Category: Commentary

Here's something I wrote in February 2002 in response to the question "what can I do that will be helpful to the group while we are [in Yellowstone]?" I was reminded of it during a recent New Crater/Steamboat wait by a gazer who wanted to quote some of my comments. Some of it has been obsoleted by events and advances since then, especially in regards to dissemination of information via GeyserTimes. Other parts are even more applicable nowdays. I'm reposting it because much of it is still relevant. At the end I will add some updates and other commentary on this, presented as I wrote it back then--

Rules and Advice for Newcomers and other Geyser Groupies

The following comments are based on a couple of decades of experience. [Now close to 40 years.] While entirely my own opinions, I know a number of long-term gazers who agree with the sentiments of many of them, if not the actual cases. I'm just not as polite as they are. And if anyone takes personal offense to these, consider that maybe it's because you know you'e been guilty of violating them at times.

Seems that I have to make this post, or something like it, every few years. Maybe I'm just too sensitive to what's wrong, and actually do care that the status quo is bad, and no one else seems to care enough to make it better. Maybe I'm just old and cranky. Anyhow---

This time it's the play by plays at Fan & Mortar. It's one thing to announce the occurrence of a possible event-- Bottom Vent eruption or Main Vent splashing or something definitely out of the ordinary. But there is no reason, especially this year when those geysers are semi-dormant. There is no reason to keep announcing the exact same sequence of events, down to the timing in some cases, when none of them has ever lead into an eruption. At some point you've got to conclude that the sequence of events doesn't lead to an eruption, no matter how hard you wish for it.

The same goes for walking up onto what you think is an event, and beginning the play-by-play. The people who tend to go to see Artemisia early in the morning are the worse culprits in this regard. Last year, when F&M were active, one person reported several events, in loving detail, the day after an eruption. There has never been an eruption on an interval anywhere close to that short since the late 1970s, so there is no reason to think that you are the lucky person who just happens to walk up on the one that establishes the new record short interval. The proper conclusion upon seeing such activity is assume that you are not going to see the eruption, to wait, and enjoy your incredible good fortune of seeing activity with Powerball level odds.

One the main culprits told me that I could always turn off my radio. Fine. I'll do that. And I'll also not announce any unusual activity I do see. And I've seen more than just about anyone. When I get on the radio to make an announcement, it's because it matters, and I want people to know about it. Last year it was for the long delay in Vent's start. At the time, it was something so new in Grand's behavior that I had absolutely no idea what could happen next. After bursts? No Vent at all? I wanted to make sure that anyone who cared had the chance to share in what could be a unique event. (That it turns out nothing else happened is beside the point.)

This year I have called out as many F&M eruptions as anyone else has. True it was in the middle of the night, but people were listening, and were able to act on that info. But if people think the solution to their stupidity is for me to opt out, then I will opt out all the way. And I will enjoy those eruptions of Giant, and Giantess, and Link, and Splendid and Purple Pools and not feel any guilt about no one else there with me.

What is the point of the play-by-play? Years ago, when Giant was active, we (and I did it too) gave out play by play of the activity during a Giant hot period. I know that in 2001, it became almost a joke about how every hot period was the same, lasting about 4 minutes and ending in disappointment. But it was the time that Dave Leeking announced a hot period that lasted longer that got my attention. Something different happened, and that meant that hanging around in the Lower Ham's parking lot was not a reasonable thing to be doing. I got only bike and got down to Oblong and saw the start of one of the few Giant eruptions that year. (Several people saw me take off, and figured out that something unusual was going on, and got down there right behind me.)

I'm not looking forward to that part of the reactivation of Giant, because it is going to also get the play-by-play treatment, especially in the early years when eruptions are infrequent. On the other hand, when it or Fan & Mortar are active, and the opportunity that this could be the eruption is great, I do want that info.

It's true that I don't announce mundane geyser times. Mostly for two reasons. One is I don't feel the need to be first to announce any time (even before the eruption actually starts, in some cases.) There always seems to be someone, somewhere, who ends up making the announcement, so why should I contribute to the noise and chatter I find so distasteful. The other is that I don't think the radios should be used as some sort of electronic log book with the VC acting to transcribe these announcements. If people want an automated log book, there are better, more efficient and less obtrusive ways to do it with modern phones. (I know, I'm in the mobile applications development biz and have done some of those things, and investigated others.)

