Sportsmen Against Bush
December 29th, 2003, 06:04 AM
Snowmobiles--A rebuke to Bush's methods
Minneapolis Star-Tribune , December 19,2003
by Editor
Park personnel, wildlife and quiet recreationists will be the
immediate beneficiaries of this week's court order resurrecting a ban
on snowmobiles at Yellowstone National Park. But in a larger sense,
the ruling is an important triumph for the laws of rulemaking -- and a
clear rebuke to the Bush administration's brazen preference for
ignoring them.
For all his inveighing against the supposed excesses of U.S.
environmental law, George W. Bush has not often asked Congress to
rewrite its fundamental instruments. When he has, Congress to its
credit has generally declined.
Instead, this president pursues his markedly anti-environment agenda
through rule revisions, budget reallocations, lawsuit settlements,
personnel shifts and similar exercises of administrative authority.
The snowmobile policy at Yellowstone is a case in point.
A phaseout of the machines was ordered late in the Clinton
administration, and only under relentless legal pressure from
environmental groups. During the several years it took the National
Park Service to reach that decision, extensive evidence was collected
on snowmobiles' harm to air quality, wildlife and gas-mask-wearing
rangers. After reviewing a range of alternatives in light of this
evidence, the Park Service decided to ban the machines by the winter
of 2003-04.
The snowmobile makers sued, of course, and Bush suspended the policy
immediately on taking office. Eighteen months later, the Park Service
executed "a 180-degree reversal," in the words of U.S. District Judge
Emmet Sullivan, and settled the lawsuit by offering to admit
newer-style snowmobiles in numbers that might even exceed current
levels.
"This dramatic change in course, in a relatively short period of time
and conspicuously timed with the change in administrations, represents
precisely" the type of reversal that requires an agency to prove that
its actions weren't arbitrary or capricious, Sullivan found. The Park
Service hadn't bothered to do so, other than to assert that because
the new machines were a little quieter and somewhat cleaner than their
predecessors, all problems were sufficiently solved.
That didn't wash with Sullivan, who pointedly observed that "the
prospect of improved technology is not 'new.' The possibility of
improved technology was explicitly considered" in arriving at the ban,
"and just as explicitly rejected as an inadequate solution."
Moreover, he found, "there is evidence in the record" that the Park
Service had no explanation for its policy reversal, that the new plan
"was completely politically driven and result oriented," and that its
authors were reminded that "(Interior Secretary) Gale Norton wants to
be able to come away saying some snowmobiles are allowed."
Snowmobile companies and clubs have said they will challenge
Sullivan's ruling reinstating the ban, and the Park Service says it
may also appeal. That would be a waste of effort.
Though Sullivan's order is sharply critical of the Bush
administration's disrespect for proper process, nothing in it
precludes a new policy that permits some snowmobiling at Yellowstone
-- as long as the administration pays sufficient respect to the facts,
and to the park's conservation responsibilities, in preparing it. What
the administration can't do, Sullivan said, is simply tear up
predecessors' decisions that it happens to dislike, without offering
any justification.
Minneapolis Star-Tribune , December 19,2003
by Editor
Park personnel, wildlife and quiet recreationists will be the
immediate beneficiaries of this week's court order resurrecting a ban
on snowmobiles at Yellowstone National Park. But in a larger sense,
the ruling is an important triumph for the laws of rulemaking -- and a
clear rebuke to the Bush administration's brazen preference for
ignoring them.
For all his inveighing against the supposed excesses of U.S.
environmental law, George W. Bush has not often asked Congress to
rewrite its fundamental instruments. When he has, Congress to its
credit has generally declined.
Instead, this president pursues his markedly anti-environment agenda
through rule revisions, budget reallocations, lawsuit settlements,
personnel shifts and similar exercises of administrative authority.
The snowmobile policy at Yellowstone is a case in point.
A phaseout of the machines was ordered late in the Clinton
administration, and only under relentless legal pressure from
environmental groups. During the several years it took the National
Park Service to reach that decision, extensive evidence was collected
on snowmobiles' harm to air quality, wildlife and gas-mask-wearing
rangers. After reviewing a range of alternatives in light of this
evidence, the Park Service decided to ban the machines by the winter
of 2003-04.
The snowmobile makers sued, of course, and Bush suspended the policy
immediately on taking office. Eighteen months later, the Park Service
executed "a 180-degree reversal," in the words of U.S. District Judge
Emmet Sullivan, and settled the lawsuit by offering to admit
newer-style snowmobiles in numbers that might even exceed current
levels.
"This dramatic change in course, in a relatively short period of time
and conspicuously timed with the change in administrations, represents
precisely" the type of reversal that requires an agency to prove that
its actions weren't arbitrary or capricious, Sullivan found. The Park
Service hadn't bothered to do so, other than to assert that because
the new machines were a little quieter and somewhat cleaner than their
predecessors, all problems were sufficiently solved.
That didn't wash with Sullivan, who pointedly observed that "the
prospect of improved technology is not 'new.' The possibility of
improved technology was explicitly considered" in arriving at the ban,
"and just as explicitly rejected as an inadequate solution."
Moreover, he found, "there is evidence in the record" that the Park
Service had no explanation for its policy reversal, that the new plan
"was completely politically driven and result oriented," and that its
authors were reminded that "(Interior Secretary) Gale Norton wants to
be able to come away saying some snowmobiles are allowed."
Snowmobile companies and clubs have said they will challenge
Sullivan's ruling reinstating the ban, and the Park Service says it
may also appeal. That would be a waste of effort.
Though Sullivan's order is sharply critical of the Bush
administration's disrespect for proper process, nothing in it
precludes a new policy that permits some snowmobiling at Yellowstone
-- as long as the administration pays sufficient respect to the facts,
and to the park's conservation responsibilities, in preparing it. What
the administration can't do, Sullivan said, is simply tear up
predecessors' decisions that it happens to dislike, without offering
any justification.