurston of Defenders of Wildlife represents those who advocate protecting the wolves and also fights for the wolves and ranchers to be able to live together peacefully.

Being caught in the middle of a debate is never an easy place to be, and this is no exception. While you strongly support protecting the wolves, you also recognize that some of the concerns of the ranchers are legitimate. However, you are convinced that a solution is possible if both sides are willing to work together.

Non-Governmental Organizations:

Madison Valley Ranchlands: This non-governmental organization advocates protecting the ranching way of life and the biologically healthy open spaces on which ranching depends.

Predator Conservation Alliance: An NGO that collects and uses scientific information to determine each species' ecological condition, threats to their survival, and monitoring needs. As a member of this organization, your primary concern is to protect the wolf and determine its survival needs.

Defenders of Wildlife: This non-governmental organization compensates ranchers for losses of cattle and sheep due to wolf depredation from the Bailey Conservation Fund. They also attempt to find ways for wolves and ranchers to coexist in the Yellowstone region. Your primary goal at the meeting is to offer realistic, plausible solutions that can be implemented in order to aid in a peaceful coexistence between wolves and ranchers.

Governmental Agencies:

Wyoming Game and Fish: A governmental agency conserves wildlife and serves the public in various capacities so that minimal deleterious effects from wildlife on people are observed.

National Park Service: A governmental agency charged with the protection of the United States' National Parks and the preservation of the animals and plants that live within them.

Additional Roles/Actors:

  • Senator Saxby Chambliss, chairman of the Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee
  • Senator James Inhofe, chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee
  • Senator Lincoln Chafee, chairman of the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Water
  • State Senator Ken Hansen, chairman of the Montana Agriculture, Livestock and Irrigation Committee
  • State Senator Bruce Burns, co-chairman of the Wyoming Joint Committee on Travel, Recreation, Wildlife and Cultural Resources Committee
  • A representative of an American Indian tribe
  • An out-of-state travel agent and tour operator
  • A zoologist

We recommend that the instructor “tweak” the facts and or create multiple scenarios to encourage diverse solution proposals. Conditions could be imposed, such as, (1) the solution should be acceptable to all parties, or (2) the solution should be acceptable by both state and federal officials.

Politics in Action can be simulated in settings other than a town hall meeting. For example, an environmental impact assessment simulation may be more appropriate for some courses that integrate application exercises and have larger writing components. Students can participate in several phases of a mock EIS as is conducted under the National Environmental Policy Act and other similar state acts, including, the “scoping” phase, “draft EIS,” and “final EIS and proposed action” phase. The instructor can point students to a completed EIS for them to view the process. The intense public participation in many EIS processes can help motivate students to become more engaged in their polity. A local or regional issue could be the subject of the mock EIS or the instructor can fabricate one instead.

Also the role-play could be conducted in a court setting where the students take on the roles of litigants, amici curiae, and counsel or the actors are asked to react to a “recent” court ruling (instructor supplied).

B) Individual paper projects, which can be short or longer writing assignments

Project 1: The student is a consultant and has to provide his/her employer (interest group, government agency, or other actor) with an action plan to achieve employer's political and or institutional goals. In this exercise, the output is an action plan that may include an executive summary and case study of the issue at hand. For an extensive list of writing activities that could be utilized and modified for this exercise refer to Schmidt (2000).

Project 2 (Writing a Political Editorial): here students can follow up on an initial exercise in which they have identified the frames, literary devices, and symbolism that different sides of the debate have employed in their policy positions or web sites to write a more value laden op-ed piece. The student will take a side and advocate on their behalf. The editorial should demonstrate the student's knowledge of the issue to be authoritative and compelling. Many such op-ed pieces are written in newspapers across the country and can serve as examples.

C) Class Discussion Topics

Structured and semi-structured debates can be conducted using some of the following questions as prompts. In order to stimulate discussion and encourage critical thinking and logical reasoning, it may be useful to set certain conditions and/or restrictions upon the debate. One suggestion is to require that student groups come up with solutions that would be mutually acceptable by all the main sides of the debate. These can be done class-wide or be divided among multiple groups. For example, the instructor can put students into groups of four or five and give them the background sheet on one of the topics, like the snowmobile environmental issue. Then, have each group attempt to come up with a well-reasoned solution to the problem and present it to the class. There will be a panel of three judges—also students—who will gauge each presentation and say who has the best proposal to be implemented. Each team will need to designate spokespersons, and they could also use visual aids to help with their presentations. The questions below can be given to the different groups to research and prepare for and then to create some randomness and or as an extra challenge, each group can pick a question for the other side from a “grab bag” of questions.

