Ithaca 37
New member
Thanks for the info. Sounds like you might have a chance to give Ms Cart some input on her articles.
Some 2004 snowmobiles actually dirtier!
- Thread starter Ithaca 37
- Start date
JoseCuervo
New member
Hanger,
So, in the final analysis, this appears to be something more than "media dribble", as Ten proclaimed. I have read many of your links, including the discussions on the SnoWest page, and for "media dribble", it sure has caused a fury of activity.
CJ,
You alluded to some "spanking", and I am not sure what you saw as a spanking. I think Hangar has provided a very balanced look at the subject, and he criticizes the Industry on many points.
Just for fun, I will try and recap this series of events, with my spin on it....
2000 -- Pres. Clinton, based on "science" and lots of pictures of park rangers wearing gas masks bans snowmobiles from YNP, effective 2004? (Not sure what the original date was...)
2002 -- Some college kids in a dorm room, eating Pizza and firing blunts build a "clean" snowmobile. And then some other college kids do the same.
2002 -- The Industry builds one production machine, and a Proto- machine. Somebody at the Industry calls the Bush Administration and says "Hey GW, reverse that Ban in YNP, as we have built a couple of 4-stroke machines, and some dudes in college built a couple...
"
2002 -- GW&Co. reverse the Ban based on the good faith promise by the Industry that the will have even better machines in 2004, "Trust us...".
2002 -- GW&Co. conveinently forget to set standards and testing methods that all can agree on for the machines in 2004.
2003 -- Gunner kills a big 6x6...
2004 -- The college kids are still eating Pizza, and smoking doobies, trying to figure out how to get a 600 pound snowmobile out of their Dorm room...
2004 -- Industry starts building machines for 4-stroke in high volume.
2004 -- Somebody tests the 04 machines, and discovers that "some" of them are worse than the machines in 02. And in relation to the YNP standards, some of them are better, some are worse, all depending on lubrication oils used, atmoshperic conditions, operating extremes, phases of the moon, currency exchange rates in Guatemala, and airplay of Megadeath on FM radio in Wisconsin.
2004 -- Some lady in Los Angeles (lots of Snow there...) writes an article about a park in Wyoming, that appears to be truthful, although not the "whole" story.
2004 -- The Industry chooses to ignore her comments, and the article gets picked up in national papers.
2004 -- Somebody in the Industy realizes this is a PR disaster, and at the same time, somebody in the Bush administration realizes the Industry is making him look bad. The Industry guy calls the Bush adminstration, and lo and behold, the YNP decides that due to a previous error in clearly setting the standards and the testing, maybe it would be better if "the decision to accept the machines was made in fairness to the manufacturers, which had already begun producing machines by the time the park began to consider which emission standards to use for certification."
Does that about sum it up???
So, in the final analysis, this appears to be something more than "media dribble", as Ten proclaimed. I have read many of your links, including the discussions on the SnoWest page, and for "media dribble", it sure has caused a fury of activity.
CJ,
You alluded to some "spanking", and I am not sure what you saw as a spanking. I think Hangar has provided a very balanced look at the subject, and he criticizes the Industry on many points.
Just for fun, I will try and recap this series of events, with my spin on it....
2000 -- Pres. Clinton, based on "science" and lots of pictures of park rangers wearing gas masks bans snowmobiles from YNP, effective 2004? (Not sure what the original date was...)
2002 -- Some college kids in a dorm room, eating Pizza and firing blunts build a "clean" snowmobile. And then some other college kids do the same.
2002 -- The Industry builds one production machine, and a Proto- machine. Somebody at the Industry calls the Bush Administration and says "Hey GW, reverse that Ban in YNP, as we have built a couple of 4-stroke machines, and some dudes in college built a couple...
2002 -- GW&Co. reverse the Ban based on the good faith promise by the Industry that the will have even better machines in 2004, "Trust us...".
2002 -- GW&Co. conveinently forget to set standards and testing methods that all can agree on for the machines in 2004.
2003 -- Gunner kills a big 6x6...
2004 -- The college kids are still eating Pizza, and smoking doobies, trying to figure out how to get a 600 pound snowmobile out of their Dorm room...
2004 -- Industry starts building machines for 4-stroke in high volume.
2004 -- Somebody tests the 04 machines, and discovers that "some" of them are worse than the machines in 02. And in relation to the YNP standards, some of them are better, some are worse, all depending on lubrication oils used, atmoshperic conditions, operating extremes, phases of the moon, currency exchange rates in Guatemala, and airplay of Megadeath on FM radio in Wisconsin.
2004 -- Some lady in Los Angeles (lots of Snow there...) writes an article about a park in Wyoming, that appears to be truthful, although not the "whole" story.
2004 -- The Industry chooses to ignore her comments, and the article gets picked up in national papers.
