While I don't think the timing of the decision is AT ALL appropriate for the local communities who already had stuff planned for this winter. I cant help but say YES , nice to see at least someone saw thru all the bullshit, saw that it was completely a politically/Agenda motivated decision to overturn the original phase out, and toss out years of research, comments, and planning to the whim of paying off a certain constituency. No playing favorites is fine by me.
Flame away.
[URL=http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?id=1&tts=1&display=rednews/2003/12/17/build/wyoming/20 -yellowstonesnowmobiles.inc]Billings Gazette article[/URL] NY times article
posted
Don't know why the Billings Gazette URL wont work.
quote:Originally posted by Klaus: Seems like more Judicial activism to me.
Hypocrit.
How is it any less "activism" than Bush's reversal in the first place???
I don't want to get into it again but I'd like to hear the answer to that.
I know, details, details. They don't matter
The intial public process did consider the improvemnts in technology, and the possible increased use of 4-stroke technology. The EIS in the original process, HAD to consider alternative that included snowmachining in Yellowstone. This wasn't some whimsical decision originally made by the Park Service, it followed the same process that MANY MANY decisions on Fed/State levels follow. With out the process what is it???
Its what Bush did. He made a Arbitrary & Capricious decision based on HIS agenda. And that was what this judge saw. NO EVIDENCE to support overturning a legal, precidented, process for making decisions about public resources.
Flame away
Posts: 2469 | From: Anchorage, AK | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I will admit to not knowing the specific history of the ban. I just remember Clinton the president at the time putting it in place. No republican tried to find a judge to reverse it. Now that Bush the president reversed the ban - a Judge not the president reversed the reversal.......
I don't think the new rules are that bad actually. The Bush proposal wasn't either. I just see it as a foot in the door to banning snowmobiles/dirtbikes/atvs on more land is all - don't want it to get out of control.
Posts: 5484 | From: St. Paul, Mn | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Ahh, yes, the McPaper.... Finest journalism written at a 4th grade level....
I actually don't like USA Today but it's the only place I could find an article due to the fact your links were broken. You understand there is a "Preview Post" button don't you??? Posts: 5484 | From: St. Paul, Mn | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jomammy, If by referring to "his agenda" you are referring to making decisions based on what the overwhelming majority of the public want, I agree. Every public pole that I saw showed that the majority of the public wanted to keep Yellowstone open to snowmobiling.
Right in your last post you say that the decision making process originally included the possible increase in 4-stroke use. News flash, since then there have been some great gains in both 4-stroke smowmobiles and direct injection 2-stroke. And Bush's plan including using them. I believe Bush made his decision based on these two facts: 1. The public wants reasonable access to the park in the winter. 2. New gains in snowmobile technology have made it highly likely that the impact to nature will be less than before.
I love this shit!!!
Posts: 486 | From: Eagan, MN | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged |
I think your a bit confused about Clintons role in this. This was a Clinton Administration decision. But it seems to get protrayed that Clinton just issued a executive order. Not the case. This was a long Planning process covering many different aspects of the park. The Snowmachine issue just got all the press. All parks have "Plans", many are dated now, and many are being redone in the last few years. This was particularly a "Winter Use Plan" In order to comply with NEPA they have to do a Enviro Assessment (EA) or a Enviro Impact Statement (EIS - more involved than a EA)... I think they did a EIS. In a EIS they have to consider ALL OPTIONS, including unregulated snowmachine use, regulated snowmachine use, and no snowmachine use, and may have had various combinations of guided use as well. Thats how this process works, on a very VERY detailed level. Its likely the Park Managers, or the District Chief, made a decision based on what ALL the evidence supported (you could certainly argue of some biase at this level, but this person also works more on that local level, and will have to face the public on a daily bases regarding their decision). This would then have to be approved up the chain to the prez, but its rare (until our new admin) that the higher ups would change the decision made by those on the ground at the park, who worked on the Plan.
Given a National Parks unique nature, mission, etc. This will not (and likely CAN not) be used as precidence to keeping people off of other Fed land (which I think is one of your concerns). I for one think the "Parks" should be more restrictive in allowed activities. Even adding all the Parks together with true designated "Wilderness" is a drop in the bucket compared to the remaining Federal Land out there open to public recreation. The Park service has the least land of Fed Agencies. BLM the most, then the Forest Service. All with diff missions.
I will be right there with you when there are serious concerns about Access. Hell man, the deptartment I work(ed) in was called "Access". I have no problem maintaining access for all sorts of recreation. And I for one think ALL the outdoor recreationist, need to be more unifying than devisive, because we'll ALL lose out too Development if we're not unified in maintaining the integrety of our public lands.
posted
I know there is preview. The times link works, don't get why the other doesn't.
quote:Originally posted by Mikey: Jomammy, If by referring to "his agenda" you are referring to making decisions based on what the overwhelming majority of the public want, I agree. Every public pole that I saw showed that the majority of the public wanted to keep Yellowstone open to snowmobiling.