Wolf Discussion Questions

  1. Should Canis lupus be taken off of the endangered species list? Why or why not?
  2. What are some possible solutions for ranchers to keep wolves off of their property? Which ones will work better, and which ones won't? Why? Think of low-cost solutions. Who should bear the costs? Why?
  3. If the Gray Wolf is delisted, should there be legal hunting of wolves? What are the side effects of allowing hunting? What are the side effects of not allowing hunting?
  4. If the wolf is taken off of the endangered species list, what precautions should be taken to ensure they maintain a viable population?
  5. Even though wolves are currently still on the endangered species list, should a rancher be allowed to kill a wolf if the wolf is attacking his cattle? If so, what would be the rules to ensure that a rancher did not kill a wolf just because he ran across one on his property? Further, who should regulate such practices? Should it be a government agency, or private agencies like Defenders of Wildlife?
  6. Should wolves have been re-introduced back into Yellowstone National Park in the first place? What were the original reasons for reintroducing them? Was the “experimental” label a sound policy choice?

Snowmobile Discussion Questions:

  1. Should all snowmobiles in Yellowstone have to be commercially guided? If not, what regulations should be placed on the riders when they are in the park? What punishments will be in place if the riders break these regulations? If snowmobiles should be ridden with a guide, what will be the advantage for such a policy? What can be done to demonstrate to visitors that they and the park will benefit from such a policy?
  2. Why should a ban be placed on snowmobiles in Yellowstone National Park? What are the facts to back up your statements, and what would be the opposing side's argument? Can you refute their statements?
  3. Examine the side effects of outlawing the more powerful and popular two-stroke engine snowmobiles for the less powerful and more environmentally sound four-stroke engine snowmobiles or “best available technology” machines.
  4. Should snowmobile regulations be implemented across the United States, or just in areas that are National and State Parks? Cite specific examples to back up your argument.
  5. Should snowmobile manufacturers be compensated by the government for the extra cost being incurred from developing and producing more environmentally friendly equipment due to the new regulations? If not, in what ways could this research and development be promoted?
  6. Of the myriad solutions the Park Service is considering, which solutions do you think would be acceptable for both the environmentalists and the snowmobile enthusiasts? Is time-sharing a viable option? Devise another solution that you think may be better and defend it.

D) Framing: Groups

Students will search the different web presence/policy positions—identify the language used in their public relations and press releases and legal cases.

Appendix D

Local and Regional Issues

As this study focused on the gray wolf (Canis lupus) and winter use in GYE, it is logical to suggest that the following may also be of interest: other wolves on the ESA list such as, the Mexican Wolf (Canis lupus bailey), which once roamed throughout vast portions of Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and Mexico; and the Red Wolf, Canis rufus, once common throughout the southeastern United States. In addition, other animal species (and flora) that are on the ESA and are native to a state or region are great topics as well. And like the snowmobile, other recreational vehicle use on public lands and waterways, such as OHVs (off-highway vehicles) and personal watercraft, always are the subject of dynamic controversy.

A simple route is to look at national or state parks and/or national forests and grasslands for local conflicts. There are 155 National Forests and 20 National Grasslands divided into nine geographic regions. Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth has delineated four threats that our national forests face: (1) fires and fuel, (2) invasive species, (3) loss of open space, and (4) unmanaged recreation (U.S. Forest Service). The national forests and grasslands are more likely than not the subject of land use and or environmental concerns that can be used for topics for more local Politics in Action exercises and case studies. Students and instructors can identify forests and grasslands in or near their state that may provide key controversies to research. Often individual forests will have Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA) statements on their web sites that can jumpstart a class project.

Another potential avenue is to research state and regional environmental interest group websites that are a treasure trove of “calls to action” and alerts, which identify local and region-specific issues. Web sites for the national parks and state parks also provide similar topics of inquiry. Recreation enthusiasts also have their web presence and can be researched for identifying local controversies as well.

The following limited list illustrates that these types of controversies are all around us in each state. Only a few states from different geographic regions are covered in the list provided here. The information for this list was based upon various web sites, especially the United States Forest Service and the Sierra Club.