2004 -- Somebody in the Industy realizes this is a PR disaster, and at the same time, somebody in the Bush administration realizes the Industry is making him look bad. The Industry guy calls the Bush adminstration, and lo and behold, the YNP decides that due to a previous error in clearly setting the standards and the testing, maybe it would be better if "the decision to accept the machines was made in fairness to the manufacturers, which had already begun producing machines by the time the park began to consider which emission standards to use for certification."
Does that about sum it up???
Hangar18
New member
Before I say anything else, I need to finish a thought. Ms. Cart thinks the market for models that will pass YNP stds. is too narrow, and I agree. But, I also believe based on the emissions changes between 2002 and present, that the manufacturers are trying to build these sleds for a broad market. The 2002 Polaris Frontier, used to set benchmarks, had 48 HP. My sled off the floor had about 120 four years ago. My guess is they are shooting for higher the HP while presently sacrificing emissions somewhat to appeal to the broader market. Remember what POS cars were when we first got catalytic converters, then they got better, both in power and efficiency? I think this is a similar "growing pain". Problem is the manufacturers have no room for error at this point. If they screw the outfitters in West Yellowstone for one year, the whole thing goes down in flames. Thank God for Arctic Cat at this time. Irregardless, I do think the number of snowmobiles in Yellowstone will drop and stay there.
Ithaca,
I have 5 emails from her discussing her two articles. I was very surprised she answered all my inquiries. I have no illusions of ever giving her any information that she would use, though. She is on the side of the greens, and it is apparent to me that she will write with that slant. Read her articles and you will see what I mean. She still won't concede that the 2002 Polaris Frontier was a prototype, even though the MT DEQ says it was.
ElkGunner,
We need to slow that top down a little.
Before we do, we need to acknowledge that this was somewhat media dribble. It did not tell anyone both sides of the story. I had to tell some of the other side. Sorry to be a killjoy but this pisses me off, and when I'm pissed, Google gets a workout.
But you said that too.
The only day of the year the park rangers wear the masks is Saturday of President's Day weekend. And it is just during the photo shoots for folks at the Winter Wildlands Alliance, who by the way did x-country skiers absolutely NO favors during the Pilot's Peak public meetings last spring.
Oh, and rumor has it Pres. Clinton's good "science" actually CAME from reading irregular patterns on womens' clothing.
The college kids started building clean sleds in 2000 Their first time And I doubt they were smoking blunts, as sled cylinders make great bongs, and I know for a fact good chronic is hard to find in Wyoming.
Thanks for the Megadeth plug, I see you understand my alias.
Otherwise, good summary.
Ithaca,
I have 5 emails from her discussing her two articles. I was very surprised she answered all my inquiries. I have no illusions of ever giving her any information that she would use, though. She is on the side of the greens, and it is apparent to me that she will write with that slant. Read her articles and you will see what I mean. She still won't concede that the 2002 Polaris Frontier was a prototype, even though the MT DEQ says it was.
ElkGunner,
We need to slow that top down a little.
Before we do, we need to acknowledge that this was somewhat media dribble. It did not tell anyone both sides of the story. I had to tell some of the other side. Sorry to be a killjoy but this pisses me off, and when I'm pissed, Google gets a workout.
But you said that too.
The only day of the year the park rangers wear the masks is Saturday of President's Day weekend. And it is just during the photo shoots for folks at the Winter Wildlands Alliance, who by the way did x-country skiers absolutely NO favors during the Pilot's Peak public meetings last spring.
Oh, and rumor has it Pres. Clinton's good "science" actually CAME from reading irregular patterns on womens' clothing.
The college kids started building clean sleds in 2000 Their first time And I doubt they were smoking blunts, as sled cylinders make great bongs, and I know for a fact good chronic is hard to find in Wyoming.
Thanks for the Megadeth plug, I see you understand my alias.
Otherwise, good summary.
Ten Bears
New member
GRINNER & ITHACA, I see you still find it acceptable to attack the personopposing you and not the topic, too bad. If you had stayed the course you may have even seen Arctic Cat mentionedin the article referenced by ITHACA. You guys are weak. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The Park Service says five snowmobile models, all made by Arctic Cat, use the “best available technology.” They are the cleanest and quietest snowmobiles on the market, and permitted for use in the parks. The Park Service is reviewing other snowmobile makers to see whether their machines meet the standard.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://www.idahostatesman.com/Opinion/story.asp?ID=48659
I think the key term in your "media dribble" article is some models , not all models.
Good job HANGAR.
GRINNER, are you saying that the three old reactors at Hanford are not being dismantled? Prove it. Are you saying that there is not a "clean up" ongoing at Hanford? Again, prove it. Please stay on topic you little IT clone.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://www.idahostatesman.com/Opinion/story.asp?ID=48659
I think the key term in your "media dribble" article is some models , not all models.