What we need is the use of some actual judgement (I understand these days that being "judgmental" is a mortal sin for a lot of people, but I don't belong to that religion, either.) Make the event call. Maybe make a second call like we started doing with Beehive's Indicator. (Note that I was one, if not "the" person who suggested doing that, after I missed an eruption because I missed the first call.) Then not say anything until either something different happens, or it become obvious that no eruption is going to happen. (The latter provides some closure.)

The judgement in this case is on actually providing useful information. It's obvious, by the lack of anyone actually going down to F&M to see these events in person that the information is not useful.

But another solution would be to make the event announcement, then switch out to a separate channel for the play-by-play. Switch back if things look good, or maybe just every 15 minutes or so give a quick update, especially if there really is a chance of activity. Then anyone who doesn't want to go down to F&M or Giant or whatever feature it is can hear the play by play, and maybe change their mind. And the rest of us won't have to listen to as much radio chatter.

I've also got a solution to the Visitor Cathedral's incessant "repeat the call", but it's a nuclear option that I will give another year before I exercise it. But I'm putting on notice, that come next year this time, if a solution there isn't found, I'm using it.

As for "switch to 5"-- don't be so furshlugginer cheap and buy a radio with a scan option. You get a good one for the price of a single night in a Lodge cabin. Stay on your private channel with all your friends and hangers-on and scan both it and 4 for info. Switch to 4 to announce a time, then switch back. Or use your phones, especially in the off hours when calls usual get through.

Over the years, despite my growing and deserved distain for the National Park Service, I've always advocated "respect for the uniform", that gazers should defer to Naturalists whenever possible. For example, if a Naturalist makes a misstatement about some geyser or activity, keep quiet about it until you can privately correct them. But respect has to be mutual, and I hear too much that tells me that the NPS does not respect those of us who care about the geysers and the area.

Today after the mid-day Grand we had example of why it can get so frustrating out in the basin. After Grand had finished, we saw four bicycles being walked from Grotto. It's so rare to see any Naturalist actually out in the basin beyond Old Faithful. Fortunately, today there was Naturalist Landis Ehler out at Grand and so he could take care of this. So we thought. My response would have been to ask then to return back the way they came, but I've grown accustomed to people just being directed to head toward Castle. So figured that was what he told them.

I was at Sawmill when they passed through the junction, headed toward Geyser Hill. I pointed out that the bike trail was the other way, and they should be headed that way. They grudgingly changed direction. As far as I was concerned, by attempting to continue on their way, they were the ones not showing "respect for the uniform", and by insisting they follow the rules, I was.

At Castle they met up with the rest of the group, and started talking amongst themselves about how horrible it was, and how maybe they don't allow strollers either and about the "grumpy guy." . I should have kept my mouth shut, but their attitude annoyed me into a response. For example, one of the group, not part of the boardwalkers, also lied about how they'd already been Geyser Hill, so they couldn't have been headed there.

By then Naturalist Landis Ehler had also arrived, and took their side, saying that "I've already taken care of it." I pointed out that he didn't because they didn't listen to him. If he'd "taken care of it", I wouldn't have had to point out they weren't headed to the bike trail. But he wasn't i interested in any of that. I later learned form other gazers who were both at Grand and Castle, he seemed more interested in "making contacts" with these folks, talking up their visit, the evening program and other things that would be more appropriate for people who hadn't just screwed up.

So I think the real problem here is the combination of double standard in the application of the rules, coupled the feelings of being ignored, at best, by the NPS. It's tiresome to keep seeing people screwing up, and knowing that there's nothing that anyone can really do about it except in rare occasions, like this one. Only to find out that even on those nothing was done, because of a lack of will to confront. Also to know that it's more important to suck up to people who might file a complaint, than it is to someone who wants to see the rules enforced. Someone who could also file a complaint instead of just posting to a rarely read weblog, by the way… But Naturalist Landis Ehler's behavior is just another symptom of a larger problem, and maybe part of that problem is "respect for the uniform" when the uniform isn't even trying to earn that respect on its own.