Alabama

  • “Forever Wild” land acquisition program that pits forestry industry and developers against state and local officials.
  • Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) or factory farming creates conflicts between livestock and poultry producers against local communities and environmental activists over Clean Water Act and Alabama Water Pollution Control Act.
  • Bankhead National Forest and Talladega National Forest and the development of woody biomass marketing. Issue: biomass projects may or may not be sustainable.
  • In general, farming, forestry, commercial fishing, and the overall growth and development of Alabama's coastal areas are possible scenarios for Politics in Action exercises.

Alaska

  • Chugach National Forest: Kenai Winter Recreation Access project.
  • Tongass National Forest: timber industry and Forest Service on the one hand pitted against environmental groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club and Audubon Society.
  • Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: oil exploration and drilling is a contested issue.

Arizona

  • North Scottsdale: Developers want to buy state trust land while many want to preserve it as open space.
  • Kofa National Wildlife Refuge: California utility company plans to build a 24-mile transmission line, which will need 85 towers and will run parallel to one transmission line that has been in place for many years. Environmentalists argue it will severely impact the flight path of migratory birds and further fragment the habitat of the desert bighorn sheep, whose population has severely declined since the year 2000.

California

  • Sierra Nevada Forest and other forests in California: logging of the forests is affecting the water supply. Industrial logging has affected North Coast rivers and streams. One industrial timber company wants to clearcut over 1 million acres of Sierra Nevada forests.

Colorado

  • Southern Rockies Wolf Restoration Project: a coalition of conservation groups are fighting for reintroduction of the gray wolf to the Southern Rocky Mountains, including parts of Colorado.
  • White River National Forest: Snowmobile use and determination of usage of “roadless areas”

Idaho

  • Idaho Panhandle National Forest: groups battle over snowmobile ban from the caribou recovery zone. Also ban on grooming snowmobile trails throughout northern Idaho make them impassable and affect local businesses.

Montana

  • Gallatin National Forest: Use of motorized vehicles in
  • Lolo National Forest: currently Petty Mountain is off-limits to motorized vehicles.
  • The area is known for its ecological diversity and world class bighorn sheep. The proposed Forest Plan (Draft Plan) will open the entire Cherry Peak area to snowmobile use. This area had previously been off-limits to snowmobilers. Additional areas that were previously banned are now slated to be open for snowmobile use.
  • Kootenai Forest: Court battles over a number of land management activities including commercial timber sales, pre-commercial thinning, natural fuels reduction, road decommissioning, and improvement of road drainage.

New York

  • Adirondack Park: snowmobile use

North Carolina

  • Asheville: pollution mainly from other states is contributing to health problems for residents in North Carolina, especially in Asheville, known for its beautiful vistas and tourism.

Pennsylvania

  • Generally in PA Forests: protect already established state forest wild areas like natural areas by ending commercial logging in these areas. Create new wild and natural areas in order that varying forest types in Pennsylvania can be represented in old growth management.

Tennessee

  • Great Smoky Mountains National Park: Proposed North Shore Road (Lakeshore Road) is the subject of controversy. The Greater Smoky Mountains Coalition (GSMC) does not want the road to be built because it would take land away from the Smokies.

Texas

  • Big Thicket National Park and Padres Island National Seashore: use of personal watercraft (JetSki, SeaDoo, or WaveRunner) in Texas

Utah

  • Utah Lake: the proposed Mountain View Highway alignments may impact habitat for water fowl and other species at the north end of the lake. The proposed road would involve the Mill Pond spring source, the Spring Creek wetlands, and the Jordan River outlet.

Washington

  • Olympic National Park and Olympic Peninsula: reintroduction of the Gray Wolf

Wyoming

  • Shoshone National Forest: Off Road Vehicle use

The following is a very short list of certain species from the Endangered Species list that may be of interest to students in different regions and states. The Endangered Species list can be found on the United States Fish and Wildlife Service web site at www.fws.gov/endangered/wildlife.html:

  1. American alligator: Southeastern United States
  2. Ozark big-eared bat: Missouri, Oklahoma, and Arkansas
  3. Louisiana black bear: Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas
  4. Woodland caribou: Arkansas, Idaho, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin
  5. Columbian white tailed deer: Oregon and Washington
  6. Northern aplomado falcon: Arizona and New Mexico
  7. Fox—various kinds (on alphabetical list): California
  8. Mexican spotted owl: Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Texas, and Utah
  9. Northern spotted owl: California, Oregon, Washington
  10. Big horn sheep: western United States, southern Canada, and northern Mexico
  11. Peninsula squirrel and delmarva fox: northeastern United States down to Pennsylvania
  12. Bog turtle: Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Massachusetts, Maryland, North Carolina, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia
  13. Red wolf: southeastern United States to central Texas

Appendix E

Further Reading and Other Sources for Background and Enrichment

“Arctic Cats and Buffalo: Yellowstone may not be Big Enough for Both its Growing Herds of Snowmobiles and its Bison.” 1997. Time 149 (March 17): 62.

