Yellowstone In the News

Latest Hot Topics from our Yellowstone Net “News and Politics” Discussion Forum

YNet Forums

Yellowstone Net Discussion Forums

Posted: April 18, 2014, 4:01 am
I think many people overestimate the likelihood of such an eruption occurring again, as well as its scope if it was to happen.

Watch Jake Lowenstern's lecture on this very subject. The meat of it starts about 15 minutes in. Basically, he suggests that another super-eruption is unlikely, and that the spread of the ash fall, while the specifics will be based on the winds at the time, are not going to be anywhere near what many people have suggested. Lowenstern is the senior USGS geologist with respect to Yellowstone for those who're not familiar with the name (though he looks like he's...12).

http://online.wr.usgs.gov/calendar/2014/jan14.html

Statistics: Posted by PandKB — Thu Apr 17, 2014 9:01 pm


Posted: April 17, 2014, 8:35 pm
Well, when Yellowstone does erupt, (based on a documentary I saw) Most of the Western United States will be gone, and the rest will be uninhabitable for many months. The ashes will then spread throughout the world, is the US taking the brunt of it. Worse of all, the explosion might generate a massive electro-magnetic pulse (EMP) which would fry any electronic device within radius.
I just hope this won't happen until well after I'm dead and gone.

Statistics: Posted by dcerdeiras — Thu Apr 17, 2014 1:35 pm


Posted: April 16, 2014, 7:47 pm
Katie wrote:
Let's try it this way... A waste of bytes, I know. Beating a dead horse, belaboring the point and feeding, I know.

It is illegal to shoot wildlife in Yellowstone National Park. 1 law.
It is illegal to discharge firearms in Yellowstone National Park. 2 laws.

What makes you suppose a 3rd law to violate would change this already criminal behavior?

~Katie


Criminal behavior is not always planned. Some criminal behavior occurs through impulse and opportunity. Society recognizes that certain conditions facilitate criminal behavior and environmental controls or prior restraint can reduce impulsive behaviors or crimes of opportunity. Regulations against carrying firearms that cannot legally be used in the national parks supplements other regulations and reduces the opportunity for impulsive vandalism, accidents or poaching with firearms. We have evidence that during an interval when firearms have been allowed, vandalism and an accidental death has occurred. How many times do this events have to happen before a link between the regulation change and the events is accepted?

Consider the situation with alcohol and driving-- we have regulations against drunken driving. In addition, there are related regulations against drinking in public or motor vehicles, laws about hours of operation of taverns, and laws against selling to minors. I doubt that anyone would argue that these supplemental laws are merely superfluous regulations as implied by your argument. A restriction on functional and accessible firearms in the Parks is the equivalent to a prohibition against an open container in a vehicle-- an attempt to prevent permissive situations that facilitate impulsive actions that are illegal. There are laws against air rifles and BB guns in the parks for this very reason. The same concern should apply to firearms.

As an alternative example, consider regulations about injuring wildlife or humans with a motor vehicle. By your argument, there only needs to be a law against injuring wildlife or humans with a vehicle. We would not need any regulations about speeding in the park because only criminals will violate that law and a speed limit will not discourage the reckless or intentionally dangerous behaviors with a vehicle.

There are many ways to influence human behavior and regulations that discourage certain permissive behaviors that can lead to more serious criminal activity are perfectly reasonable antecedent sanctions.

Statistics: Posted by Biff — Wed Apr 16, 2014 12:47 pm


Posted: April 16, 2014, 7:08 pm
I really don't worry about it, I live close enough that we would probably be buried in the first couple of hours and gone. I have lived through a couple of different eruptions, so I just don't worry about it any longer!