I didn't think it was possible, but I've discovered another reason to consider the Visitor Education [sic] Cathedral to be an architectural monstrosity.

Several days ago in the morning I'm riding my bike past the Inn on the way to the cabins when I notice what sounds like an extremely loud bus running its engine in the West Lot behind the Inn. But as I approach the VE[sic]C, I realize that the noise is not from behind the building, but from the building itself. It's as if a loud bus were parked up under the roof of the north end beside the Inn. And the sound seemed to be directed straight out into the basin and at Old Faithful.

A recording I made doesn't do justice to how offensive this was. The bass rumblings could be felt as much as heard. If Old Faithful had erupted then, it would have overwhelmed its sounds. I'm sure folks on Geyser Hill were treated to it, too. It was a sound that a Harley fan on his way to Sturgis could envy.

I'm sure this wasn't intentional. Then again, I've been told that much of the design of that building was to "showcase" its "green" aspects. One thing that seems to not be "green" are esthetics, considering how this eyesore is now shown that it can also a noisy nuisance.

Years ago the little building across the road from the Lower Ham's Store and gas station, the "Lift Station", used to have a pressurized pump in it that would occasionally (and in the evenings, frequently) vent itself with a sound that could heard all over the southern end of basin, especially at night. It took years for it to finally be silenced. The NPS has now thoughtfully provided a new replacement for that we are going to have to endure for decades to come.

Time for the annual radio rant.

The use of radios in the Upper Basin is broken. Here are some of the problems, and even some ideas for solutions.

First is that some people just need to realize that you can't always broadcast in your own speaking voice. Sometimes you've got to speak up to be heard. If you are broadcasting and can't be heard, you are wasting everybody's time and batteries, including your own. It's frustrating to have the radio adjusted so that most people's broadcasts are at a reasonable volume, then not be able to hear calls because some people insist on not speaking up.

The worst part is that even after they've been told that they can't be heard, these people do not make any effort to change their habits. It's inconsiderate on their part, unless their goal to to talk into a box and every time they do, they have people call back asking what they'd just said.

A similar problem is poor reporting. If you are going to start calling out activity at Fan & Mortar (or Giant, should it ever wake up), you've got to follow through. People are making decisions on whether or not they are headed down based on your calls. Long periods of radio silence are worse than too much information. Silence makes one wonder what is going on, or if that just means the opportunity has passed.

A few years ago I pointed out that just calling Beehive's Indicator at the start was not enough. A person could miss the first call, and end up not seeing Beehive. (I speak from experience, as that was prompted by having missed a call by being in the shower.) The simple remedy is to announce that the Indicator was "ie" at about 5 minute intervals. Most people are doing that these days, and it's nice to hear.

Also, is it really necessary to yell out geyser times at the exact moment the eruption begins? A couple of times these past few weeks I've heard people have to retract their calls when it turns out that Oblong or Depression or Aurum wasn't really starting. And misidentification is inexcusable. You can wait a few moments to be sure that the steam cloud you see is Riverside start, and not a Grand that erupted two hours ago.

Another problem is early morning radio calls. There are people who want to get up in the night, or early morning, for Beehive or Fan & Mortar (or Giant or Giantess…). They leave their radios on at night, for those possibilities. But they don't care about Riverside or Daisy or Plume or Old Faithful. Or most of all, requests to "switch to five". The rule of thumb should be that until 07:00 or so, the only announcements should be those that would cause people to change their day, or to see something erupt.

It's scary, but by that criteria, Oblong and Fountain might qualify…) But if that's what people find useful.

And now we come the the real problem: The National Park Service and its Visitor Education Center [sic] personnel.

Here's what usually happens: Someone shouts out a geyser time. A few moments later comes a call from the Cathedral asking for a repeat of what was just said. If lucky, they'd understand the first response, but far too often they'll say the response was garbled or unreadable or they'll repeat back the wrong information, thus starting the cycle again. So what started as yelling into the aether turns into an Abbott and Costello routine.

Sometimes they don't acknowledge, and then a half hour later you get a request for information about Daisy, or Riverside, or Grand. This will start an exchange as before. Or, they'll hear some body ask about a geyser, and interpret that as an eruption call, again setting off a cascade of back-and-forth.

