For anyone interested, the GAO recently published a report discussing the impacts of PWCs and snowmobiles on federal land at the request Congressman Bruce Vento of MN (a true environmental champion who recently passsed away due to mesothelioma). Hopefully there will be a Member of Congress to step up and replace Rep. Vento's very proactive work to protect the environment. This report could serve as a great non-partisan baseline to help redefine how these vehicles are managed on federal land. It's too bad that sound science is too often labeled "bad science" by partisans who disagree with the researcher's conclusions. The report may be found at: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/rc00243.pdf A few comments follow-- > If these vehicles can be made less noisy and > polluting should their access still be limited? The EPA is working on new emissions regulations for the 2-stroke engines that propel these vehicles. The snowmobile and PWC lobby is vigorously fighting any attempt to strengthen these regulations. Even if these new regulations go into effect, it won't stop the bad seeds from going off-trail or into non-motorized lakes. I have spoken to park superintendants and seen pictures from park staff and the environmental lobby showing the significant damage these vehicles wreak on the environment. > On the other hand, if we are > the source of a problem should not our conduct be > restricted. Eg, for many > years, before snowmobiles became just too numerous > in Yellowstone, cross > country skiers did more damage than snowmobilers. > The reason is skiers could > leave the trail, but snowmobilers could not. This > had two adverse > consequences, it packed the snow on the vegetation, > and, worse, skiers could > get close to the animals. This stirred the animals > into moving, causing them > to use precious body fat. Snowmobilers can and do leave the trail as well, but any attempts by land managers to limit access to sensitive areas during crucial times for the wildlife is seen as an imposition of man's God given right to do anything he wants. But, yes, I do think both motorized and non-motorized access should be restricted during critical times for wildlife. > Safety wise, maybe we should be restricted to > different areas, > non-polluting jet skiers in one bay and paddlers in > another. This is done in Voyageur's NP and the Boundary Waters--that is, there are motorized and non-motorized areas. It is interesting to note that PWCs compromise less 10% of vehicles on the water, but are involved in 40% of all boating accidents. PWCs and snowmobiles are nasty vehicles (IMHO), but regulating there use must cautiously approached. They have a vocal, well-funded lobby and many peoples lives depend on the tourist dollars they generate in rural areas. Alternative ideas to using these vehicles should and are being developed, but it's hard to change a mindset overnight. Lew Crenshaw *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************Received on Wed Dec 06 2000 - 10:54:55 PST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:30:35 PDT