Good job HANGAR.
GRINNER, are you saying that the three old reactors at Hanford are not being dismantled? Prove it. Are you saying that there is not a "clean up" ongoing at Hanford? Again, prove it. Please stay on topic you little IT clone.
Hangar18
New member
I thought I was done here, but found something else this morning. It is located on the Idaho State Snowmobile Assoc. website.
Yellowstone National Park News Release
The article contains details on the models certified for use, as well as the park rules and an outline of the process. I think this will answer any outstanding questions anyone has.
Criticize the agreement all you want, but that is how it is going to happen. Personally, I think it is very fair and considers all who are involved and who would be effected if the ban had been enacted.
Yellowstone National Park News Release
The article contains details on the models certified for use, as well as the park rules and an outline of the process. I think this will answer any outstanding questions anyone has.
Criticize the agreement all you want, but that is how it is going to happen. Personally, I think it is very fair and considers all who are involved and who would be effected if the ban had been enacted.
JoseCuervo
New member
Hanger,
I definitely think this was not "media dribble", and I can think of 3 differing directions this could go, all of them valid topics for discussion.
1.) Access to YNP for snowmobiles. The Ban-em-all crowd vs. the if-there's-snow-we-go crowd. Looks like on this one, the Ban'rs started winning, and then the Riders made a comeback, and are now un-Banned.
Or the relvant topic could be...
2.) The Bush administration sold out the National Parks, the Workers at the Parks, the Bison, the Elk, in order to favor commercial interests from the Industry.
or the topic could be.....
3.) Somebody (perhaps the Blue Ribber Coalition) sold out the private snowmobile riders, and stole 80% of the access to the most beautiful park in North America. If you want to be in YNP, despite your skill, your machine, etc... you have to go on the commercial trip.
It is #3 that seems the most troubling. Why would the Private riders allow the Commercial Outfitters to take up 80% of the entrances? Would you stand for it in hunting, if 80% of the Elk tags were given to Outfitters? On rivers, this is an issue, and we seem to be fighting it all the time, and in Idaho, we win.
Anyway.... just food for thought....
I definitely think this was not "media dribble", and I can think of 3 differing directions this could go, all of them valid topics for discussion.
1.) Access to YNP for snowmobiles. The Ban-em-all crowd vs. the if-there's-snow-we-go crowd. Looks like on this one, the Ban'rs started winning, and then the Riders made a comeback, and are now un-Banned.
Or the relvant topic could be...
2.) The Bush administration sold out the National Parks, the Workers at the Parks, the Bison, the Elk, in order to favor commercial interests from the Industry.
or the topic could be.....
3.) Somebody (perhaps the Blue Ribber Coalition) sold out the private snowmobile riders, and stole 80% of the access to the most beautiful park in North America. If you want to be in YNP, despite your skill, your machine, etc... you have to go on the commercial trip.
It is #3 that seems the most troubling. Why would the Private riders allow the Commercial Outfitters to take up 80% of the entrances? Would you stand for it in hunting, if 80% of the Elk tags were given to Outfitters? On rivers, this is an issue, and we seem to be fighting it all the time, and in Idaho, we win.
Anyway.... just food for thought....
Ten Bears
New member
Side stepped that one again, didn't ya, oh well. Did anybody else here the news about the LA Times being charged with providing false political polling results? It was on FOX news this morning, but I can't find any site with it online.
Ithaca 37
New member
Ten, Please try to stay on topic.
What does the snowmobile crowd think of this?: "This winter, 80 percent of all snowmobiles entering the park must be part of commercially guided trips." Must be a reaction to all the bad snowmobile behavior. Kinda like having a chaperone on the school trip! Well, at least the Bush administration created a few jobs.
What does the snowmobile crowd think of this?: "This winter, 80 percent of all snowmobiles entering the park must be part of commercially guided trips." Must be a reaction to all the bad snowmobile behavior. Kinda like having a chaperone on the school trip! Well, at least the Bush administration created a few jobs.
JoseCuervo
New member
As a 2 day per year snowmobiler, I feel eminently qualified to comment on this question.
The 80% figure was likely negotiated by the Blue Ribbers, who are pawns for the manufacturers. There is absolutely no reason that you need a "commercial guide" to lead you into YNP where you have to stay on the groomed roadways, and boondocking is not allowed.
If you own a machine that can pass the standards, you should have an EQUAL chance at access to the PUBLIC Yellowstone Nat'l Park. That park is paid for by taxpayers, and the commercial guys do not own it.
The 80% figure was likely negotiated by the Blue Ribbers, who are pawns for the manufacturers. There is absolutely no reason that you need a "commercial guide" to lead you into YNP where you have to stay on the groomed roadways, and boondocking is not allowed.
If you own a machine that can pass the standards, you should have an EQUAL chance at access to the PUBLIC Yellowstone Nat'l Park. That park is paid for by taxpayers, and the commercial guys do not own it.