Add into all this the reported attitude that those managing the Cathedral (the rectors?) really don't care about the geysers, and if reports are accurate, believe that they don't really need anyone other than paid staff to do a good job. Why do people want to tolerate or enable such an attitude to continue?

The solution is simple. The Cathedral should have its own channel. Any information for them would be sent on that channel. Ideally, one would ask for their attention, get it, and then give them the geyser eruption time or info.

If their book doesn't have a Daisy time, the the reason is either a) they didn't answer the attempts to give it to them b) it hasn't erupted yet, or c) no one saw it.

People could still shout into the current channel at the very start, but they'd do so knowing that they should not get any response. No longer would that have to ask what's going one after every trivial broadcast of "switch to five". It would be true that reporting information would not be as free and easy anymore, and would require a little more effort, and that's going to be the excuse for most people not doing something like this.

If the radio situation got cleaned up, I might even participate beyond announcements of F&M in the middle of the dark.

A geyser groupie is someone who has developed a liking for geyser activity, and has spent more time in the park than your average visitor. They've spent enough time to know a few things, to have witnessed an usual eruption or two, and to have met a number of people who spend a lot more time in the park. It's also a pejorative term.

One of the reasons for my antipathy to geyser groupies is the asymmetry of the relationship. I've been going to the park, often spending weeks or months at a time there, for three decades now. Your typical geyser groupie will spend a week or two a year, and maybe a holiday weekend. During any season, there are lots of weeks and several holidays, so there is a constant turnover of groupies. Many know of me or remember me, but to me they are just part of a faceless blur that's made little impression on me over the years. (Those that have made a positive impression usually graduated from being groupies…) So I am constantly being greeted by people who I don't recognize or whose name I don't know.

Another asymmetry is that groupies are almost useless to me, but I can be useful for them. My not having visited the park for a number of years, and having radios, seems to have broken them of the habit of greeting me with "When did Grand erupt?" But the radios also demonstrate an asymmetry in which I refuse to participate.

It used to be that if you really wanted to see one of the more unusual geysers (even one as common as Beehive), meant that you had to put some effort into waiting and in waiting in adverse conditions. Now days I see too many people who seem to appear out of nowhere at the announcement of "river pause", or "indicator" or "water in Mastiff". These are groupies who are letting others do their waiting for them, only scurrying out when a wait can be minimized. (Nothing wrong with that, I scurry as much as anyone. On the other hand, I've waited more than most anyone.)

Fortunately, and perhaps I shouldn't mention it, but despite this ease of geyser gazing, the number of people out and about in less than ideal conditions really hasn't changed. Your typical geyser groupie keeps regular business hours, never to be seen on a cold morning, a damp evening and especially at night. One way for a groupie to earn some respect is to go out in those conditions, and not in a herd, either.

Here's what I don't like, and what has triggered this little diatribe: I've been plopping myself at essentially the same spot at Grand for close to three decades now. The reason for that is that it's where I've found I can best take my observations at day and at night, and be consistent. It's "my spot" and I'll be damned if I'm going to be driven away from it.

So what seems to happen far to often is that a second person or a friend sits down there near me to strike up a useful conversation. Which is okay, sometimes it's nice to share information and such, especially with people I've known for a long time. But then some geyser groupies sees us there, and settles in too. That in turn attracts other groupies, and various hangers-on, and suddenly I'm in the middle of a noisy bunch of people who are more interested in gossipy socializing than in the geysers, and many of whom I don't even know.

This last Tuesday was the worst, especially for so early in a season. The only people I really know of that bunch are Jim and Tara, and they start to appear at just as I make a quick check of the WTriplet water level (which I forgot to do while I was dodging bison just to get there). I return and not only have people usurped my location, but there are various tourons who've attached themselves to that group. I had to blow up, because quite frankly, these people are too oblivious and having too good a time to realize what they are doing.

To those of you who claim you've tried "to be my friend" and failed, here's some advice: sit down and shut up. I realize quietly sitting is as hard for most two-year-olds as it is for most groupies, but you'd earn some respect if you did. Here's some more: sit-down and shut up and wait in the rain. Not a storm that catches you off guard during a long Grand wait, (which you are at only because there nothing to see in the Lower Basin) but actually going out in less than ideal conditions.
Or,how about being out and about before I, or anyone else, gets to a location? Show that you are actually interested in geysers as a phenomena, not as an excuse to socialize.