Right in your last post you say that the decision making process originally included the possible increase in 4-stroke use. News flash, since then there have been some great gains in both 4-stroke smowmobiles and direct injection 2-stroke. And Bush's plan including using them. I believe Bush made his decision based on these two facts: 1. The public wants reasonable access to the park in the winter. 2. New gains in snowmobile technology have made it highly likely that the impact to nature will be less than before.
I love this shit!!!
Public pole???? since when are those not soooo scewed?? Of course when you ask your snowmachine constituents you'll get that answer. I'll remember this the next time some pole show's how the "majority" of the U.S. thinks bush is a idiot.
The Planning process undertook by the park service for winter recreation allowed for all types of public input. Thats the whole point. They put out the alternatives. The public comments. They revamp the alternatives based on the comments, then put it before the public AGAIN.... Thats the whole point, a transparent process, with checks & balances to get all the info considered. This Plan, recieved MORE public comment than any Federal or State planning process EVER, for ANYTHING. And it did NOT indicate that the "majority" supported unrestricte motorized winter access.
Although your "pole" from the Blue Ribbon Coalition might indicate differnt. I'll defer to my problem with anyone with a Agenda. They push their agenda, despite the facts.
Bush had no "Plan". They had absolutely nothing substantial in writing supporting the overturning of a PUBLIC PROCESS. They had a agenda, based on the whims of a certain constituency. The Planning process took years, and considered VOLUMES of information. And Bush & his cronies just say, "awww shucks.. those them there are just Details.... you just don't seeit do ya? what we need, is MORE snowmachines there.. ya? that's the anwser.." and overturn years of work, taxpayers dollars, and federal resourcs based on his "Agenda" Posts: 2469 | From: Anchorage, AK | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mikey: 2. New gains in snowmobile technology have made it highly likely that the impact to nature will be less than before.
One more point. Although the concern over emissions was beat to death in the press, and it then became "the" issue. It was not "the" issue in the Planning process. The amount of research supporting that machines & the winter energetics budgets of large mammals just don't mix is overwhelming.
Upon furthur thought too, the idea that this will somehow cripple the local economies is somewhat bogus. The die hard riders will still go. There's more & better terrain outside the park, and your not restricted to "roads" and speed limits as was the law inside the Park.
Posts: 2469 | From: Anchorage, AK | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Looks like nothing is working for the Shrubberies agenda today. I wrote of the reclassification of wetlands (in the locked thread ) , and the HUGH unified outcry it brought out (from groups that are rarely unified). Seems the EPA may take issue with "top-down" directive, based managment of our resource that Bush believe's will be such a boon to our countries natural resources.
posted
I think you actually respond to your own posts more then I do in the XM thread Posts: 5484 | From: St. Paul, Mn | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
FYI: Motor vehicles have not been in Yosemitie Nat. Park for a few years now, and Zion just stopped personal vehicles inside as well. Congestion & smog were the primary justification. So blocking vehicles is not without precidence. I think they should of done this in Yellowstone instead of just targeting the snowmachines at least just to make it seem "fair". (congestion is a serious prob in Yellowstone in the summer, I don't think its as prone to the smog that the other two Nat. Parks are).
posted
Your link dosen't work, but I found the story.
I liked some of the new purposals I keep hearing about - like 80% of snowmobilers must have a guide and the new limits to how many people per day etc. Seems more reasonable then the all out ban but that's just my opinion.
Posts: 5484 | From: St. Paul, Mn | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
House votes for snowmobiles in Yellowstone, Grand Tetons WASHINGTON (AP) The House voted Thursday to let snowmobiles continue using Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks, as the recreation industry dealt a defeat to environmentalists. By 224-198, the chamber beat back an effort to ban the vehicles by lawmakers who said the machines cause pollution and noise, and pose a danger to the parks' wildlife.
"Yellowstone National Park is a unique environment, a precious national treasure that deserves an extra level of protection," said Rep. Rush Holt, D-N.J., one of the sponsors.
Snowmobile advocates backed by snowmobile manufacturers and tourism interests said a ban would devastate the local economy around the parks, which lie mostly in northwestern Wyoming. They also said that despite their opponents' assertions, new snowmobiles are cleaner and quieter than older models.
"They come in and say, 'We're going to cut you in half. We're taking half your income away,'" Rep. Dennis Rehberg, R-Mont., said of those supporting the ban. "Our communities can't withstand that."
The snowmobiling issue has mushroomed into a legal dispute that federal courts have yet to untangle. Because the two parks are among the country's most renowned, the battle has also became an election-year symbol of a conflict frequently joined in Congress between environmental and economic interests.
The fight came as the House worked its way through a $19.5 billion measure financing the Interior Department and other land and cultural programs for next year. The overall bill, which passed by 334-86, would provide less than President Bush proposed for clean energy projects and adding land to parks, but more than he wanted for fighting wild fires that have already flared in the West.
