[at-l] Fwd: Snowmobiles - LONG

[spiriteagle99@hotmail.com (Jim and/or Ginny Owen)]

Sheesh - I haven=92t seen this much emotionally loaded, fuzzy thinking in
years.  There are some of you that I generally agree with =96 and some that=
 I
generally don=92t  - but there are a LOT of you that I disagree with on thi=
s.
So now it=92s my turn =96 even though I didn=92t intend to get involved in =
this
subject. And I=92m gonna try to talk only about Yellowstone =96 mixing up o=
ther
issues with the discussion is counterproductive and, frankly, obfuscatory.
I won=92t name anybody =96 but I will take some of the many and varied
statements and answer them.  Lets start with these three statements:

>I simply don't think snowmobiles belong in National Parks, especially when
>you consider their impact on EVERYONE else using the Park.

>There is absolutely no question that snowmobiles on public land impair the
>enjoyment of these places by thousands of other park visitors;

>It's also wrong to say, "We're taxpayers, so we shouldn't be deprived of
>the chance to enjoy the National Parks". Leaving aside that
>restricting/prohibiting snowmobiles doesn't prevent access by less
>intrusive means (i.e., buy a set of boots or snowshoes and go right
>ahead!),

OK =96 =93intrusive=94 to whom?  Do you have any idea how FEW non-snowmobil=
ing
backcountry visitors there are during a Yellowstone winter?  Go read the
December issue of Backpacker =96 read the Yellowstone article.  They spent =
7
days in the southwest quarter of the Park.  They were the FIRST party to go
in there all year =96 and they were there in MARCH.  And apparently the onl=
y
snowmobile they saw was the one that picked them up to shuttle them back to
Old Faithless.  I don=92t think the snowmobiles =93ruined=94 their trip =96=
 or
=93damaged=94 their experience.  And for those who want to see thermal area=
s =96
that (the SW quarter) is where some of them are located.  How do I know?
Because I=92ve been there.  Try it =96 you might like it.

One thing that=92s been overlooked in this whole discussion is that the
snowmobiles and the hikers DON=92T USE THE TRAILS AT THE SAME TIME.

The Yellowstone snowmobile season runs from December to March/April. The
=93hiking=94 season in Yellowstone starts sometime in June or July and ends
sometime in September or October.  Oh =96 you say you want to =93hike=94 in=
 winter
in Yellowstone?  Don=92t get stupid on me here - Yellowstone is under 10 (o=
r
more) feet of snowpack in winter.  At that time of year, you either snowsho=
e
or ski =96 or snowmobile.  YOU ARE NOT GONNA =93HIKE=94 DURING SNOWMOBILE S=
EASON.

OK =96 so you say you want to ski?  Fine =96 you can do that =96 either bef=
ore or
after snowmobile season if you don=92t want to deal with them.  Or by going
someplace where they don=92t go (either inside or outside the Park).  Or yo=
u
can deal with them in the areas they use.

So - WHO is this "EVERYONE else using the Park"? And WHO are all these
"thousands of other park visitors"?

Which brings up the next point =96 someone said:

>Snowmobile noise is devastating to animal life near trails; at even
>"reduced" levels in the 80-90db range (for one machine), the sound drives
>already stressed animal life away from trails, making their foraging even
>more difficult.

Ooops =96 somehow you missed the fact that that particular myth has been
disproven. A single skier will create more stress for the wildlife than any
number of snowmobiles.  We went through this a couple days ago =96 or was t=
hat
on the other list?

Oh, yeah =96 there=92s also the concern about those few A$$#*(&$ who chase =
the
wildlife around, isn=92t there?  Go take a look at the =93new=94 regs =96 d=
on=92t you
think there was some consideration in there with regard to that concern?
Why do you think the =93licensed guide=94 provision is in there?

Then there=92s someone=92s statement that:

>The underlying National Park Act contains its Congressional statement
>of purpose in 16 U.S.Code Section 1, as "...to promote and regulate the us=
e
>of the...national parks...which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the
>natural and historic objects and the wild life therein
>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."  The key phrase is "by such means as will leave them
>unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations."