Ithaca 37
New member
Sure sounds like the snowmobile crowd got screwed by somebody! Have they figured out who yet?
Ten Bears
New member
IT, I believe the first person to venture from the topic was your pal the GRINNER. 80% must be guided, sounds ok. I have never traveled that far south to ride in the snow, and still wont.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> If you own a machine that can pass the standards, you should have an EQUAL chance at access to the PUBLIC Yellowstone Nat'l Park. That park is paid for by taxpayers, and the commercial guys do not own it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'd say it's just a way to keep the #'s down, and I'd think you'd have your EQUAL chance at the other 20%.
JoseCuervo
New member
Ten,
Please show me where I went off topic? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>IT, I believe the first person to venture from the topic was your pal the GRINNER <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
As I read these threads, it is your comment about the Nuclear plant at Hanford that is the off-topic post.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> GRINNER, are you saying that the three old reactors at Hanford are not being dismantled? Prove it. Are you saying that there is not a "clean up" ongoing at Hanford? Again, prove it. Please stay on topic you little IT clone.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And then even funnier, you challenge me to stay ON topic, after YOU stray off topic.
Have you thought about getting some sort of Professional help or Counseling to help you deal with those voices you keep hearing???
Please show me where I went off topic? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>IT, I believe the first person to venture from the topic was your pal the GRINNER <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
As I read these threads, it is your comment about the Nuclear plant at Hanford that is the off-topic post.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> GRINNER, are you saying that the three old reactors at Hanford are not being dismantled? Prove it. Are you saying that there is not a "clean up" ongoing at Hanford? Again, prove it. Please stay on topic you little IT clone.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And then even funnier, you challenge me to stay ON topic, after YOU stray off topic.
Have you thought about getting some sort of Professional help or Counseling to help you deal with those voices you keep hearing???
Ten Bears
New member
When I stray off topic it's wrong, but when IT & GRINNER do it's OK?????
Ok, but media dribble is still media dribble.
Ok, but media dribble is still media dribble.
Hangar18
New member
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ElkGunner:
Hanger,
I definitely think this was not "media dribble"
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
OK, let's look at the titles and the details of the two articles.
From September 4:
New Snowmobiles Emit More Pollution in Tests
Yes, they do.
BUT...The rule is BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY
yet, she is comparing three prototype sleds and one mass production sled to new mass production sleds. I have shown this to be true. Tell me why this makes for a valid comparison? The baseline was set by TEST sleds.
In addition, two of the three sleds PASSED YNP emission standards, which are much more strict than EPA standards.
Dribble? Yes and No.
From September 17:
Agency to Allow Snowmobiles Exceeding Pollution Limits
How is the agency allowing sleds to be certified if they exceed pollution limits? In fact, they are not.
ONCE AGAIN - The park service has not decided if they will use three day average emisions or three day extreme limits. Look at the data, It speaks for itself. Only the author of the article has decided which standard will be used. If you are unclear, read my post from 09-17-2003 13:23
Dribble? Certified and Stamped BULLSHIT!
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...and I can think of 3 differing directions this could go, all of them valid topics for discussion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not much to discuss on #1 & #2
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 3.)Somebody (perhaps the Blue Ribber Coalition) sold out the private snowmobile riders, and stole 80% of the access to the most beautiful park in North America. If you want to be in YNP, despite your skill, your machine, etc... you have to go on the commercial trip.
It is #3 that seems the most troubling. Why would the Private riders allow the Commercial Outfitters to take up 80% of the entrances? Would you stand for it in hunting, if 80% of the Elk tags were given to Outfitters? On rivers, this is an issue, and we seem to be fighting it all the time, and in Idaho, we win.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
First, you will find this surprising, and as a sledder, I find this appalling. Over the weekend, there was a sled show in Boise. In talking to two different vendors, I found out none of the big four (Polaris, Arctic Cat, Ski-Doo, Yamaha) have directly contributed to the BRC as far as sledding goes. ATV $$ yes, but not sledding. The International Snowmobile Manufacturers Association (ISMA) did contribute as far as I know, I have not confirmed this. If anyone sold us out, it was the park service and the Bush administration.
Comparing this to hunting is not valid. Look at the demographics of the two groups, and the weather they will possibly be forced to deal with. Hunters are for the most part experienced with the outdoors and the extremes that occur. Those that aren't don't generally venture far from the pickup. (whole other topic there) Tourists on sleds are not. West Yellowstone is routinely one of the coldest places in the nation in the winter, and experiences some of the worst winter weather. If anyone needs a guide AND a mechanic to babysit a group, it's the YNP tourons. Guided tours have been happening there for years. If anything, it's a boon for the local economy, AND a check & balance for the number of sleds that go into the park. I may be being naive about this, but I don't find all that much of a problem with it.