Statistics: Posted by Dave Parker — Wed Apr 16, 2014 12:08 pm


Posted: April 16, 2014, 7:06 pm
You and me, both, HVG. If the warning bells ring during my life time, I headed for ground zero. ;)

~Katie

Statistics: Posted by Katie — Wed Apr 16, 2014 12:06 pm


Posted: April 16, 2014, 6:26 pm
I have always said, if and when it erupts, I want to be in the park. That way it would all be over with quickly rather than slowly. :lol:

Statistics: Posted by Hayden Valley Girl — Wed Apr 16, 2014 11:26 am


Posted: April 16, 2014, 5:24 pm
For the sake of hypothetical discussion, I think people in less developed areas will actually fare better than those of us in more technologically developed areas - particularly those close to the event. Transport (of people, goods, medicines, and even electricity) will be disrupted. Those who aren't dependent upon those modern conveniences (necessities for many) will be in a better position to survive/thrive.

~Katie

Statistics: Posted by Katie — Wed Apr 16, 2014 10:24 am


Posted: April 16, 2014, 4:27 pm
I would recommend that you try to go to engineering school. You obviously have a desire to use technology to improve life and the world. Engineering school will teach you how.

Most Universities have an Engineering Curriculum, check out any of them.

As for Yellowstone, there are many other things higher on my list to worry about.

Statistics: Posted by zeaper2 — Wed Apr 16, 2014 9:27 am


Posted: April 16, 2014, 4:16 pm
Let's try it this way... A waste of bytes, I know. Beating a dead horse, belaboring the point and feeding, I know.

It is illegal to shoot wildlife in Yellowstone National Park. 1 law.
It is illegal to discharge firearms in Yellowstone National Park. 2 laws.

What makes you suppose a 3rd law to violate would change this already criminal behavior?

~Katie

Statistics: Posted by Katie — Wed Apr 16, 2014 9:16 am


Posted: April 16, 2014, 3:50 pm
For sure!! He's - well, I don't know how to describe him without getting kicked off the page.

Statistics: Posted by mywolvesrock/Charles — Wed Apr 16, 2014 8:50 am


Posted: April 16, 2014, 2:40 pm

The gut pile was left in the yard.

Wolf bait.

Statistics: Posted by Steve — Wed Apr 16, 2014 7:40 am


Posted: April 16, 2014, 2:09 pm
Ah, yes all these years living adjacent to the park (without a fence along the river) and he still cannot figure out how to match wits with Bison. Gotta just kill them...

http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/wildlife/article_8aae5ce0-c4f8-11e3-9656-001a4bcf887a.html#disqus_thread


On Friday, Hoppe's wife saw three bison in the yard and was worried for the safety of her dog, which was chained to the side of the house.
She called Hoppe, who came home and tried to disperse the bison, Jones said.
Hoppe said one of the bison charged him so he shot it, Jones said.

Statistics: Posted by Colorado_Dave — Wed Apr 16, 2014 7:09 am


Posted: April 16, 2014, 1:06 pm
detritus wrote:
Isn't thread hijacking considered a crime on this site....

Criminals don't obey laws anyway, so why have a hijacking law? :shock:

Statistics: Posted by Steve — Wed Apr 16, 2014 6:06 am


Posted: April 16, 2014, 8:42 am
detritus wrote:
Isn't thread hijacking considered a crime on this site....


Yes, it is when a thread is actually hijacked, this one was hijacked a long time ago, when the topic went from bison being poached to the never ending discussion of gun control. hence the round and round we go.

Statistics: Posted by Dave Parker — Wed Apr 16, 2014 1:42 am


Posted: April 16, 2014, 7:55 am
samparks23:


Whenever we talk about these issues, we always need to remember and think about some pretty elementary moral points: The land was never ceded to us, in any legal manner, by the native people that once lived here. Rather, it was stolen. We, as European Americans, have NO ethical right to it. We need to recognize the fact that theft does not translate to legal ownership.


In the history of Yellowstone, has any thought ever been given to handing the descendants of the original occupants "a slice of the pie"? Or should any thought be given to it now? For example, should/could the concessions for running accommodation and/or stores be given to companies owned, run and/or staffed by descendants of the original occupants?

Statistics: Posted by Psi — Wed Apr 16, 2014 12:55 am


Comments are closed.