Blockstein, David E. 1999. “Diversity: Integrated Science for Ecosystem Management: An Achievable Imperative.” Conservation Biology 13 (3) 682–5.

Davenport, Mae A., William T. Borrie, Wayne A. Freimund, and Robert E. Manning. 2002. “Assessing the Relationship Between Desired Experiences and Support for Management Actions at Yellowstone National Park Using Multiple Methods.” Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 20: 51–64.

Hatch, Cory. “Park Sled Rules may be Extended to 2010.” Jackson Hole News and Guide. 6 July 2006.

McBeth, Mark K., and Elizabeth A. Shanahan. 2004. “Public Opinion for Sale: The Role of Policy Marketers in Greater Yellowstone Policy Conflict.” Policy Sciences: 37: 319–38.

McBeth, Mark K., and Elizabeth A. Shanahan. 2005. “The Science of Storytelling: Measuring Policy Beliefs in Greater Yellowstone.” Society and Natural Resources 18: 413–29.

OMB Watch. 2006. “Details of the Administrative Actions Challenged in the Snowmobile Cases.” www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/2493.

Stark, Mike. “Snowmobilers Complain about Planned Ban.” Gazette Wyoming Bureau. 17 February 2003.

The National Park Service. U.S. Department of the Interior. www.nps.gov/yell/planyourvisit/winterusetemp.htm

The Wilderness Society. 2006. “Snowmobile Damage in Yellowstone & Grand Teton Will Continue.” www.wilderness.org/WhereWeWork/Wyoming/orv.cfm.

Tollefson, Jeff. “Finding a Future for West Yellowstone: Local Contingent Sees Hope in Snowmobile Ban.” Gazette Wyoming Bureau. 27 December 2000.

Interest Groups

Environmental Groups and Activists

Videos

  • BISON BISON. Dir. Elliott Kennerson. Boze Angeles Productions, 2005. 13:25. A short documentary that looks at the key actors and agencies and their interactions. Great to jumpstart discussion. (Contact elliott@edoran.net to purchase a copy.)
  • The Buffalo War. Dir. Matthew Testa. Buffalo Jump Pictures, Inc. in association with Sweetspot Pictures, Inc. 57 mins. The battle over the yearly slaughter of America's last wild bison outside Yellowstone National Park.
  • Also there are many photos and video at Buffalo Field Campaign web site: www.buffalofieldcampaign.org/
  • Wolf: An Ancient Spirit Returns. Dir. Michael Rosen and Sharon Howard. Howard Rosen Productions. 2004. 45 mins. Reexamines the relationship between humans and wolves.