Let me ask you this - Why isn't anyone making a huge deal out of the 3 million plus SUMMER visitors to the park, all but a very select few in private automobiles or motorhomes that sit idling by the roadside while they feed the grizzlies, pet the moose, try to ride the buffalo, and chase the elk? How healthful is that? How much federal $$ is spent fixing roads every year so thousands of five ton motorhomes and buses can drive through the park every summer?
"NPS has not documented violations of federal or state ambient air quality standards, these standards have been approached," Source This with no restrictions on what type of sled, or how many sleds enter the park.
Lastly, tell us about your two day sledding experiences Elkgunner. Just curious.
Hanger,
I definitely think this was not "media dribble"
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
OK, let's look at the titles and the details of the two articles.
From September 4:
New Snowmobiles Emit More Pollution in Tests
Yes, they do.
BUT...The rule is BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY
yet, she is comparing three prototype sleds and one mass production sled to new mass production sleds. I have shown this to be true. Tell me why this makes for a valid comparison? The baseline was set by TEST sleds.
In addition, two of the three sleds PASSED YNP emission standards, which are much more strict than EPA standards.
Dribble? Yes and No.
From September 17:
Agency to Allow Snowmobiles Exceeding Pollution Limits
How is the agency allowing sleds to be certified if they exceed pollution limits? In fact, they are not.
ONCE AGAIN - The park service has not decided if they will use three day average emisions or three day extreme limits. Look at the data, It speaks for itself. Only the author of the article has decided which standard will be used. If you are unclear, read my post from 09-17-2003 13:23
Dribble? Certified and Stamped BULLSHIT!
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...and I can think of 3 differing directions this could go, all of them valid topics for discussion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not much to discuss on #1 & #2
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 3.)Somebody (perhaps the Blue Ribber Coalition) sold out the private snowmobile riders, and stole 80% of the access to the most beautiful park in North America. If you want to be in YNP, despite your skill, your machine, etc... you have to go on the commercial trip.
It is #3 that seems the most troubling. Why would the Private riders allow the Commercial Outfitters to take up 80% of the entrances? Would you stand for it in hunting, if 80% of the Elk tags were given to Outfitters? On rivers, this is an issue, and we seem to be fighting it all the time, and in Idaho, we win.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
First, you will find this surprising, and as a sledder, I find this appalling. Over the weekend, there was a sled show in Boise. In talking to two different vendors, I found out none of the big four (Polaris, Arctic Cat, Ski-Doo, Yamaha) have directly contributed to the BRC as far as sledding goes. ATV $$ yes, but not sledding. The International Snowmobile Manufacturers Association (ISMA) did contribute as far as I know, I have not confirmed this. If anyone sold us out, it was the park service and the Bush administration.
Comparing this to hunting is not valid. Look at the demographics of the two groups, and the weather they will possibly be forced to deal with. Hunters are for the most part experienced with the outdoors and the extremes that occur. Those that aren't don't generally venture far from the pickup. (whole other topic there) Tourists on sleds are not. West Yellowstone is routinely one of the coldest places in the nation in the winter, and experiences some of the worst winter weather. If anyone needs a guide AND a mechanic to babysit a group, it's the YNP tourons. Guided tours have been happening there for years. If anything, it's a boon for the local economy, AND a check & balance for the number of sleds that go into the park. I may be being naive about this, but I don't find all that much of a problem with it.
Let me ask you this - Why isn't anyone making a huge deal out of the 3 million plus SUMMER visitors to the park, all but a very select few in private automobiles or motorhomes that sit idling by the roadside while they feed the grizzlies, pet the moose, try to ride the buffalo, and chase the elk? How healthful is that? How much federal $$ is spent fixing roads every year so thousands of five ton motorhomes and buses can drive through the park every summer?
"NPS has not documented violations of federal or state ambient air quality standards, these standards have been approached," Source This with no restrictions on what type of sled, or how many sleds enter the park.
Lastly, tell us about your two day sledding experiences Elkgunner. Just curious.
JoseCuervo
New member
Hangar,
Let me see if I can catch most of the issues, and reply, as best I can. I seem to have caught a cold
so please excuse the affects of the Cold Medicine...
My guess is we will have to agree to disagree on what Media Dribble this is. Given that it was a knee-jerk comment from Ten beers, we should probably dismiss it, in either event.
It does seem like the lady's article became a catalyst for the discussion, and the Editorials across the nation, and the Bush Administrations caving in and relaxing the standards. For Media Dribble, it sure touched a lot of nerves...
This is probably way too simple of an analysis by me, but you cite "the rule" as being BUT...The rule is BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY
. So it does seem valid to question how machines in 04 are worse than machines in 02. It is not normal for us to think of technology marching backwards.
