Snowmobiles again restricted in Yellowstone

[Oak]

Hangar 18, I saw you in here looking for this topic.

Judge Voids New Rule Allowing Snowmobiles in Yellowstone

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The ruling bristled with sharp characterizations of the Bush administration's actions.

"The gap between the decision made in 2001, and the decision made in 2003 is stark," Judge Sullivan wrote. "In 2001, the rule-making process culminated in a finding that snowmobiling so adversely impacted the wildlife and resources of the parks that all snowmobile use must be halted."

Judge Sullivan continued, "A scant three years later, the rule-making process culminated in the conclusion that nearly 1,000 snowmobiles will be allowed to enter the park each day."

The ruling included a footnote saying that "there is evidence in the record that there isn't an explanation for this change," and that the revised environmental impact statement "was completely politically driven and result oriented."

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Full story here


A good editorial on the subject

Oak

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 12-17-2003 14:00: Message edited by: Colorado Oak ]</font>

 

[BuzzH]

Tough issue here...IMO

For starters, from the editorial:

"Repeated studies have shown that recreational snowmobiling in Yellowstone violates every purpose for which the park was preserved."

Uhhh, I dont think so.

According to the law in regard to the "purpose of the Parks" its to:

"set apart for the USE, OBSERVATION, HEALTH, and PLEASURE of the people" In fact, the first director of the Park Service, Stephen Mather recognized the need to "encourage tourism in National Parks, with the use of hotels, roads, and concessions." Funny, the person in the editorial wasnt gripping about all that stuff, which in now in every National Park...HMMMM????

Thats why I have some problem with a total shut-down of snowmobiles in YNP.

I watched as the Park Service promoted Yellowstone as a "winter get-away" for years when I was growing up in Montana. The Park loved it! Year round tourism, big dollars for the entrance cities, big dollars in entrance FEES, etc.

Now it seems its not alright to ride a snowmobile through Yellowstone and surrounding communities that have banked on that tourism, will be faced with problems. Yeah, Yeah, I know, thats business. It is, but its business the PARK SERVICE promoted with a vengeance for years.

Rather than an all-out ban, I'd like to see a set limit of snowmobiles a day. Maybe even having certain days that are open for snowmobiles and some days that arent. And, during the most crucial times of the year for wildlife, no snowmobiles at all.

Oh, and by the way, I dont snowmobile...

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 12-17-2003 15:35: Message edited by: BuzzH ]</font>

 

[JoseCuervo]

Buzz,

I think the "Health" was one of the major concerns. The parkworkers were wearing gasmasks, at least during photo ops.

Is what I think is funny, is that the Blue Ribbers sold the private snowmobilers down the river. The Blue Ribbers (ie.. Manufactuers) chose not to take the Emissions seriously, and ended up getting all private parties banned from the Park. That bastion of "Freedom to Ride" cost Joe Six-Pack the chance to ride into the Park.

Could you imagine if Remington and Ruger supported actions that would require all hunting to be done with a guide/Outfitter?

Once again, the Judicial system provides common sense, where the Bush administration tries to cater to Industry over Natural Resources.

That is why we have "Checks and Balances".

 

[Oak]

I agree that the editorial goes a little overboard (as most editorials do), however...

You're right that the Parks were established in part for the enjoyment of the people, but there's a caveat. The full statement from the National Park Service Act says:

"The service thus established shall promote and regulate the use of the Federal areas known as national parks, monuments, and reservations hereinafter specified by such means and measures as conform to the fundamental purpose of said parks, monuments and reservations, which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such a manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations."

To me, that means that we should put the welfare of the parks ABOVE the enjoyment of the people. That's why parks are parks instead of national forests. I agree wholeheartedly that the park service has not exactly followed these guidelines in the past. I guess it's a matter of where do we draw the line? Are roads in the parks too much? I don't think so. Are hotels and restaurants in the parks too much? I personally say yes, but I'm sure the majority don't think so. There are a lot of special interest groups whose activities are banned in parks (hunters! and I know that Grand Teton is the exception). Why not snowmobiles?

I agree that a total ban may be going too far. I like Buzz's idea of perhaps allowing snow machines on certain days of the week. How much has the snowmobiling crowd been willing to give up in overall numbers of machines?

The part that stinks about this deal is what Buzz mentioned. The economies have been built up around these towns by promoting the park service did in the past. If you think about it, though, how much different is that from towns that were built up around a logging industry that was supported by the government?