News sources

Legal Sources

References

American Democracy Project. Mission statement, civic engagement in action series. www.aascu.org/programs/adp/default.htm (September 8, 2006).Google Scholar
“Arctic Cats, and Buffalo: Yellowstone may not be Big Enough for Both its Growing Herds of Snowmobiles and its Bison.” 1997. Time 149 (March 17): 62.Google Scholar
Balyeat, Joe. 2002. “Guest Opinion: Federal Authorities Suppress Wolf Research.” Billings Gazette. March 9. www.billingsgazette.com/newdex.php?display=rednews/2002/05/09/build/opinion/guestopinion1.inc (November 4, 2006).Google Scholar
Brock, Kathy L., and Beverly J. Cameron. 1999. “Enlivening Political Science Courses with Kolb's Learning Preference Model.” PS: Political Science and Politics 32 (2): 251–6.Google Scholar
Clark, T. W., and A. H. Harvey. 1990. “The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Policy Arena.” Society and Natural Resources 3: 281–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clemons, Randall, and Mark K. McBeth. 2001. Public Policy Praxis. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Coalition of National Park Service Retirees. 2006. “Yellowstone Air Quality Press Release: Studies Show Yellowstone Air Quality Tied to Sharp Reduction in Snowmobile Numbers.” November 15. www.npsretirees.org/node/112 (November 16, 2006).Google Scholar
Cutler, Cecile, and Iain Hay. 2000. “‘Club Dread’: Applying and Refining an Issues-Based Role Play on Environment, Economy, and Culture.” Journal of Geography in Higher Education 24: 179–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dougherty, Beth K. 2003. “Byzantine Politics: Using Simulations to Make Sense of the Middle East.” PS: Political Science & Politics 36 (2): 239–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryzek, John S. 1997. The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Endersby, James W., and David J. Webber. 1995. “Iron Triangle Simulation: A Role-Playing Game for Undergraduates in Congress, Interest Groups, and Public Policy Classes.” PS: Political Science and Politics 28 (3): 520–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gamson, William A. 1992. Talking Politics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hensley, Thomas R. 1993. “Come to the Edge: Role Playing Activities in a Constitutional Law Class.” PS: Political Science and Politics 26 (1): 64–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1996. Moral Politics: What Conservatives Know That Liberals Don't. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Laswell, Harold D. 1938. Politics: Who Gets What, When and How. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Lowery, David, and Holly Brasher. 2004. Organized Interests and American Government. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
McBeth, Mark K., and Elizabeth A. Shanahan. 2004. “Public Opinion for Sale: The Role of Policy Marketers in Greater Yellowstone Policy Conflict.” Policy Sciences 37: 319–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mileur, Jerome M. 1992. “The Politics of E. E. Schattschneider.” PS: Political Science and Politics 25 (2): 176–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Park Service. 2005. Statistical Abstract, National Park Service, Public Use Statistics Office. www2.nature.nps.gov/stats/abst2005.pdf. (October 8, 2006).Google Scholar
Nie, Martin A. 2003. Beyond Wolves: The Politics of Wolf Recovery and Management. Minnesota: The University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
“Nominee Endorses Snowmobile Use.” 2006. Billings Gazette. October 1. www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2006/10/01/news/wyoming/40-nominee.txt (October 22, 2006).Google Scholar
Quillen, Ed. 1999. “Isn't it about time for a New West Celebration?” High Country News, September 13. www.hcn.org/servlets/hcn.Article?article_id=5264 (March 27, 2007).Google Scholar
Sagoff, Mark. 2005. “The Allocation and Distribution of Resources.” In Debating the Earth: The Environmental Politics Reader, ed. John S. Dryzek and David Schlosberg. New York: Oxford University Press, 147–62.Google Scholar
Schattschneider, E. E. 1969. Two Hundred Million Americans in Search of a Government. New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston, Inc.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Diane E. 2000. Writing in Political Science: A Practical Guide. 2nd edition. Boston: Addison Wesley Longman.Google Scholar
Shellman, Stephen M. 2001. “Active Learning in Comparative Politics: A Mock German Election and Coalition-Formation Simulation.” PS: Political Science and Politics 34 (4): 827–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Elizabeth T., and Mark A. Boyer. 1996. “Designing In-Class Simulations.” PS: Political Science and Politics 29 (4): 690–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinberg, Ted. 2002. Down to Earth: Nature's Role in American History. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stiles, Jim. 2005. “Old West vs. New West.” The Arizona Republic, April 13. www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/0413stiles13.html (March 27, 2007).Google Scholar
Stone, Deborah. 2001. Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
Tollefson, Jeff. “Finding a Future for West Yellowstone: Local Contingent Sees Hope in Snowmobile Ban.” Gazette Wyoming Bureau. 27 December 2000.Google Scholar
U.S. Congress. House of Representatives. 2005. The Yellowstone Buffalo Preservation Act. 109th Congress. 2428.Google Scholar
Westheimer, Joel, and Joseph Kahne. 2004. “Educating the ‘Good’ Citizen: Political Choices and Pedagogical Goals.” PS: Political Science & Politics 37(2): 241–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Matthew A. 1997. “The Wolf in Yellowstone: Science, Symbol or Politics? Deconstructing the Conflict Between Environmentalism and Wise Use.” Society & Natural Resources 10 443–468.Google Scholar
Yochim, Michael J. 1999. “The Development of Snowmobile Policy in Yellowstone National Park.” Yellowstone Science 7 (Spring): 2–10.Google Scholar
Yochim, Michael J. 2004. “Compromising Yellowstone: The Interest Group-National Park Service Relationship in Modern Policy-making.” Ph.D. diss. University of Wisconsin-Madison.Google Scholar