As for topics 1-2-3, number 2 is a pretty valid topic, and should be discussed, although it is at best, a theoretical discussion.
As for #3, the 80% ban on Private Sledders, it is not my Ox that is gored, but as someone who writes letters and sends money to groups that fight these issues, I hate to see it. I agree with you, that somebody sold out the Private Sledders, and it must have been whoever has the Park Service's ear. On the emissions issue, it seems to be the Manufacturers, but I don't know who rolled over on the access issue.
And I think my comparisons are somewhat valid, as you have people in this HuntTalk site that "allegedly" hunt, so they would have a reference point. And many of the people here are "above average", so any attempt at limiting their access to public lands would be relevant.
The better comparison, for me, is the access to the Wild and Senic rivers in Idaho. And on these, we are "about" 50/50 with the Commercial and the Private parties. The Selway is a bit more Private, and the Middle Fork is a bit more Commercial. The Main and the Hells Canyon are in between. The dangers, the hazzards, and the weather on these remote rivers would rival anything in YNP, in my opinion. Private parties CAN be better equipped, better skilled, and better citizens than outfitters, so I would encourage a more equal distribution of the access.
And regulating the access is just as difficult to make sure the 20% private sledders are allowed in as it would be if the number is 50%.
And lastly, my sledding? Each year my buddies who are every weekend riders invite me along. I sometimes open the cabin up on West Mountain, and we ride from the cabin up West Mt, and along the ridges. This trip usually has lots of kids and wives. Or for day trips, we will haul the sleds up to Brundage or toward Anderson Ranch, and ride from there. These guys buy new sleds every other year, and the wife gets the old sled. So, I get to ride one of the wive's sled. Last year that meant a 700 RMK. I enjoy it a bit, but I never seem to have the urge to pull out a check book, and buy one for Da' Gunner....
Let me see if I can catch most of the issues, and reply, as best I can. I seem to have caught a cold
My guess is we will have to agree to disagree on what Media Dribble this is. Given that it was a knee-jerk comment from Ten beers, we should probably dismiss it, in either event.
It does seem like the lady's article became a catalyst for the discussion, and the Editorials across the nation, and the Bush Administrations caving in and relaxing the standards. For Media Dribble, it sure touched a lot of nerves...
This is probably way too simple of an analysis by me, but you cite "the rule" as being BUT...The rule is BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY
. So it does seem valid to question how machines in 04 are worse than machines in 02. It is not normal for us to think of technology marching backwards.
As for topics 1-2-3, number 2 is a pretty valid topic, and should be discussed, although it is at best, a theoretical discussion.
As for #3, the 80% ban on Private Sledders, it is not my Ox that is gored, but as someone who writes letters and sends money to groups that fight these issues, I hate to see it. I agree with you, that somebody sold out the Private Sledders, and it must have been whoever has the Park Service's ear. On the emissions issue, it seems to be the Manufacturers, but I don't know who rolled over on the access issue.
And I think my comparisons are somewhat valid, as you have people in this HuntTalk site that "allegedly" hunt, so they would have a reference point. And many of the people here are "above average", so any attempt at limiting their access to public lands would be relevant.
The better comparison, for me, is the access to the Wild and Senic rivers in Idaho. And on these, we are "about" 50/50 with the Commercial and the Private parties. The Selway is a bit more Private, and the Middle Fork is a bit more Commercial. The Main and the Hells Canyon are in between. The dangers, the hazzards, and the weather on these remote rivers would rival anything in YNP, in my opinion. Private parties CAN be better equipped, better skilled, and better citizens than outfitters, so I would encourage a more equal distribution of the access.
And regulating the access is just as difficult to make sure the 20% private sledders are allowed in as it would be if the number is 50%.
And lastly, my sledding? Each year my buddies who are every weekend riders invite me along. I sometimes open the cabin up on West Mountain, and we ride from the cabin up West Mt, and along the ridges. This trip usually has lots of kids and wives. Or for day trips, we will haul the sleds up to Brundage or toward Anderson Ranch, and ride from there. These guys buy new sleds every other year, and the wife gets the old sled. So, I get to ride one of the wive's sled. Last year that meant a 700 RMK. I enjoy it a bit, but I never seem to have the urge to pull out a check book, and buy one for Da' Gunner....
Ten Bears
New member
GRINNER, do you know the difference between production models, and prototypes?
JoseCuervo
New member
Yeppers, I sure do... (not too sure if you do, as you are asking the question.... my guess is you don't or you wouldn't be asking...
)
And if the "best available technology" was there 2 years ago, it should still be there, or even exceed. Therefore, this is just likely an exercise in DFM (Design for Manufacturing), and if the sled makers couldn't transition the technology from the prototype to the factory in 2 years, given the importance of complying with the law (assuming they even felt they would need to comply with the law), then it is no wonder American industry is not competitive.