So I'm going to hurt some people's feelings with all this. Guess what? I no longer care. I've tried being nice to people who haven't been nice to me, I've tried to avoid them, and I've tried to be less than friendly, and nothing has worked. So if I develop a reputation that causes geyser groupies to want to avoid me, then I'll say that I've succeeded in this year's project. (And those others of you who want to also avoid the groupies, and I know who some of you are, you are welcome to join me any time, just don't become like them in the process.)

So for the last few days, all sorts of websites are getting all excited about the latest Yellowstone earthquake swarm that happening at and under the north end of Yellowstone Lake. What's missing from all the accounts, though, is any historic perspective. All seem to concentrate on the sensationalistic aspects, about how it is taking place within the caldera, and should the caldera erupt, that could have dire consequences. Oh, and the odds of a caldera eruption are miniscule, so let's not talk about the norm.

As of right now, there hasn't been a quake that's part of this swarm in over 24 hours. Is it over? Will they get bigger should it restart? I have no idea. But I can examine the past record and use the scientific method and reasoning to make some guesses. (Which is more than I can say about most of the reports I've seen.)

In my experience, the norm for these events is that the swarms happen every few months to years. They last for a few days to weeks, and often stop as suddenly as they start. Their location varies, and don't seem to have any relationship to surface features or thermal areas. I'm not interested enough to do the actual research, but I do remember that in the past these swarms have taken near such varied places as Grant Village, west of Norris, Shoshone, in the Bechler and even near West Yellowstone.

Similarly, I know that in the past changes in thermal features have been ascribed to nearby swarms, but offhand I can't remember any of significance. There are so many changes in the geyser basins that it can be easy to assume that a particular change has a particular cause only because they happened at about the same time. Kevin Leany mentioned that a few years ago Depression Geyser dropped its interval down to around 2 hours, but considering where that interval is today, that change didn't last. This particular swarm is probably too far from all the major thermal areas to have much of an effect.

What bothers me the most about these postings I've come across is the number where the writers assume that enthusiasm is all that's needed to have an opinion. None has any expertise in this subject, or even opinions based on past experience like those I've presented in the above paragraphs. Yet, for some reason, these people believe that their opinions matter, and somehow have gotten an instant reputation as experts on a subject about which they know absolutely nothing. It's just a fad, and within a few weeks of the end of this swarm, it'll all be forgotten. Until the next one happens and then we'll see a repeat performance.

Came across this little article in the Casper (Wyo.) Star-Tribune from 23 Nov 2008.

Controversy erupts like Old Faithful

Imagine if the fastest, most efficient way to meet the nation's need for clean energy was to tap into its most treasured natural resource: Yellowstone National Park.

Self-proclaimed problem-solver Steve M. Green claims that the geothermal energy of the Yellowstone caldera could generate enough steam-powered electricity to power man's needs across the globe.

"While the United States currently uses about 4 trillion kilowatts annually, the energy produced from just 3 percent of the caldera via steam generators would provide 10 trillion kilowatts a year," said Green.

Green's idea: Carefully locate hundreds of steam-powered generators over the caldera and distribute the power throughout a rebuilt electrical grid providing access for home use as well as powering stations for electric automobiles and trains.

Green said this Manhattan Project of energy ideas would create and sustain millions of jobs and revitalize the U.S. automobile and steel industries.

"We have the most powerful source of energy on the planet here in the United States," Green told the Star-Tribune. "If we choose to properly use that energy and we can demand of our leadership to utilize this energy -- then we won't have to demand anything from abroad. In fact, all of this could have been for less than the $1 trillion we just spent on this bailout."

That's just an excerpt, but it's enough...

I'm not going to waste my time on a detailed rebuttal to this, because there's no reason to. Quite simply, this ain't gonna happen, and there's no need to get all worked up about it.

First, I see nothing in that article that tells me anything about Mr. Steve M. Green's background or expertise, or if he's speaking for himself or some group or organization. I'd also like to know, for example, how he arrives at the numbers he cites. I also need to know why he'd think that his politically impossible solution to a non-problem should be considered.

