[at-l] Fwd: Snowmobiles - LONG

[rickboudrie@hotmail.com (rick boudrie)]

>The park service came up with a solution that meets everyones needs >to a
>certain extent and pisses everyone off to a certain extent.  I >would say a
>good compromise, asy Grey Owl.

Grey Owl, if this is true I have many words to eat.  I am prepared to do so
(its an aquired taste).

I believe this is not the case, however.  My understanding is that the NPS
was forced to conduct an environmental impact statement subsequent to a law
suit brought by an environment group.  This EIS considered recreational,
environmental, economic and other factors and was rather comprehesive.  As
part of the draft EIS, several courses of action were identified that
included doing nothing, or cutting back on snowmobile usage.  It also
considered actions regarding the snow cats, skiiers, winter lodging, and
many others.  The whole thing runs over 500 pages.

After a public comment period, the NPS review the sudies and identified the
"preferred alternative", which was not well recieved by the so-called
"snowmobile lobby".  Barring suscsessful legal remedies, the NPS preferred
alternativve would normally have become the management plan of the park.

But that did not happen, if I understand things correctly.  Basically, the
administration overruled the National Park Service plan.  The solution that
the Park Service came up with by way of the EIS process was rejected, and
that of the politicians put in place.

Rick B

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