I don't own snowmobiles, but I've been with friends and think it's a real kick in the ass. I even considered going up with those same friends when they made a Yellowstone trip a few years ago. I still don't think it's too much to ask to put the health of the park and it's wildlife ahead of the rural economies in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming.

Oak

 

[Bambistew]

I grew up in the "back door" of West Yellowstone. I have been in the park lots of times on snowmobiles, and in the summer.

I don't know the exact number but its something like 3-5000 sleds enter the park on a given weekend and about 1000 a day during the week. (those number may have only been from the west entrance, I am pulling this from memory) Now if you compare that to the number of cars in the summer its quite a bit less. Why is the impact more sever in the winter with sleds as compared to all the cars in the summer? Sure the pollution is higher now but the new 4 stroke sleds put out just as much pollution as a car... and are much quiter than their counter parts.

Most all the animals have migrated out of the park, except for a few elk and the buffs, which are more than capable of handling the deep snow anyway.

I don't think the manufactures are pushing them to hard because they don't sell well, who would want to spend the same amount on a sled that has half the horse power?

The people that ride around in the winter don't get to far off the road and walk anyway, the snow's to deep. Now the idiots in the summer that are running through the woods leaping over dead fall trying to get the perfect photo of a cow and calf are far more damageing to the animals than the few that stop to look at the buffs that are standing along the road in the winter.

I just think they are pushing this issue to far. If they would allow only 4 strokes with catalytic (sp) converters in and then allow only a few two strokes in, (maybe in a lottery) I wound't see why it would be such a problem.

 

[Ten Bears]

I'd like to see some support from EG on his claims & accusations about manufacturers.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> How much has the snowmobiling crowd been willing to give up in overall numbers of machines?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Why does it have to be numbers of machines??? Why not types? Remember al the information posted prior about the reduced emissions machines? How many cars, trucks, and busses enter the park during the summer? What is their impact?

 

[1_pointer]

I know how to solve the issue, just follow Edward Abbey's advice. All pernonal vehichles are parked at the intrance and the park is only accessed via tour bus, horses, bicycles, or shank's pony. Not only would the resource be better protected, but everyone would have a much richer experience.

 

[Hangar18]

OAK - Thanks for the thought.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BuzzH:
-snip-

Rather than an all-out ban, I'd like to see a set limit of snowmobiles a day. Maybe even having certain days that are open for snowmobiles and some days that arent. And, during the most crucial times of the year for wildlife, no snowmobiles at all.

-snip-<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Colorado Oak:
-snip-

I agree that a total ban may be going too far. I like Buzz's idea of perhaps allowing snow machines on certain days of the week. How much has the snowmobiling crowd been willing to give up in overall numbers of machines?

The part that stinks about this deal is what Buzz mentioned. The economies have been built up around these towns by promoting the park service did in the past. If you think about it, though, how much different is that from towns that were built up around a logging industry that was supported by the government?

-snip-<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BUZZ & OAK - Your solutions are composed of too much common sense. From one snowmobiler to two non-snowmobilers, I agree with you as far as access is concerned. Something else to consider, what will happen to all those that invested in rental sleds in preparation for the Bush plan? Poof.

One point I want to make, and I am leaving ATVs out of this discussion - Where shared-use (motorized and non-motorized) exists and is then challenged by the non-motorized group, any shared-use area that is designated as non-motorized is NOT a compromise. It is a CONCESSION. And which group is effected by these CONCESSIONS? Have you ever heard of a group of snowmobilers asking for a motorized-only designation on public lands? NO.

Let's see them try to turn this and other parks into wilderness areas. Maybe people will realize this ban is discriminatory in nature when they are suddenly told they cannot enter the park in their SUVs. No emissions from anything. Let's rip up all the pavement and tear down all the buildings. That is the best way to protect the park, right? And since we are protecting the park, let's make sure the animals aren't disturbed either. Hiking, backpacking and x-country skiing are also banned because national park service data says humans on foot disturb wildlife.

Last July, legislation to ban snowmobiles from the park was defeated in a 210-210 tie. Therefore, judge Emmet Sullivan is legislating from the bench. Now, take all of your opinions out of different situations, and look at this idea unto itself. This makes me nervous.

The State of Wyoming and the National Park Service are expected to join the appeal of this ruling.


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ElkGunner:
-snip-

Is what I think is funny, is that the Blue Ribbers sold the private snowmobilers down the river. The Blue Ribbers (ie.. Manufactuers) chose not to take the Emissions seriously, and ended up getting all private parties banned from the Park. That bastion of "Freedom to Ride" cost Joe Six-Pack the chance to ride into the Park.

-snip-<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have already proven this uneducated statement to be BS. I think you forgot or chose not to listen to something that was contrary to your views. "Best Available Technology" ring a bell? "Arctic Cat and Polaris sleds pass standards" ring a bell? Go back and read the threads analyzing the LA Times articles. That is what you tell people to do, so try it yourself. Then read the judgement, and you will see that this is a matter of one executive decision being chosen over another that was supported by legislation. A legislative tie is still support so don't try to spin that. The original (Clinton) decision was based on spurious emissions data (355% overestimate, documented) submitted by extremist environmental groups (Blue Water Network, The Fund For Animals) The Bush administration plan held manufacturers to a standard set by the park. And it was cut and dry and fair, prepared in part by the park service itself. The park service set standards much tougher than the EPA, and they were being met.


Flame away...

 

[JoseCuervo]

Ten,

Learn how to read, and you can find all the support. We already debated this topic, and decided the manufacturers did not take the standards seriously. Go back and read.

And for some reason, the judge didn't think the Mfg's efforts were sincere. Hangar, instead of proving to us, you should have filed a friend of the court brief, and explained all this to the judge.

But you do raise a good issue....

What is the standard needed for one President to overturn a previous Executive Order? Is it just a signature, or more? Why doesn't Bush overturn the Monuments that Clinton did at the 11th hour?

 

[Oak]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Where shared-use (motorized and non-motorized) exists and is then challenged by the non-motorized group, any shared-use area that is designated as non-motorized is NOT a compromise. It is a CONCESSION. And which group is effected by these CONCESSIONS? Have you ever heard of a group of snowmobilers asking for a motorized-only designation on public lands? NO.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I can see your point Hangar, but the issue has to do with the pollution and disturbance to wildlife caused by the machines. I think your argument would be more valid if the non-motorized group was just saying that they didn't like sharing the park with machines.

My heart's not really in this issue, I just posted it for the info. I do however believe that there needs to be some kind of control on the machines, because I know they aren't going to police themselves. If nothing is regulated, the sledders aren't going to voluntarily limit their numbers, pollution output, speed, etc, etc, etc...

Oak

 

[BuzzH]

Good points are being brought up by all.

Oak, you are correct, the health of the park is still (kind of) more important than making tourists happy. Good call, its funny how only the "few" people that read and understand the laws/acts bring up the relivant points.

I also agree that my heart isnt really into park issues that much. The whole "park" scene is such an unnatural situation from all angles, that its about like being concerned with the various zoos across the country. I guess parks are good for the asphalt crowd, but its kind of sad that their view of "the wilderness" is a summer vacation to YNP, etc.

Let the snowmobile crowd fight this one.

 

[Hangar18]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ElkGunner:
Ten,

Learn how to read, and you can find all the support. We already debated this topic, and decided the manufacturers did not take the standards seriously. Go back and read.

And for some reason, the judge didn't think the Mfg's efforts were sincere.

-snip-
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your statement directed at Ten Bears is completely false. Read the LA Times threads and you will see that you concluded, actually speculated this despite evidence to the contrary. Take your own advice. Until YOU read, I am done arguing.

You also need to read the decision, and note it had nothing to do with the manufacturers intentions. He (judge Sullivan) simply ignored the PROSPECT of cleaner technology by affirming the Clinton rule, technology that was not available when the Clinton Plan was enacted. The Bush Plan considered this prospect. He also ignored the park service conservation mandate that sought to create a balance between protecting the park and allowing visitors to enjoy it.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Colorado Oak:

I can see your point Hangar, but the issue has to do with the pollution and disturbance to wildlife caused by the machines. I think your argument would be more valid if the non-motorized group was just saying that they didn't like sharing the park with machines.

-snip-
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This point was more directed at public lands in general than the national parks. That was my reason for stating this discussion from my standpoint does not include the ATV issues. Otherwise, you are right.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BuzzH:
-snip-

I also agree that my heart isnt really into park issues that much. The whole "park" scene is such an unnatural situation from all angles, that its about like being concerned with the various zoos across the country. I guess parks are good for the asphalt crowd, but its kind of sad that their view of "the wilderness" is a summer vacation to YNP, etc.

-snip-
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I think that any experience people can get with nature is positive in some form or another. Remember we live here and a wilderness experience is part of our lifestyle. Some people still believe Hereford cattle are wildlife.


Again, I think the concept of "Legislating from the Bench" is something everyone should be extremely wary of, regardless of one's opinion of the issue or outcome.


edit - formatting (need a 'preview feature Moosie

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 12-19-2003 10:29: Message edited by: HANGAR 18 ]</font>

 

[BuzzH]

Hangar, I agree with you on any exposure is better than none.

But, the bad part is, every tourist that visits YNP, GNP, etc. all think thats the "reality" of everything that isnt part of a city. They think its "natural" for elk to stand around eating jelly donuts, etc.

The park is a perfect example of the way things arent in true wilderness. Thats my trouble with it.

On the other hand, its great for people that cant enjoy the real wilderness.

 

[Ten Bears]

EG, take HANGAR's advise and go do some rereading before you embarassyourself anymore.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Ten,

I like your comments in this thread. They are short, and very easy to ignore. Thanks for wasting as little time as possible.

Hangar,
Sorry I am not worthy of your time. But you are fighting an uphill battle on the PR front. As you can argue semantics all you want, and whether it is EPA standards or Bush Administration standards (ie.. Park Service), but the bottom line is, the Manufaturers did not provide cleaner 4 strokes and a Judge overturned Bush's actions. Therefore, the Private operator got hosed by the Blue Ribbers. Bummer, dude!!!

But here is some more reading, for those who want more background.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Confusion reigns on 1st day of park snowmobile season
By BRETT FRENCH
Gazette Outdoor Writer


WEST YELLOWSTONE – Norm Brunel bristled after being told Wednesday morning that his group of self-guided snowmobilers wouldn’t be allowed into Yellowstone National Park.


“This is a farce,” said Brunell, of Manitoba, his snowmobile parked in front of the West Entrance. “This is against the law.”


It was a day of confusion and anger in this self-proclaimed “snowmobile capital of the world” after a last-minute change in regulations on snowmobile use went into effect overnight. A federal judge late Tuesday issued a ruling that reversed the Bush administration regulations regarding motorized winter access to the park.


The change meant reverting to rules enacted in the Clinton era that were more restrictive. As a result, the number of people allowed to enter Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks daily decreased overnight from 950 to 439. And from this snowbound town on the park’s boundary, only 279 snowmobilers will be allowed entry each day, all of which must be accompanied by a guide.


“If they’re really concerned, then they should limit cars in the summer, too,” Brunel said. “This is like when we went from the horse and buggy days to cars, nobody liked that idea, either.”


Brunel, his wife and two friends had been in West Yellowstone for two weeks. The trip into the park was to be the grand finale before driving home for Christmas. He has been through the park three times before. Knowing that new rules would be in effect this year, he had made reservations in November to enter the park Wednesday and Thursday.


“I thought it was all said and done,” he said.


But when he pulled up his machine to the park’s entry booth at 7 a.m., rangers told him under the glare of television lights and camera flashes that he would have to turn around. Without a guide, his group would not be admitted.


“I don’t need any guidance,” Brunell told park ranger Julie Hanaford. “I probably know as much as some of these guides.”


Hanaford sympathized with the snowmobiler’s situation but said, “I’m not going to debate this with you.”


Brunel apologized for taking his anger out on Hanaford.


“Thank you,” she said. “We understand.”


Because Brunel and his party were turned back, it was a snowcoach that at 8:41 a.m. became the first motorized vehicle to enter Yellowstone’s West Entrance this winter – an indication, perhaps, of what the future holds.


Snowmobilers with guides had no problem entering. Dan Thyer, a guide for Three Bear Lodge, took 10 people into the park Wednesday morning, the first guided trip through the west gate. But not all of his customers had originally planned to go with him.


Krysti Fama, 32, of Brisbane, Australia, said, “We had an inkling we wouldn’t be able to get in on our own.”


So on Tuesday night, her group made arrangements to join Thyer’s party. It cost an extra $35 per person – in addition to the fee paid for snowmobile and snowsuit rentals.


“We’re lucky to be able to get in with these guys,” said her father, Pablo Gomez, 64, of Reno, Nev. “I feel sorry for the people next year who won’t be able to go in on snowmobiles.”


Ruth Hangartner, of Apopka, Fla., and her family also had reservations to take an unguided trip into Yellowstone Wednesday. When they went to pick up their rental snowmobiles, they were told they would need a guide to enter the park. They were lucky enough to piggyback onto another guided trip.


Although Hangartner is a member of a national animal conservation group, she said she has no qualms about entering the park on snowmobiles “as long as we follow the restrictions.”


She added, however, that how she gets into the park isn’t what’s important to her. “I come for the park,” she said.


West Yellowstone businessman Randy Roberson figured he would get a permit to guide trips into Yellowstone Park this winter, and invested $310,000 in new snowmobiles that would meet new pollution requirements for the park.


But now he believes his new machines will get little use. And he worries about his bottom line.


“You spend six months getting ready to do business a certain way, and this changes everything,” he said Wednesday.


“Townwise, it’s going to be devastating to our economy, no doubt about it,” said West Yellowstone Mayor Jerry Johnson, who also has a snowmobile rental business.


Marysue Costello, president of the West Yellowstone Chamber of Commerce, said the office was set to have a ribbon-cutting ceremony, complete with the mayor, to welcome the first visitors to the park for the 2003-2004 winter season. But those plans went out the window after the judge’s ruling.


On Wednesday morning, she and her staff were scrambling to make sure visitors and the contingent of news reporters understood what the changes mean.


She said her office will continue to inform visitors and prospective visitors of the change, but she’s also worried.


“There’s that dance of how far you want to spread that information,” she said, since a stay of the judge’s ruling could once again throw a wrench into the already confusing process. “This is, if nothing else, a lesson in fluidity.”


In other communities near the park, reaction was similar.


Bob Coe, owner of the Pahaska Tepee lodge a couple miles east of Yellowstone, said he is considering closing down for the winter if the ruling is not reversed.


His lodge employs about two dozen workers in the winter.


“We got a lot of people worrying about losing their jobs,” he said.


The main problem is 90 percent of those who rent the lodge’s 27 snowmobiles and stay overnight at the lodge go into the park without a guide. How many are willing to convert to guided tours will determine whether Pahaska can stay open, Coe said.


“Right now our guided trips won’t even pay our insurance,” he said.


Cheryl Matthews, a spokeswoman at Yellowstone, said visitors who had advance reservations were being told of other options. “We’re trying to work with them, to link them with guides or snowcoaches and tell them about trails outside the park,” she said.


About 1,700 park entrance reservations had been made for the season before the judge’s ruling, with bookings heavy at the west entrance over the Christmas holiday, said Jim McCaleb, general manager for Xanterra Parks & Resorts at Yellowstone.


Diane Shober, director of Wyoming Travel and Tourism, said officials were deciding how to handle the situation.


“What we focus on in travel to Wyoming in all seasons is a hassle-free vacation and this contradicts that on many levels right now,” she said.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And some reading about the Blue Ribbers next move, and some more insight into the Judge admonishing the Blue Ribbers and the Park Service.....

A funnier than hell statement from the supporters of snowmobiles in the park...“It’s outrageous that the environmental lobby continues to insist that decisions on how best to use our public lands should be made by liberal courts on the East Coast and not by the people who depend on our public lands to make a living,” said Rep. Barbara Cubin, R-Wyo., in a statement.

Yeppers, the decisions on how to use Public Lands should be made by the people who use the public lands to make a living... As if they would look out for the best interest of anything...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Opponents of snowmobile ruling plan appeals
By Gazette Staff
And Associated Press

In the wake of Tuesday’s ruling by a federal judge in Washington, D.C., overturning the Park Service’s plan for snowmobiles in Yellowstone and Teton national parks, Wyoming Attorney General Pat Crank hustled Wednesday to appeal the court order.


The ruling came the day before the start of the parks’ winter season. With a Clinton-era plan to phase out snowmobiles revived, the number of snowmobiles allowed this winter will be limited to 493 in Yellowstone and 50 in Grand Teton before they are banned completely next winter.


Crank said Wyoming disagrees with the finding by U.S. District Appeals Judge Emmet Sullivan that extra fact-finding was needed for the National Park Service to change course from the Clinton-era plan without the changes being arbitrary and capricious.


“We believe that the record of decision here is sufficient and it does show why there has been a change in the winter use plan,” Crank said. “The change is that we have new technology. We have snowmobiles that are less offensive to the environment.”


The International Snowmobile Manufacturers Association Inc. and BlueRibbon Coalition also filed a request Wednesday for a stay of Sullivan’s decision, saying it would prevent thousands of visitors from seeing Yellowstone and would devastate local economies.


“The fight’s not over,” said Bill Dart, public lands director with BlueRibbon Coalition.


Sullivan said he would take written arguments. If Sullivan rejects the request for an emergency stay, as seemed likely Wednesday, the industry would request that the Appellate Court review his decision.


“We are always hopeful,” snowmobile industry attorney Barbara A. Miller said, when asked about the prospect that Sullivan would grant the request. “The rules of the court require us to file it in front of him before it goes to the Appellate Court.”


“We’re definitely going to appeal it,” Miller said. “We think the judge’s conclusion that the (National Environmental Policy Act) was violated is not correct.”


If the Wyoming officials and snowmobile industry lawyers are unable to overturn Sullivan’s ruling, lawmakers may try to pass legislation overturning it.


“It’s outrageous that the environmental lobby continues to insist that decisions on how best to use our public lands should be made by liberal courts on the East Coast and not by the people who depend on our public lands to make a living,” said Rep. Barbara Cubin, R-Wyo., in a statement.


Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., said he is asking Interior Secretary Gale Norton to have her department immediately appeal and request a stay of the decision.


“The courts need to hold up on this until the appeal process is over,” Burns said. “The impact of this decision is far ranging and potentially very damaging.”


Other issues
While reaction to Sullivan’s ruling has focused on reverting back to the ban, the judge also told the federal government to re-examine the question of grooming roads in Yellowstone and to respond to an earlier petition to prohibit snowmobiles in all national parks.


Sullivan said the National Park Service must further study the environmental impacts of packing snow on the 25-foot-wide roads for snowmobiles and snowcoaches. Specifically, the judge said park officials need to look at how grooming affects bison and other wildlife.


The ruling responded to a lawsuit by the Fund for Animals and Bluewater Network, which claimed that road grooming facilitates the movement of bison outside Yellowstone, where they can be captured and slaughtered as part of a regional program to reduce the spread of brucellosis.


They also claimed grooming is harmful to bears, wolves and Canada lynx.


In his ruling Tuesday night, Sullivan chastised the Park Service for not fully considering a ban on grooming roads.


“It defies logic that an option considering the cessation of trail grooming was not considered,” he wrote.


Additionally, Sullivan ordered the Park Service to respond to a 1999 petition from Bluewater Network to ban snowmobiles from all national parks.


Given the studies of snowmobiling in Yellowstone – particularly those that led to the decision in 2000 to ban them – Sullivan said a decision is needed on whether they can remain elsewhere in the national park system.


“It is clear that the impacts of snowmobiling in other parks could also be severe,” Sullivan said.


Sullivan said the Park Service’s delay in responding to the 1999 petition was “unreasonable.” He said he would not advocate for one position or another in terms of banning the machines in all national parks, but the petitioners have a right to a response “in a reasonable amount of time.”


The judge gave the Park Service until Feb. 17 to file its response to the group’s request.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And some more reading, including some businessman who made a bad business decision, and is now whining....
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Sled ruling hits home to outfitters
By TED MONOSON – Lee Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON – Early Wednesday morning Jackson Hole Snowmobile Tours office manager Stacey Chapman called two people and told them that because of a judge’s ruling Tuesday night they would not be able to rent snowmobiles.


“They were irate,” said Chapman, who is the office manager. “They did not understand. That’s how it’s going to be. We are going to have a lot of angry people.”


The judge’s ruling cut the number of snowmobiles that the company can operate inside Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks from 20 to eight per day.


Wyoming officials and snowmobile industry attorneys are trying to keep Chapman from having to speak with more angry customers. Both are working to overturn U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan’s ruling that cuts in half the number of snowmobiles allowed in Yellowstone and Grand Teton this winter and would eliminate snowmobiles from the park next winter.


The state of Wyoming has filed an appeal and attorneys for the state and the snowmobile industry have filed an emergency request to prevent implementation of the judge’s ruling. It is unclear how quickly the courts will act on the appeal or the emergency request.


On Tuesday evening, Sullivan struck down Bush administration rules that would have allowed snowmobiling to continue in the park. Under his ruling, the Bush rules would be replaced with rules written during the Clinton administration that phase out snowmobile use in the parks.


The industry’s request for the emergency stay was filed with Sullivan, but his written opinion makes it unlikely he will grant the request.


In his ruling, Sullivan questioned how the Bush administration had dramatically rejected the Clinton administration rules.


“The gap between the decision made in 2001, and the decision made in 2003 is stark,” Sullivan wrote. “In 2001, the rule-making process culminated in a finding that snowmobiling so adversely impacted the wildlife and resources of the parks that all snowmobile use must be halted. A scant three years later, the rule-making process culminated in the conclusion that nearly 1,000 snowmobiles will be allowed to enter the park each day.”


If Sullivan rejects the emergency stay, the industry would request that the Appellate Court review his decision.


“We are always hopeful,” snowmobile industry attorney Barbara A. Miller said, when asked about the prospect that Sullivan would grant the request. “The rules of the court require us to file it in front of him before it goes to the Appellate Court.”


Regardless of the success of the emergency stay, lawyers for the snowmobile industry plan to appeal the Tuesday ruling.


“We’re definitely going to appeal it,” Miller said. “We think the judge’s conclusion that the (National Environmental Policy Act) was violated is not correct.”


If the Wyoming officials and snowmobile industry lawyers are unable to overturn Sullivan’s ruling, lawmakers may try to pass legislation overturning it. Members of Montana and Wyoming’s congressional delegations harshly criticized the Tuesday ruling.


“It’s outrageous that the environmental lobby continues to insist that decisions on how best to use our public lands should be made by liberal courts on the East Coast and not by the people who depend on our public lands to make a living,” Rep. Barbara Cubin, R-Wyo., said in a statement.


Although Republican President Ronald Reagan appointed Sullivan, the judge has issued several rulings that have angered Western Republicans.


Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., was also angry but his comments were not as sharp as Cubin’s. “This decision is a blow to all Yellowstone visitors and the communities who serve them,” Burns said. “There is a way to manage for multiple uses of Yellowstone, and this decision doesn’t recognize that reality.


“With the season set to open today this will have a severe impact on the economy of our gateway communities.”


Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., also criticized Sullivan’s ruling.


“I’m disappointed by this ruling because I don’t think an outright ban is necessary,” Baucus said. “We must continue to work together to balance existing uses, protect the park and enhance the visitor experience, while creating and protecting jobs in the surrounding communities.”


Pombo joined the Montana delegation in criticizing the ruling and his spokeswoman said that he might try to pass a bill allowing snowmobiles in the park if Sullivan’s ruling is not overturned.


If there is an effort to overturn Sullivan the vote is likely to be close. Earlier this year, Rep. Rush Holt, D-N.J., tried to attach an amendment to the Interior Department’s 2004 spending bill that would have banned snowmobiling in the parks. The House voted 210 to 210 to reject the amendment. According to House rules if there is a tie the proposal is defeated.


“I am not prepared to say we have the votes, but it is something we are considering,” Pombo spokeswoman Nicol Andrews said.


Ron Gatheridge who rents snowmobiles in West Yellowstone is not optimistic. He moved to Montana from Humboldt, Minn., 10 years. He had been a snowmobile dealer in Humboldt, but business there was meager.


“I was going broke in Minnesota,” Gatheridge said. “I finally got something where I can pay the bills, but someone else has decided I can’t do it. I thought I was set for the rest of my life, but here I am at 51 and I have to find something else to do.”


Gatheridge noted that although there are a plethora of snowmobile trails outside the park, the majority of folks who rent snowmobiles prefer to use them in the park. He said that the people who use the trails outside the park generally own their own snowmobiles.


“The people who rent snowmobiles are not coming here for the snowmobiling experience,” Gatheridge said. “They are coming here to see the park.”


He gets no argument from Greater Yellowstone Coalition executive director Michael Scott. The organization is one of the environmental groups whose lawsuit led Sullivan to overturn the Bush administration rules.


“I think it is important to remember that the park is still there,” Scott said. “It was there yesterday and it will be there tomorrow. The park, not the means of transportation to get into it, has always been the attraction.”

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hangar, I read some more, and it doesn't seem to matter how much I read, there will still not be any Private Snowmobiles in YNP Tomorrow morning....

Looks like the Blue Ribbers really didn't protect access to the Park, after all...

 

[Michaelr]

Elk Grinner....how about links instead of books????????
Now I have a frigging headache

The part about this that I don't like is that it was done at the 11th hour with no consideration given to those who make a living renting, guiding, ect ect.

One thing people need to understand about sledding in the park is that you can't just take off and go ride, there are speed limits, you have to stay on the trails, ect ect..

 

[Hangar18]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ElkGunner:
-snip-

Hangar,
Sorry I am not worthy of your time. But you are fighting an uphill battle on the PR front. As you can argue semantics all you want, and whether it is EPA standards or Bush Administration standards (ie.. Park Service), but the bottom line is, the Manufaturers did not provide cleaner 4 strokes and a Judge overturned Bush's actions. Therefore, the Private operator got hosed by the Blue Ribbers. Bummer, dude!!!

-snip-
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It's not that you aren't worthy of my time. I just can't understand why you continue to spread pure bullshit despite evidence to the contrary.

Let me see if I have this straight. First, you know how to cut and paste from the first three Google search articles. Bravo! All that you cut and pasted was mentioned prior to this post. I chose not to cut and paste unless someone called BS on me. Strange it took you so long to place your 'special' spin on it.

Second, your logic goes like this:

Fact: Manufaturers did not provide cleaner 4 strokes (a blatently false statement by EG)
Fact: a Judge overturned Bush's actions (uh, why the thread)

Conclusion: the Private operator got hosed by the Blue Ribbers

WTF??

My aunt makes more sense during PMS

As I have said before - B.S. and guessing when facts can contradict get you no where and cost you credibility.


Here are the facts which, unlike the dribble spoken by EG, can be verified.

Manufacturers DID bring cleaner sleds to the park this year (otherwise, they wouldn't have been certified) Fact: the NPS accepts BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY http://www.nps.gov/yell/press/03133.htm EG continues to believe the headline of Ms. Cart's article is the gospel truth, even though the text of her article states that one sled didn't pass the noise level (later passed due to true altitude test), and another didn't pass the CO emissions requirement.

The Bush plan was a direct result of settling the lawsuit against the Clinton BAN brought by, among others, the Blue Ribbon Coalition. Please explain how this is selling the private operators out. This plan was approved by congress. Then an appointed judge (bureaucrat) thought he knew more than those elected by the People, so he overturned it. Can't wait for the appeal to force his early retirement.


Let me know when you go sledding on West Mountain this year Gunner. I'm always happy to help dig someone out, because sometimes that is me in the trench.

 

[BuzzH]

Hangar, the problem is the snowmobile industry knew the restrictions were coming WAY before this year. Thats a fact, and they didnt react to the problem until it was literally nipping at their ass hairs.

I remember there were issues involving sleds in YNP in 1987-1988, the industry knew THEN that they were going to have to change the technology. What they did was cater to the sledders demands for faster, bigger machines rather than cater to cleaner burning, quieter machines. Bottom line...they knew, failed to act, and now are whining and pointing at a judge for their lack of committment and foresight. Who's fault is that????

 

[JoseCuervo]

Michael,
I was accused of not reading, so I wanted to post the articles I read that day, so that others could also share the same perspective on how these stories are being reported. Lengthy? Yes, but relevant.

Michael posts:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>One thing people need to understand about sledding in the park is that you can't just take off and go ride, there are speed limits, you have to stay on the trails, ect ect.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And Hangar posts:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Please explain how this is selling the private operators out. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, let's see. If, as Michael posts, you have to stay on the roads/trails that are groomed. You can only go the speed limit. Why would you need a Commercial Guide???? If the Blue Ribbers cared about access to the park, they would want access to anyone, not just those Wealthy Tourists who can hire a guide to start their machine and point out where the handwarmer switch is on their sled.

Or, is the average private sledder not smart enough to follow maps and speed limit signs in YNP?

Michael,
As for the 11th hour actions, and the impact on the little guys in West Yellowstone, and surrounding communities, I would hope their business plan, this year, heavily discounted their rate of return, due to the uncertainty. I think everybody knew this lawsuit was coming, and the Bush actions were arbitrary and capricous in nature. A lawsuit and a Judge's decison are always unknowns. I think the little guys are just "small potatoes" being caught in a much bigger battle.

Hangar,
If the Judge got it wrong, and you know the correct way, you as a citizen, can go bring action to "Right this Wrong". Go file the briefs, go file the suits. In fact, if you know the truth in a matter that is being litigated, you have an obligation to step forward.

I think this is one of those issues where "Perception becomes Reality", and the perception is the new 4-strokes will continue to damage YNP, so a Judge is further restricting them. And it is not what Elkgunner perceives, but it is what the Media perceives and reports.

And Hangar, if you were to actually read the articles I posted, you would learn the Judge has other concerns, beyond the Emissions information.

"“It defies logic that an option considering the cessation of trail grooming was not considered,” he wrote."

Seems like the Judge is asking people to address issues and follow-up on promises made.

How come nobody is answering my question on the Standard required for one President to overturn another's previous Executive Order? Where are all the Constitutional Experts?

 

[Michaelr]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Michael posts:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One thing people need to understand about sledding in the park is that you can't just take off and go ride, there are speed limits, you have to stay on the trails, ect ect.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


My point, is that riding in the park is more of a sight seing ride than going "sledding" Thats why for me personally This issue isn't that big of a deal. The judge should have given consideration to the operators who have spent alot of money and time gearing up for this season.
I live in Idaho Falls, and have heard and read all about this issue, I listened to one of the business owners on the local morning radio show.
He had to go by the rules that were in place to ready himself for this season.
I guarantee you wouldn't want to be in his shoes. He purchased 40 new 4 strokers and they are now obsolete and they haven't even been used.
Was he supposed to hire Miss Cleo to see this coming and plan for it????????

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 12-22-2003 08:39: Message edited by: michaelr ]</font>