Ten, please don't try to defend 2 years of failures as "overcoming manufacturing obstacles". If it was important, they would have figured it out.
And if the "best available technology" was there 2 years ago, it should still be there, or even exceed. Therefore, this is just likely an exercise in DFM (Design for Manufacturing), and if the sled makers couldn't transition the technology from the prototype to the factory in 2 years, given the importance of complying with the law (assuming they even felt they would need to comply with the law), then it is no wonder American industry is not competitive.
Ten, please don't try to defend 2 years of failures as "overcoming manufacturing obstacles". If it was important, they would have figured it out.
Ten Bears
New member
GRINNER, I asked you the question because I don't believe you have a grasp on the subjuect at hand.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The laboratory tests showed that lubrication oils affected particulate emissions of snowmobiles. Different lubrication oils were found to increase particulate matter as much as 140 percent or to decrease it as much as 65 percent compared engines using conventional fuel and mineral lubrication oil. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://www.deq.state.mt.us/CleanSnowmobile/solutions/fuels/
I'd wager with this knowledge alone a lot would depend on who was running the tests now wouldn't it?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The laboratory tests showed that lubrication oils affected particulate emissions of snowmobiles. Different lubrication oils were found to increase particulate matter as much as 140 percent or to decrease it as much as 65 percent compared engines using conventional fuel and mineral lubrication oil. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://www.deq.state.mt.us/CleanSnowmobile/solutions/fuels/
I'd wager with this knowledge alone a lot would depend on who was running the tests now wouldn't it?
Hangar18
New member
Ten Bears - I think you make a great point. That is what seems to be lost here.
ElkGunner - Hope your cold gets better. This time of year seems to put a lot of people down for a few days. I went through the whole summer of softball and mountain biking with no injuries or sicknesses, then yesterday I get a back spasm that will keep me down for about 4 days, and catch a slight cold. WTF?
The only reason I posted on this thread was that I thought the article originally posted, followed by the comments by you & Ithaca, reflected the information AND lack of information within the article. Call it what you want. I made my case as to why it is media dribble, or rather media BIAS. Make yours for why it is not. You entitle your article based on a few exceptions rather than the successful majority.
Yes, it made for some good discussion, but I happen to think there were some things that I wrote about that you or anyone else would not have learned had I kept my nose out of this thread. Not patting myself or anything, just pointing out that the articles only told part of the story and used selected truths in an attempt to shape the reader's impression. Based on yours and Ithaca's early comments, I would say she succeeded.
Best Available Technology - Ask youself this; The best available technology that is Available to whom? The point I think you are missing here is that in 2002, the only sled tests AVAILABLE to ME, a rider, was the Arctic Cat. The other three sleds are clean yes, but they were not made AVAILABLE for public use, though the Polaris was in 2003. Prototypes are not AVAILABLE for consumer use. AVAILABLE for consumer use, including but not limited to use in YNP is what I would deem BEST AVAILABLE, and that is why I contend this was not a valid comparison. Think of it this way, I could put a super clean Honda engine out there for testing as far as lawnmowers are concerned. The thing runs clean as hell, but does not have enough power to cut anything but dry 2" high meduim density grass. Is it the best available? Yes, but who is going to buy it if it does not function in a complete manner as expected by the consumer. So it means nothing. If these sleds are going to be produced with the best available technology, that technology has to target riders other than the tourons in the park. That would be bad business for everyone involved and effected.
If you read some of the MT DEQ articles, you will see that the Arctic Cat tested in 2002 only tops out at 50 MPH. That is perfect for the park, but who else? Answer: No one. I saw the the CSC entries compete at the Jackson Hole Hillclimbs in 2001. Not one of them could make it close to the first catwalk. My old 1976 AC Panther 500 could. Again, the best available technology as far as clean emissions go, but not as far as the consumer goes, therefore not the best technology. To exclude this part of the equation would be irresponsible. Do you see what I'm saying?
If you think about it, two years is not a lot of R&D time as far as engines are concerned. They will either get it right soon, or quit because the costs of R&D don't out-weigh the benefits.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>2.) The Bush administration sold out the National Parks, the Workers at the Parks, the Bison, the Elk, in order to favor commercial interests from the Industry.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You really think there is any discussion to be had from this Gunner? It is your opinion, facts say you are incorrect. The burden is on the manufacturers to make all this happen. The ban sold out the workers around the park in the first place, and if the manufacturers fail, they will take the blame for lost jobs. How has the Bush Administration sold anyone out? I said they did before, but I retract that statement. How have manufacturers been catered to? If anyone sold anyone out, it is the green groups that seek to exclude all from using the park in the winter with the exception of x-country skiers and snow-shoers, i.e., themselves. Isn't this a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act? If they really gave two shits about the wildlife and the pollution, they would look at the summer use IN ALL NATIONAL PARKS with much more vigor. Snowmobiles have access to less than 1% of the park, are restricted to 185 of the 275 miles of roads. Catch and release fishing disturbs the fish. And since animals in the park are used to the automobiles yet are disturbed by backcountry hikers and fishermen (studies conducted by YNP show this) wouldn't it stand to reason the same goes in the winter? I would look for this information online but it would be a waste of time because I think your mind is already made up.
Enough for now. If patterns hold, I am sure no one will answer all these questions.
ElkGunner - Hope your cold gets better. This time of year seems to put a lot of people down for a few days. I went through the whole summer of softball and mountain biking with no injuries or sicknesses, then yesterday I get a back spasm that will keep me down for about 4 days, and catch a slight cold. WTF?
The only reason I posted on this thread was that I thought the article originally posted, followed by the comments by you & Ithaca, reflected the information AND lack of information within the article. Call it what you want. I made my case as to why it is media dribble, or rather media BIAS. Make yours for why it is not. You entitle your article based on a few exceptions rather than the successful majority.
Yes, it made for some good discussion, but I happen to think there were some things that I wrote about that you or anyone else would not have learned had I kept my nose out of this thread. Not patting myself or anything, just pointing out that the articles only told part of the story and used selected truths in an attempt to shape the reader's impression. Based on yours and Ithaca's early comments, I would say she succeeded.
Best Available Technology - Ask youself this; The best available technology that is Available to whom? The point I think you are missing here is that in 2002, the only sled tests AVAILABLE to ME, a rider, was the Arctic Cat. The other three sleds are clean yes, but they were not made AVAILABLE for public use, though the Polaris was in 2003. Prototypes are not AVAILABLE for consumer use. AVAILABLE for consumer use, including but not limited to use in YNP is what I would deem BEST AVAILABLE, and that is why I contend this was not a valid comparison. Think of it this way, I could put a super clean Honda engine out there for testing as far as lawnmowers are concerned. The thing runs clean as hell, but does not have enough power to cut anything but dry 2" high meduim density grass. Is it the best available? Yes, but who is going to buy it if it does not function in a complete manner as expected by the consumer. So it means nothing. If these sleds are going to be produced with the best available technology, that technology has to target riders other than the tourons in the park. That would be bad business for everyone involved and effected.
If you read some of the MT DEQ articles, you will see that the Arctic Cat tested in 2002 only tops out at 50 MPH. That is perfect for the park, but who else? Answer: No one. I saw the the CSC entries compete at the Jackson Hole Hillclimbs in 2001. Not one of them could make it close to the first catwalk. My old 1976 AC Panther 500 could. Again, the best available technology as far as clean emissions go, but not as far as the consumer goes, therefore not the best technology. To exclude this part of the equation would be irresponsible. Do you see what I'm saying?
If you think about it, two years is not a lot of R&D time as far as engines are concerned. They will either get it right soon, or quit because the costs of R&D don't out-weigh the benefits.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>2.) The Bush administration sold out the National Parks, the Workers at the Parks, the Bison, the Elk, in order to favor commercial interests from the Industry.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You really think there is any discussion to be had from this Gunner? It is your opinion, facts say you are incorrect. The burden is on the manufacturers to make all this happen. The ban sold out the workers around the park in the first place, and if the manufacturers fail, they will take the blame for lost jobs. How has the Bush Administration sold anyone out? I said they did before, but I retract that statement. How have manufacturers been catered to? If anyone sold anyone out, it is the green groups that seek to exclude all from using the park in the winter with the exception of x-country skiers and snow-shoers, i.e., themselves. Isn't this a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act? If they really gave two shits about the wildlife and the pollution, they would look at the summer use IN ALL NATIONAL PARKS with much more vigor. Snowmobiles have access to less than 1% of the park, are restricted to 185 of the 275 miles of roads. Catch and release fishing disturbs the fish. And since animals in the park are used to the automobiles yet are disturbed by backcountry hikers and fishermen (studies conducted by YNP show this) wouldn't it stand to reason the same goes in the winter? I would look for this information online but it would be a waste of time because I think your mind is already made up.
Enough for now. If patterns hold, I am sure no one will answer all these questions.
JoseCuervo
New member
Ten,
It sounds like they may have been close, 2 years ago, based on your numbers, and you would think that within 2 years, they could have got enough margin to pass the tests. Why do you want to make excuses for the failings???
Hangar,
Just out of curiousity, to make sure we are on the same page, do you acknowledge that there is a Winter Time Air Quality Problem in YNP?
It sounds like they may have been close, 2 years ago, based on your numbers, and you would think that within 2 years, they could have got enough margin to pass the tests. Why do you want to make excuses for the failings???
Hangar,
Just out of curiousity, to make sure we are on the same page, do you acknowledge that there is a Winter Time Air Quality Problem in YNP?