OK =96 so HOW do the snowmobiles violate that?  They do no damage to trails=
 -
in fact, most of the snowmobiles use the road system in Yellowstone to get
where they=92re going.  Those that go off-road do so on snow and do no dama=
ge
to the trail or the terrain.  Fact is that hikers do more damage because
even "on-trail" they require places to camp, trails to hike on and
facilities like bear cables and fire pits.  To say nothing of lug-soled
boots and (at least according to some people) hiking poles.

Or maybe we should talk about this one:

>National Parks exist to protect areas of great natural, historical or
>cultural value, not as some sort of federal Coney Islands. If public use
>damages whatever the park was created to protect, then that use needs to b=
e
>limited or curtailed, as appropriate.

Again - how much actual damage can you point out to me that=92s been done b=
y
snowmobiles?  I can show you a whole lot of =93hiker=94 damage =96 even in
Yellowstone.  So --- once more, which of them should be banned?

Hmmm =96 then there were these comments:
>Sharing is not the same as using up.
>Even if we are destroying that beauty in the process?
>So why should one group be allowed to damage that which belongs to us all?

Yup =96 now how about someone tells me exactly WHAT it is that the snowmobi=
les
are =93using up=94?  And what =93beauty=94 is being destroyed?  And which g=
roup is
being allowed to =93damage that which belongs to us all?=94

Then there=92s the comment:
>=93Is there no possibility of wise management?=94

So --- what would you consider =93wise management=94?  Is it wise to allow
hikers (who damage the trails and the environment, to say nothing of
requiring Park resources to support) to use the trails while barring use by
those who do no damage to the physical environment or wildlife of the Park?
I think =93wisdom=94 is NOT what you want.  Watch what you ask for =96 you =
might
get it.

Another one:

>Why? Are my wishes worthless?

No =96 but why do you believe your wishes are of more value than those of t=
he
thousands of snowmobilers who actually go to Yellowstone? DO YOU GO THERE I=
N
WINTER?  And if you do, why don=92t you go where the snowmobiles don=92t?

Ya gotta love this one:

>Snowmobiles damage my personal enjoyment of the Park.

They can do that only IF you actually go there and IF you go where they go
and IF YOU allow them to do so.  DO YOU GO THERE?  DO YOU GO WHERE THEY GO?
WHY?  There are two million acres of Park =96 why would you have to go wher=
e
they do?

If you =93don=92t=94 go to Yellowstone in the winter and claim that =93Snow=
mobiles
damage my personal enjoyment of the Park=94, then you=92re playing the
=93cell-phone-in-someone-else=92s-pack=94 game.  Whose problem would that b=
e?

And these:

>If they are just seeking a place to ride, why not any of the hundreds of
>miles of trails in the adjacent National Forests?

>I am not asking for snowmobiles to be outlawed, just that they be used in
>some areas and not others. Is there some reason every corner of federal
>land must be open for every use, however inappropriate?

This is the theme that snowmobiles have ALL THAT FEDERAL LAND OUTSIDE THE
PARK TO PLAY IN.  And the argument itself is either ignorance or simply
disingenuous =96 have you taken a look at a map lately?  Have you looked at
the number of Wilderness areas that exist in those areas suitable for
snowmobile use?  Let=92s just take Yellowstone for example =96 to the south=
 is
the Teton Wilderness, to the north is the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness.  T=
o
the west is the Grand Teton NP (which is of a piece with the Yellowstone
discussion).  Then there=92s the Wind River Range and all the other wildern=
ess
areas in Wyoming =96 and in Montana there=92s the Anaconda-Pintler and Bob
Marshall and ----- how many do you want me to list? Now =96 let me guess =
=96 the
people who are pushing to ban snowmobiles from Yellowstone are (in general)
the same people who pushed to get all those wilderness areas designated.  A=
m
I right?  And now the argument is =96 the snowmobiles can go use ALL THAT
OTHER FEDERAL LAND?  You mean maybe =93all that Federal land=94 that they=
=92re not
allowed to use because of the designated wilderness areas?  Really???

Once more unto the breech:

>I don=92t have that option. I cannot go elsewhere to experience the same
>scenery, the same sort of geothermal features.