Second, his prescription works just as well for hydroelectric dams. And unless he's claiming there's some benefit to centralizing all his powerplants in one remote location with a fairly harsh climate, dams would probably be easier to build and maintain..

Third, this would make any argument about preserving areas for the sake of preserving them moot. If you want to make that argument, then fine. But that means that you then can't tell me that all sorts of places are exempt from other forms of energy extraction. That means a dam across the Yosemite Valley and the Grand Canyon, drilling rigs off the coast of Florida and in the Alaskan arctic and changes to every other national preserve that can produce electricity.

Fourth: Yellowstone is the same place where snowmobiles are anathema because of their noise and smell. Has anyone who thinks this is a good idea actually heard the noise made by a geothermal plant?

So like I said earlier, I'm not gonna get worried and upset about this. Because quite simply, there's no reasonable or rational combination of economic and political circumstances which would make this happen. We'll see a nuclear powerplant in every town long before we got to even considering doing this.

So the camera was down for a few hours. When it finally came back (or at least, I was able to check and see it was back), what was I treated to? The camera operator focusing in on some dancing fools with cell phones. (13:18 on 16 Oct to be precise.) I've noticed more and more lately that the camera operators have been zooming in on people, like later that afternoon on a couple with the two large dogs walking away from the camera after an eruption. It's getting kinda creepy, actually. And not in a good way.

When the still camera went online years ago, some morons at the VC thought it would be cute to change the OF prediction to say "Hi Matt!". They were treating the camera as a personal toy, and this is no different. I watch it to see geyser activity, not to see people playing games with it, not to snoop on people minding their own business, and definitely not to see people make fools of themselves. And in this case, make fools of themselves with the help of the NPS.

Why do I complain about this? Keep it up and there's going to be an incident that gets this camera turned off. Anybody remember the advertising fiasco? The NPS's first reaction is to always panic, assume the worst, and then to clamp down. By focusing in on friends acting stupid, the camera operators are only making sure that that incident, and a reaction to it, becomes more likely.

It was interesting to see how much of the building of the new Old Faithful Visitor center had progressed over the summer. By the last visit a few weeks ago, it was apparent that the naked steel beams make it look like it's going to be a massive block sitting there. Maybe not as ugly as the old visitor center, but right now it sure doesn't look like much of an improvement, either. But will have to wait until next year to see how right or wrong that impression has been.

I also discovered that, unlike the old building, the new one will be named after someone. In this case, a someone who has no connection to the Old Faithful area or geyser. A person to be honored for... being the bureaucrat who pushed to get the new building built. A person who is not dead. A person who is still working for the National Park Service at the park headquarters in Mammoth. Talk about an advanced case of Monument Syndrome.

One naming tradition of Yellowstone is that geysers and other thermal features are supposed to never be named after persons. Sure it was violated a few times, and those examples, if anything, help reinforce this tradition. Fortunately, the days when the superintendent can go about naming just about one of every type of landmark after himself are gone, and we should not be resurrecting them by proxy.

Considering that the focus of the area is Old Faithful, the geyser, why is it necessary to name this building after anyone? It's not the Robert Reamer Inn. Sure all the other major buildings in the area are named after Old Faithful, and that can be a bit confusing if you don't quite get the difference between "lodge", "snowlodge" and "inn." Yet there has not been a need to differentiate them by naming any of them after people, living or dead. Visitors have never had a problem figuring what "Visitor Center" meant. (As for "Lower Hamilton's Store", that's a descriptive term there, referring to the now former owners, not any particular person.)

If the NPS really must name that building after someone, how about naming it after a person who is dead, who died in the performance of his duties in Yellowstone, and who had a close association with Old Faithful Geyser, the Old Faithful Area and geothermal features in general. What's wrong with the the name Roderick A. Hutchison Memorial Old Faithful Visitor Center, anyhow?

(Note: if anyone wants to organize such a naming effort, please let me know and I'll post contact info here.)

Now that it's being controlled by a variety of people, I have a complaint about the aiming of the streaming web camera. I would prefer that it not be aimed with the intention of allowing people to pose in front of Old Faithful. I have it on to see geysers, not people making fools of themselves. Even better would be to position it so that the bottom of the frame is just above the tops of the crowd's head.