Shoot the snow? Say it ain't so

Glacier National Park officials, consider this a formal comment:

Don't allow the use of explosives, especially the kind delivered by artillery, for long-term avalanche control on the park's southern boundary.

There's just something awkward and incongruous about shelling a national park. It doesn't jive with the act of Congress that created the National Park Service, with direction "to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife … and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations."

But that uneasy feeling is not our main argument against explosives and avalanche control in the park.

The whole idea came from Burlington Northern-Santa Fe Railway and avalanche consultants who maintain that the use of explosives is the most practical and effective way to control avalanche activity in about a dozen avalanche chutes that tower over the tracks.

We don't think so.

Much of the avalanche activity that occurs in the Middle Fork Flathead corridor and elsewhere seems to happen in the midst of heavy blizzards with wind and cloud cover and little visibility. The idea of keeping the chutes clean by lobbing shells into them in blizzard conditions seems like an impractical approach that would not always be effective.

Glacier officials have over the years tried all kinds of methods, including explosives, to trigger avalanches above Going-to-the-Sun Road to expedite spring road plowing. But none of those efforts proved successful enough to be worth repeating.

For avalanche control on the park's southern boundary, the National Park Service is proposing a "preferred" alternative of requiring the railroad to instead invest in showsheds that shelter the tracks. Snowsheds work just fine, and they work just fine for a long time. BNSF officials have said they are too expensive. But over the long run, it seems they would be a cheaper approach and a basic cost of doing business.

Snowsheds might be a cheaper alternative for taxpayers, considering that consultants working for BNSF and other railroads have been lobbying Congress to pass legislation and provide funding to subsidize avalanche control efforts. This is a ridiculous bit of pork that would primarily benefit the consultants themselves, along with their clients.

Railroad officials have expressed a legitimate, serious concern about the safety of train crews. That concern should be matched by a serious investment in the long-term, proven effectiveness of snowsheds.