In other battles,
Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., lost a bid to prohibit the National Park Service from killing any bison from Yellowstone's herd by a 215-202 vote. Some animals from that herd, which numbers about 3,700, are killed each winter after leaving the park either to prevent the spread of disease or because they could not be coaxed back inside.
The House rejected, 267-152, a proposal by Rep. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., to force the government to sell some oil from its strategic petroleum reserve in an effort to drive down spiking gasoline prices.
Last year, the House rejected a proposed snowmobile ban in the two parks by 210-210, just shy of the majority those seeking to bar the vehicles needed.
In 2000, President Clinton imposed a plan to phase out snowmobiles in Yellowstone and Grand Teton and the John D. Rockefeller Jr. Memorial Parkway that connects them. The vehicles were to be barred completely by this coming winter and replaced by snow coaches that could carry groups of people into the parks.
Last year, the Bush administration decided to replace the Clinton plan with rules allowing snowmobiling, though with vehicles that are supposed to have quieter and cleaner engines.
Instead of adhering to a daily limit of 493 snowmobiles in Yellowstone that the Clinton plan would have imposed for this past winter, the National Park Service allowed 780 per day.
The Senate has yet to craft its Interior Department bill.
With many lawmakers trying to bar snowmobiles in the parks from the East, Thursday's debate took on regional tones.
"Many of the radical environmentalists pushing for this ban would like to put all of the West into a national park," said Rep. Barbara Cubin, R-Wyo.
And Rep. James Oberstar, D-Minn., said that during bitter stretches of winter, "Without the snowmobile and stretch pants, we don't have a life" in parts of the West.
Rep. Sam Farr, D-Calif., compared snowmobiles in parks to running chain saws in the House during debate, saying, "If there's something that's not natural in a national park, it's snowmobiles."
Posts: 5484 | From: St. Paul, Mn | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
...as the recreation industry dealt a defeat to environmentalists. (hahaha) ---- They also said that despite their opponents' assertions, new snowmobiles are cleaner and quieter than older models. (I'm guessing that 95% of the environmentalists just ignored that point) ---- "They come in and say, 'We're going to cut you in half. We're taking half your income away,'" Rep. Dennis Rehberg, R-Mont., said of those supporting the ban. "Our communities can't withstand that." (Well screw the people, we care about the environment!) ---- In other battles,
The House rejected, 267-152, a proposal by Rep. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., to force the government to sell some oil from its strategic petroleum reserve in an effort to drive down spiking gasoline prices. (Nice try Bernard, but you got SMOKED!) ---- The vehicles were to be barred completely by this coming winter and replaced by snow coaches that could carry groups of people into the parks. (Yeah, I was going to buy a nice fast snowmobile, but I guess I'll just take a ride on a SNOW COACH instead...what fun!) ---- Last year, the Bush administration decided to replace the Clinton plan with rules allowing snowmobiling, though with vehicles that are supposed to have quieter and cleaner engines. (Liberals hear: "Bush replaced the Clinton plan to allow snowmobiling!") ---- "Many of the radical environmentalists pushing for this ban would like to put all of the West into a national park," (hahaha!) ---- And Rep. James Oberstar, D-Minn., said that during bitter stretches of winter, "Without the snowmobile and stretch pants, we don't have a life" in parts of the West. (Thanks Obserstar, way to make MN look like a bunch of hicks) ---- Rep. Sam Farr, D-Calif., compared snowmobiles in parks to running chain saws in the House during debate, saying, "If there's something that's not natural in a national park, it's snowmobiles." (What kind of dumb ass fucking statement is this? You want to go that route? Okay, HUMAN BEINGS are ruining that park just by their mere presence. They are "unnatural"... Silly environmentailists...)
CHEYENNE, Wyo. A federal judge on Friday struck down a ban on snowmobiles (search) in Yellowstone (search) and Grand Teton (search) national parks, calling it a "prejudged, political" move that sought to exclude the vehicles from all national parks.
U.S. District Judge Clarence Brimmer ruled that the Clinton-era ban was invalid because it did not involve adequate public participation and failed to follow federal law. His decision could clear the way for new rules that allow the machines.
The rule was "the product of a prejudged, political decision to ban snowmobilesset to take effect last winter, was set aside in early 2003 by the park service to settle a lawsuit filed by snowmobile makers. Under the agreement, new rules were drafted to allow a limited number of snowmobiles inside the parks.
Attorneys for snowmobile manufacturers, winter resorts and other tourism-related ventures asked a federal judge last month to permanently lift the ban so businesses could have peace of mind about their survival.
Posts: 559 | From: Blaine, MN | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[demon]](graemlins/demon.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[fight]](graemlins/fight.gif)
![[lol]](graemlins/lol.gif)
![[beer]](graemlins/beer.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[crazy]](graemlins/crazy.gif)