Really?  You have the option of going before or after the snowmobile season=
.
  Or of going in the summer.  Or of deciding that the machines aren=92t goi=
ng
to screw up your time in that area.  That=92s a DECISION on your part =96 i=
t=92s
an ATTITUDE that you and you alone control.  It=92s NOT their option to
control your attitude =96 it=92s yours.  Do YOU control your mind =96 or do=
es
every other a$$#*(& in the world control it?

And another one:
>If they are after the same things I am, snowmobilers can access the park i=
n
>ways other than on their machines, just as I do.

Why do you believe they should be forced into doing things the same way you
do?  There=92s an arrogance =96 an egotism =96 an ultimate selfishness in t=
hat
attitude that I won=92t accept.

And more ----
>Some  uses  are  incompatible  with  other  uses.  ATV's on hiking trails
>are an obvious  example.  Snowmobiles  are  less  harmful,  but  they
>still are noisy, polluting  machines  that  do some damage to both trails
>and wildlife and lessen the enjoyment of some engaged in other uses.

I=92ll agree with the ATV statement, but except for the =93noisy, polluting=
=94
part, the snowmobile statement is a statement of personal emotional
prejudice that has no logical argument or facts to support it.  And both th=
e
noise and pollution are improving.  And will improve even further in the
future.


>As for banning automobiles also. I say go for it -- especially Skyline
>Drive in Shenandoah. :-)

Keep in mind that without the Skyline Drive there would be no AT by now.
Only the Federalization of that ridge allowed the continued, long-term
presence of the AT.  And the only viable reason for Federalizing that ridge
was the creation of the Park =96 AND the Drive.


>If the pollution problems can be solved, I can envision judicious
>construction of snowmobile routes away from hiking trails in some parts of
>some parks.

Cmon =96 let=92s not give away the farm here.  Some parts of =93what=94 par=
ks=94?
You=92re advocating banning snowmobiles from a Park that=92s eminently suit=
ed
for their use and then telling me that you=92re willing to allow use in
=93other=94 parks? I=92m having some real trouble swallowing that concept. =
It
sounds a lot like the =93deals=94 that were offered to the Indians =96 =93W=
e=92ll give
you the Indian Territory=94, followed some time later by =93We=92re gonna m=
ake
this the great State of Oklahoma, so you=92ll have to move again.=94


>But  ATVs  should  be  banned  --  or  delegated  to special areas
>purchased and developed just for them. It's hard to imagine a more
>environmentally destructive recreational device.

At last, something we can agree on =96 and something that=92s being attempt=
ed in
PA.  The problem being that, like the snowmobilers, the ATV=92s have more
people, more money, better organizations and more political clout.

What seemingly is being overlooked here is that if the snowmobiles are
banned from Yellowstone, then horses will follow =96 and then hikers.

Why not?  They ALL do =93damage=94 to the environment =96 and the snowmobil=
es do
less than either horses or hikers.  What makes anyone think that hikers are
so special that they'll be exempt?

This is a re-write of something that I=92ve kept handy for more years than =
I
care to remember =96 it applies to this =93discussion=94 -

>In the National Parks, they first banned the ATV=92s, and I didn't
>speak up because I wasn't an ATVer.  Then they banned the
>snowmobiles, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a snowmobiler.
>Then they banned the horses, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't
>a horse rider. Then they banned the bikes, and I didn't speak up
>because I wasn=92t a biker.  Then they banned the hikers, and by that
>time there was no one left to speak up.

The original will appear as a sig line =96

Bottom line is that I=92ve seen a whole lot of emotional, self-serving,
ignorant whining on this subject, but I have yet to see a single  LOGICAL
REASON for banning the snowmobiles.  Every argument that=92s been advanced
reduces to either =93because I want them banned=94 or just plain ignorance.=
  Or
some combination thereof.

Now - does ANYONE have a single LOGICAL REASON to ban snowmobiles from
Yellowstone?

Walk softly,
Jim

***********************************************************************
In Germany,   they first came for the  communists,  and I didn't
speak up because I wasn't a communist.  Then they came for the
Jews,  and I didn't speak up  because I wasn't a Jew.  Then they
came  for the  trade unionists,   and I didn't speak up  because I
wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I
didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.  Then they came for
me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up.

      --  Martin Niemoller,
           German pastor imprisoned
           for resisting the Nazis



_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=3Dfeatures/featuredemail