[at-l] Fwd: Snowmobiles - LONG

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

"rick boudrie" wrote:
>If you are interested, you can find the NPS Environmental Impact Statement
>for Winter Recreaction In Yellowstone on-line.  You can find a link earlier
>in the thread.  Simplistic answers are, to coin a phrase "blowing smoke".

ROTFLMAO!!!

Y'know - in the last couple weeks I've been called (for the first time in 63
years) both illogical and simplistic.  I think it's hilarious - especially
considering the sources.

Points -
1. I asked a question - you didn't answer it.  Read the post before you
answer it with Pavlovian kneejerk politically correct responses.

2. If you want to go off into the EIS, I'll do that - on TA.  Go there if
that's what you want.  I've been to the EIS well - it's dry.

3. EIS - again.  Go look at what it REALLY says - it's filled to overflowing
with "hedge" words.  May, might, could, possibly -- ad nauseum.  That EIS
was written to satisfy a political directive from --- where?  who?   You
want EIS -- try the EIS for the Malpais section of the CDT in New Mexico.
The "preferred" CDT route (which has been designated in the CDT NM guidebook
as the "Official" route) takes you through 50 miles of roadwalk, followed by
40 miles of waterless lava beds, followed by another 50 miles of roadwalk.
What bullshit!!
Dont tell me about how an EIS is the ultimate document - it's a political
document that many time reflects the political wishes of those who order it.

4. The bottom line here is that both the EIS and the Record of Decision are
DEAD, DEAD, DEAD.  How did you miss that?  The EIS results went down the
crapper when 4-cycle engines were mandated.  And the crapper got flushed
with the application of entry limits for snowmobiles. Weary's "facts" re:
"pollution and noise" morphed on him.  And your insistence on using the EIS
as a prime sourced became last year's news.

5. Noise and pollution - you should read your own sources.  The 4-cycle
snowmobiles have emission ratings that would allow them to pass the Maryland
State Emissions inspection.  They might not meet California standards, but I
don't think that's necessary anyway.  THey're a littl ehigher than most
cars, but the addition of a catalytic converter would take care of that
nicely. And the noise is also a totally different ballgame - 4-cycle engines
will drop the noise level by soemthing like 30 db.  And the noise will be at
a different frequency - like - half the frequency of the 2-cycle engines.

6. Stop arguing with me about a situation that no longer exists. Yeah - some
of the 2-cycle engines will still be out there this year - but this is the
last year.  And a lot of the snowmobiles that will be out there this year
will be 4-cycles.  How do I know?  Well, if you were paying attention, you'd
know that I was in West Yellowstone 2 months ago and saw at least 100 of the
new models still stacked on pallets waiting to be serviced.

>>or conversely - if snowmobiles are banned, why shouldn't
>>hikers be banned as well?
>
>I am sad to see you think like this, Jim.   What it comes down to is a
>judgement call.  In this case, the judgement of the NPS was trumped by the
>judgement of the politicians.

No - what it comes down to is that you're whining because an alternate
solution was found - and someone took your lollipop away.  Now - how did you
miss the fact that your lollipop equated to taking something  away from a
lot of other people - including the destruction of the economies of several
towns in Wyoming, Montana and Idaho?

Don't give me the "poor, ignorant, simplistic Jim" crap - I've asked
questions - where are the answers?  They're hard questions, Rick - not
simplistic.  And they have a lot more relevance to the hiking community than
you seem to understand.  And until you answer them, you CAN'T answer the
questions you're asking.



>What's interesting to the large picture is how good people (like Jim) can
>become convinced that thier position is ethical, and rightious.  I
>understand where he is coming from, even if he arrives at a bad conclusion.
>  Pick any "anti-environmental" position and its supporters will find some
>heart-felt ethical justification.
>
>We should be asking ourselves two questions:  What kind of parks do we
>want?  and Who do we want making the tough decisions?  They are questions
>for all Americans, be they active outdoorsmen or vacationers in a
>particular park, or shut ins.
>
>The answers to these questions come down to judgement and values.  When I
>see good people with good organizations (the AMC) build a $5 million dollar
>facility in Crawford Notch, I don't question thier motivation.  But I do
>question thier judgement.  But you know what?  They would make a compelling
>case in a format like this.
>
>But a good argument is not substitute for a good vision.  The NPS is
>developing that vision.  Jim, in your state, didn't (or aren't) they
>tearing down the observation tower at Gettysburg?
>
>Some things should be obvious.  We don't want a hotdog cart in front of the
>Vietnam Memorial Wall, for example.  It would be foolish to suggest that
>because people are there, why not a food cart.  We would see that
>immediately.  Other comparisons require more introspection, like the
>appopriateness of snowmobiles at Yekllowstone.
>
>Its not an easy question.  And becasue it not easy, I wish the politicians
>had left it in the hands of those with real vision regarding our Parks.


Really?? What makes you think the Park people have that kind of vision?  I
don't work for the Park Service, but I've worked for bureaucracies for the
last 40 years - and the Park Service is one of the worst of the lot.

But all that aside - you DIDN'T get your druthers.  So LEARN what the ACTUAL
effects are and go from there. And stop bitching about a past that's dead
and gone.

Jim


_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail