|   Snowmobiling vs biking in Yellowstone (and other NPs?) | DSR
Feb 20, 2003 7:55 AM | | I don't mean to set off a big debate here, but thought this was interesting. The administration is expected to today reverse the Clinton-era ban on snowmobiles in Yellowstone and Grand Teton. This after numerous studies by the Park Service on the negative impact of polution and noise on the environment. And not just to the environment, but also to all other users there presumably to enjoy nature and the tranquility (my editorial). Anyway, say what you want about the snowmobile ban, but it seems odd that these are allowed in the park but that biking is limited to several roads, all of which are also open to cars. It's amazing how snowmobiles, ATVs (?), jet skis, etc have access to national parks and mtb's are largely shut out. I know it's probably not quite that simple, but as a generalization I think it's fair to say that those motorized vehicles have equal and maybe better access to parks than bikes. This doesn't seem to fit with the theme of the park system/service. I guess it does speak to the lobbying power of offroad/water recreational vehicles and the economics of that business relative to the bike business. Just some Thurs AM ramblings after listening to the radio on the way into work. S
http://www.nps.gov/yell/planvisit/todo/biking/index.htm |
| I think you're allowed to ride your bike | AK Ken
Feb 20, 2003 8:09 AM | | anywhere you can ride your snowmobile, which is primarily on the snow closed roads of the national parks. I'm not intimately familiar with the YNP/GTNP snowmachine policy; there may be designated "play areas" in addition to the road riding, but the bulk of the traffic is limited to the roads, speed limits are radar enforced, noise and pollution studies have been/are being done with the upshot being that 4 stroke snowmobiles are being developed and marketed.
Ken |
| True, Ken... | Tscheezy
Feb 20, 2003 9:03 AM | | but they did do a second EIS and came up with very similar conclusions to the first one, and still reversed the decision regarding snowmachines. It is political in the end and was due to pressure from snowmachine manufacturers. That appears to be one "focus group" the administration listens to.
There are a lot of areas in Alaska where snowmachines are allowed where other ATV's aren't, and it kinda makes sense. When the snow is gone, so are the tracks. Yeah, it bites if you were hoping not to see one (like a convoy belching blue smoke- 4 stokes will help), or you feel discriminated against compared to a nother user with 10x the effect on the resource, but as far as offroad vehicles go, snowmachines are certainly among the most benign.
James Watt would be proud.
tscheezy |
| BTW- that was rhetorical and not directed at you, Ken. nm | Tscheezy
Feb 20, 2003 9:30 AM | | |
| No worries, mate............. | AK Ken
Feb 20, 2003 12:46 PM | | I'm a firm believer in 'a time and place for everything', and I'm no stranger to debating snow machine use in the Alaskan park additiions.
DNP owns snowmachines, and uses them in a variety of ways. Just last weekend, for example, a VIP came from Washington who wanted to go for a dogsled ride. Snowfall finally caught up with the Cantwell side of the Alaska Range, though, so they were faced with deep snow and no trail. They used snowmachines to put in a trail (inside the park but outside the wilderness boundary) so their guest could have a dogsled experience.
One small correction, though--the newly developed 4 stroke machines do not produce the blue cloud of burned oil smoke like the 2 strokes do, and they're very much quieter. Noise is one of the current snowmachine studies going on here, as well as vegetative impact. The only winter trail in this park that you can see in the summertime is the dog sled trail west from park hq, because the dogs run in the same place every year due to their amazing noses. Snowmachiners tend to disperse over a wider area whenever geographically possible and don't impact the vegetation so much.
Here's the total winter snowpack displayed at my house.
Drive 20 miles at the same elevation to the south side of the Alaska Range, and last week's storm deposited this. |
| my sentiments exactly (nm) | NoBonk
Feb 20, 2003 8:37 AM | | |
| I think you're safe. | Jettstream
Feb 20, 2003 8:56 AM | | I think that what you posted isn't nearly controversial enough to set off a big debate. You would have to post something like this:
It is not about the lobbying power or economics of the motorized vehicle businesses. It is about Mr. Bush's reflexive compulsion to reverse anything that Clinton accomplished that benefits the environment at the expense of businesses.
There, that might do it. |
| More. | Jettstream
Feb 20, 2003 9:09 AM | | I think that AK Ken is correct about the snowmobiles being restricted to the snow-covered roadways. (I have heard that the Park has a big problem with 'bilers poaching in the backcountry near the borders with the surrounding Nat Forests.) There are a few Parks that I know of (Canyonlands, for example) where bikes are allowed in the backcountry, but only on jeeproads.
Personally, I don't have a problem with snowmobiles or ATVs given access to backcountry areas, so long as their routes are restricted and their numbers are kept low so that their impact is minimized. Backcountry access for overnight backpackers is managed like that in Rocky Mountain NP. Equestrians are limited to certain trails in many Parks. I would like to see bikes treated the same way: given access to selected trails where they can be accomodated. There is room in many of the Parks for all of these different uses and users. |
| heh. Nice. nm | Pup
Feb 20, 2003 9:14 AM | | |
| Plain and simple answer | Pat T.®
Feb 20, 2003 10:11 AM | | MTB'rs do not buy licenses or ORV tags for their bikes... I know it sucks. But I know that could be a possible plan I the future, personally I think it is a good idea. Money to fix trails has to come from somewhere, and probably .05% of mtb'rs who use trails actually go out and help fix them.....and some of us spend out of our own pockets to fix trails. I think it is time everyone stepped up to the plate. |
| Darn tootin'. Sign me up... | Tscheezy
Feb 20, 2003 11:49 AM | | I agree that the best way to bring us to the table is by making us officially financially responsible for conservation efforts. The conservation tax on a lot of the hook and bullet crowd's toys gives them every right to complain about us freeloading hikers and bikers. They won't take us seriously until we help out too. Duck stamps and the like have done more for conservation than about any other strategy or organization.
tscheezy |
| Mountain Bikes Unlimited? | Pup
Feb 20, 2003 12:14 PM | | I'm in. |
| You're incorrect. | Pete.
Feb 20, 2003 12:11 PM | | "I think it's fair to say that those motorized vehicles have equal and maybe better access to parks than bikes."
Not true. |
| How come? | DSR
Feb 20, 2003 12:55 PM | | I admit my "research" is limited to just the online Yellowstone info, but the only bike route options are roads that are also open to cars. That's Yellowstone at least. I know that rules do vary across parks. Interestingly, White Rim Road in Canyonlands allows bikes and support vehicles (ie, cars, trucks, 4x4s), but not ATVs.
I guess the frustrating thing is that there are not significantly more route or trail options for bikes considering that they are non-motorized and would seem to fit more with the theme of the parks. You'd think that biking would be much more encouraged at national parks as an outdoor activity. One problem with many of the parks is that they are incredibly overcrowded on the roads and near the visitor centers, but sparsely used anywhere more than a mile off the main roads. Encouraging biking and bike trails would seem to reduce traffic, disperse the crowds a bit and allow people to see and enjoy more of the park. That won't effect the RV set, but would probably interest active folks who aren't quite up for hiking or backpacking 15+ miles in and out.
Anyway, just more rambling thoughts. S |
| that's the definition of "irony" | laffeaux
Feb 20, 2003 12:56 PM | | I felt the same way several years ago when viiting Glacier NP. I hiked a trail where the first 2 miles or so was solid horse manure. I guess it was popular with the equestrians, but as a hiker I did not walk on the trail, but off to the side. It wasn't like I had to avoid the piles, the entire trail was covered (every step would have been ankle deep in manure). Why that is allowed to happen, yet bikes are not allowed off-pavement anywhere in the system is beyond me. |
| "a bunch of convicts, on a plane.. dancing to a band.. that died | Pup
Feb 20, 2003 2:08 PM | | in a plane crash"? |
| I was on a plane with Lynyrd Skynnyrd once. . .. | Mowerman
Feb 20, 2003 11:31 PM | | Forgive my spelling, I'm hammered right now, but thought I'd share.
I was flying from San Francisco to Arcata, California and our tiny 39 seater plane was being slightly delayed for some reason. I look out my window and these guys come walking up the portable steps to the plane, and I think wait a minute. . .
So we get to taking off, and these guys in the back break out the guitar and start singing and I'm like, Holy Sh#t, I'm on a plane with
Lynyrd Skynnyrd!!!
But then I think- Holy Sh#t, I'm on a plane with Lynnyrd Skynnyrd.
They were flying up to do some low-rent concert in Eureka. Edgar Winters was there, too, but not really THERE, if you know what I mean.
(No point at all coming up) For some reason, the Eureka/Arcata airport flies into McKinleyville, 8 miles from the nearest town that the airport is named after. |
| Its the same | fzn12s
Feb 20, 2003 1:04 PM | | Both have to stay on designated roads. The problem with biking in parks is that they have to share the roads with cars. Yellowstone and RMNP in particular have very narrow roads with little to no shoulder.
Actually, the number of snowmobiles in Yellowstone will be restricted on a daily basis either this winter or next, I don't remember. |
| |
