Compromising Yellowstone: The interest group-National Park Service relationship in modern policy-making (Wyoming, Montana)

Four case studies, all drawn from Yellowstone National Park's recent history, examine the relationship between interest groups and the National Park Service (NPS) in park policy-making. The NPS initiates and controls most policy-making efforts, with political influence common. Major interest groups include environmentalists, recreation advocates, business groups, and scientists. Differing motivations and perspectives on park purpose create controversies that usually result in compromises.; Case studies begin with, first, an NPS effort about 1960 to zone portions of Yellowstone Lake as non-motorized; conservationists and the NPS contested boating groups and some powerful politicians. The second study details efforts to close the Fishing Bridge village amid concerns that grizzly bears were dying in unacceptable numbers in that area. Business and recreational interests contested the NPS, who received little support from environmental groups. The third study details the fire policy review that took place after the historic 1988 wildfires. Widespread scientist support for allowing wildfires to burn naturally overcame economic and political opposition. The final study examines the ongoing snowmobile controversy, finding that all four primary interest groups are involved, strongly engaging the debate through litigation and political maneuvering.; Throughout, conservationists believe parks to be sacred nature preserves, and have the most supportive relationship with the NPS. Recreational groups cherish individual freedoms and strive to retain park access; they often contest NPS intentions. Business groups envision parks as economic generators, with a primary purpose being the promotion of local and regional economies; they are effective at compelling the NPS to compromise. Scientists lead in promoting science-based park management, but sometimes fail to provide consistent or timely direction. All interest groups assume that park resource exploitation is inappropriate, and find the NPS relatively open to their input. Political influence is pervasive, and in Yellowstone's case, generally favorable to economic enhancement and public access.; The compromise settlements may weaken overall park protections, but preserve Yellowstone as one of America's wildest places. Such controversies are the medium through which Americans contest core values that reflect conflicting relationships between people and nature, and by which Yellowstone is defined as a wild place.