Poodle started a thread...........

[CHACHI]

.........a while ago about Maine capping horsepower at 500. Carl C started a thread about running on a small lake with open exhaust and getting a letter from a neighbor about the noise and a whole buch of dialouge was exchanged about Big Brother and your rights and are we "under attack".
You could be a motorcycle owner and live in Denver.

Ken

[zelatore]

Unfortunately, we all know that any non main-stream activity is easily attacked by the pubic. While there are many bikers in the US, we often can barely get along with ourselves (sport bikers vs Harley riders vs dual-sporters, etc) much less put up a cohesive front against the much larger population who can't tell a "ninja" (any bike with a fairing) from a "harley" (any bike without a fairing) who think all bikes are death traps and everybody who rides them is a crazy scofflaw who ‘had it coming’. I always like to point out to these people that I get better mileage on my Triumph at 80 mph than any hybrid does at a snail's pace; I cost less to purchase; use fewer resources to build and operate; cause less damage to the environment and highway infrastructure; and cause less traffic congestion. All things that help them specifically and the population as a whole. The general public's response to all this goodness? 'well, you'd never get me on one of those things! They're dangerous!'

After all, haven't we all seen examples of a biker getting drilled in traffic by some inattentive moron in a cage who, when questioned by the cops, only has to say 'I didn't see him' to get off scott free?

Boating, performance boating in particular, suffers from the same perception problem. Basically, performance boats and ski boats are seen as loud and/or dangerous, while "yachts" (anything over about 30') are all owned by rich assholes who deserve any punishment they get. At least in the general public's eye. And I while that same public doesn't seem as against boating as they do motorcycles, it's harder to defend the boat.

But I'm not bitter or anything...

[zelatore]

BTW, who's this "pool-del" guy anyway? Last weekend I walked past the pool at the Del (Coronado) and didn't see anybody swimming...

(sorry, couldn't resist)

[mike o]

Its being pushed through the legislature. I dont know the details, its in the papers once in awhile. Somebody else might have more info, but the water 5-0 had a couple of boats with radar guns last summer .. JUST.. collecting data for a hearing...........

[zelatore]

Oh, but that will never happen out here...

famous last words.

Actually, the delta here in NorCal has been pretty good. No noise or speed problems. Yet.

[gcarter]

This was an artical I sent to Minxguy, please note that most of the congresional backers were from the East.....not the West;


Monday, October 29, 2007 - Page updated at 07:20 PM

Get rid of Yellowstone snowmobiles, say 86 in Congress

By MATTHEW BROWN
The Associated Press

BILLINGS, Mont. — Eighty-six members of Congress are asking the National Park Service to phase out snowmobiles in Yellowstone National Park. They contend the agency is ignoring the increased noise and air pollution that would result from a plan to allow up to 540 of the machines daily.

The congressional opposition, voiced in a letter sent Monday to Park Service Director Mary Bomar, comes as Yellowstone is set to finalize its snowmobiles rules in the next three weeks.

More than a decade in the making, the park's snowmobile policy has engendered a nationwide debate pitting public access advocates against conservationists who say Yellowstone should be closed to unguided motorized use during winter months.

The members of Congress — none of them from the Yellowstone area — told Bomar that snowmobiles should be replaced by a smaller number of guided snowcoaches. Those are essentially busses on skis.

Allowing snowmobiles, they wrote, would provide "inferior protection" of the park and show a "disregard" for the Park Service's conservation mission.

"The agency's studies have repeatedly demonstrated that the best way to protect the health and safety of Yellowstone's visitors, staff, wildlife and natural resources ... is to phase out snowmobile use entirely and increase public access by modern, multi-passenger, guide-driven snowcoaches," they wrote.

Park officials contend their plan for up to 540 snowmobiles a day fairly balances competing needs: conservation and visitor access.

Yellowstone had as many as 1,400 snowmobiles daily during the 1990s, when louder, more polluting two-stroke engines were the norm. After animal rights and environmental groups filed a lawsuit in 1997, claiming in part that snowmobiles were harming wildlife, the park in 2000 attempted to prohibit snowmobiles outright. That move that was later blocked in the courts by a snowmobile manufacturers group.

Park officials said today's cleaner and quieter four-stroke engines make the issue less pressing, although they have acknowledged that phasing out snowmobiles entirely would result in the most pollution reduction.

"We've had good success in reducing impacts from historical levels," said park spokesman Al Nash. "Our job is to protect this wonderful place, and provide protection and high quality visitor experience."

The park's recommended plan, he added, "is in line and in accord with Park Service management policies."

Over the past two years, Yellowstone considered but rejected a plan to allow 120 snowcoaches daily and no snowmobiles.

The proposed 540 snowmobile cap is lower than a temporary cap of 720 snowmobiles that was in place for the past several winters. Actual use has been even less, averaging about 290 snowmobiles per day last year, according to figures provided by Yellowstone.

A final decision on the park's snowmobile plan will be made by National Park Service Regional Director Mike Snyder by Nov. 19. Much of the plan would not go into effect until the winter of 2008-2009.

A call to Snyder seeking comment was not immediately returned.

A spokesman for New Jersey Rep. Rush Holt, a Democrat and the leader of the group that signed Monday's letter, declined to comment on whether Congress might seek to eliminate snowmobiles through legislation if Snyder approves the proposed plan.

The letter was signed by members of Congress from 26 states, although almost half came from just five states: Florida, California, New York, New Jersey and Illinois.

None were from the three states where Yellowstone is located — Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. Seven of the 86 were Republicans, and the rest were Democrats.

Copyright © 2007 The Seattle Times Company

[Donziweasel]

The whole Yellowstone snowmobile controversy is even more extensive than that. I have a vested interest in George's article as I live 55 miles from there and was a snowmobile guide there in 1994-95 as well. First, when this all happened 5 or six years ago, they called for an environmental impact study of Yellowstone. The superitendant at the time and the environmentalist submitted the study. They wanted all sleds outlawed. It was found to be completely bogus and falsified saying snowmobiles were having a far worse impact than they were. The super ended up resigning over the fiasco and a new study was done. The tree huggers lobbied hard and had the following restrctions put in place-

all sleds must be four stroke and clean tech
you can only go with a guide and liscenced company

The first two years were a disaster. Most of the sleds made it 100 miles before breaking down. The park was littered with broken sleds and companies struggle just to get them out much less fix them. I know many owners of these companies and it was tough. Now, the sleds run pretty well, but are heavy and still seem to have more problems than the 2 strokes. In the end, the snowmobiles are quiet and clean and don't affect the air quality of the park. In reality, the park puts out far more CO2 than the sleds naturally through geothermal features. Most of the whole thing is a fight about nothing except the environemtalist cause.

One of the things that irritates me about all of this and the groups like the Greater Yellowstone Coalition and Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance is that they manage to convince people from all over the country who have never even been to this area to support and give money to thier cause. The groups don't go on scientific data and much of their requests are unreasonable. They truely want Yellowstone closed year round to access for the wildlife. It is ridiculous. These people give because the groups yell loud and no one is out there in this day and age contradicting them. It seems that people think it is morally a crime to go against an environmental group.

Sorry, just venting, but it is frustrating to live here and watch policies made that can actually be detrimental to the pristineness and wildlife in this area because some crazy hippie thinks it should be that way. Not all are bad and I support some Conservation groups ( I am a conservationist more than an environmentalist) like Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and Trout Unlimited. Better philosophy with these groups- let's manage our natural resources without damaging them, but still have access to them, instead of- lets preserve our natural resouces by not letting anyone near them. What is the reason of preserving them if we can't enjoy them?