S.r.s.c.
- Thread starter jokerman
- Start date
Think we need to take the fight to more than just here on Snowest. Check out this opinion piece in the Casper Star Tribune: http://trib.com/news/opinion/mailbag/article_f1b0dde5-5ca2-5ab2-baf6-1ea851110cb1.html
Lets see some comments!
Lets see some comments!
That 92% number is going to be thrown in our faces for years
Good thing there is other numbers in our favor (see posts above)
That 92% number is going to be thrown in our faces for years
Good thing there is other numbers in our favor (see posts above)
It is important to understand the 92% is just spin-ballot box stuffing against snowmachining in general and not the parking lot- think about it-
They are trying to spin the facts-
Does anyone have access to the % of total comments for and against the parking lot? Something that includes the comments that were submitted when the original plan was submitted. Gonna guess that is probably in favor of the sledders and I would love to include that in my letter that is going to everyone the greenies listed.
Also does anyone have a link to the notice given to reopen the comment period? Getting all the comments stricken from the most recent comment period would be nice if they did not notice the new comment period correctly.
Also does anyone have a link to the notice given to reopen the comment period? Getting all the comments stricken from the most recent comment period would be nice if they did not notice the new comment period correctly.
This is the most up to date item I could find
http://www.fs.fed.us/sopa/forest-level.php?110206
If you open up the most recent SOPA - it looks like a decision will be made in April, and implementation will start in June. But I think they have already said that they are not going forward with the whole plan, only a part of the plan. (Read: No parking lot construction this summer)
http://www.fs.fed.us/sopa/forest-level.php?110206
If you open up the most recent SOPA - it looks like a decision will be made in April, and implementation will start in June. But I think they have already said that they are not going forward with the whole plan, only a part of the plan. (Read: No parking lot construction this summer)
In addition to comments in ALL the papers refuting the lies of the opposition, we MUST start writing our own short letters to the editor and add support comments. Tackle one aspect at a time.
Per the USFS above, there will be additional parking, where is the question. They know the vast majority of visitors to the Green Rock area are snowmachiners. To put a lot anywhere else would be a waste of everyone's time. Some at the USFS believe in just leaving well enough alone.
Per the USFS above, there will be additional parking, where is the question. They know the vast majority of visitors to the Green Rock area are snowmachiners. To put a lot anywhere else would be a waste of everyone's time. Some at the USFS believe in just leaving well enough alone.
What do you think about a list of links on http://www.srscwy.com/ to all the area papers editorial/opinion pages and other sites that they use against us?
We really need to push the point that snowmachiners bring hundreds of millions to the WY economy each year too.
We really need to push the point that snowmachiners bring hundreds of millions to the WY economy each year too.
This University of Wyoming study finds snowmobilers in Park County spend twice as much as those involved in other winter recreation and account for 72% of the net economic value derived from winter recreational activities.
http://agecon.uwyo.edu/EconDev/PubStorage/ParkYNP.pdf
ooooooohhhhhhh gotta love #'s like that
http://agecon.uwyo.edu/EconDev/PubStorage/ParkYNP.pdf
ooooooohhhhhhh gotta love #'s like that
Also on page 2 this study from the National Park service states :
The likelihood of an active response by bison or elk decreased as cumulative visitation increased, suggesting that these ungulates habituated somewhat to motorized recreation. There was no evidence of population-level effects to ungulates from motorized winter use because estimates of abundance either increased or remained relatively stable during three decades of motorized recreation prior to wolf colonization in 1998. Thus, we suggest that the debate regarding the effects of motorized recreation on wildlife is largely a social issue as opposed to a wildlife management issue.
http://www.nps.gov/yell/parkmgmt/upload/winterrec05.pdf
Tell I have a few more minutes to look around again? HAHA
Just for fun, I also weighed in on the Casper letter to the editor. The author shoudl enjoy my response......
The likelihood of an active response by bison or elk decreased as cumulative visitation increased, suggesting that these ungulates habituated somewhat to motorized recreation. There was no evidence of population-level effects to ungulates from motorized winter use because estimates of abundance either increased or remained relatively stable during three decades of motorized recreation prior to wolf colonization in 1998. Thus, we suggest that the debate regarding the effects of motorized recreation on wildlife is largely a social issue as opposed to a wildlife management issue.
http://www.nps.gov/yell/parkmgmt/upload/winterrec05.pdf
Tell I have a few more minutes to look around again? HAHA
Just for fun, I also weighed in on the Casper letter to the editor. The author shoudl enjoy my response......
Last edited:
Have any of the Forest Service reps you have talked to mentioned the Snowy Range Scenic Byway Corridor Management Plan?
It is on the Forest Service's Schedule of Proposed Actions and the parking lot is really closely related to the roadway and its usage. The fact it is designated as a scenic Byway is helpful and we could comment on this plan also to protect the parking lot. I am sure that the greenies will.
I will take a look at this also and maybe submit it as a joint comment since we missed the comment on the parking lot
It is on the Forest Service's Schedule of Proposed Actions and the parking lot is really closely related to the roadway and its usage. The fact it is designated as a scenic Byway is helpful and we could comment on this plan also to protect the parking lot. I am sure that the greenies will.
I will take a look at this also and maybe submit it as a joint comment since we missed the comment on the parking lot
Found a study done at Green Rock Parking lot in the snowies which provided
some more good information about the minimal impact of snowmobiling on air and water quality. It was mentioned on ISMA site quickly but the whole report is VERY good
It found all levels of various chemicals attributed to snowmobiling were within acceptable limits and well below levels that would adversely impact aquatic systems. and it appears that snowmobile emissions did not have a significant impact on the air quality of the high level ecosystems as pollutant concentrations we generally low both summer and winter.
Linky.....
http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/boise/AWAE/.../Musselman Korfmacher Snowmobile EM&A2007.pdf
some more good information about the minimal impact of snowmobiling on air and water quality. It was mentioned on ISMA site quickly but the whole report is VERY good
It found all levels of various chemicals attributed to snowmobiling were within acceptable limits and well below levels that would adversely impact aquatic systems. and it appears that snowmobile emissions did not have a significant impact on the air quality of the high level ecosystems as pollutant concentrations we generally low both summer and winter.
Linky.....
http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/boise/AWAE/.../Musselman Korfmacher Snowmobile EM&A2007.pdf
A bunch of us commented on that one last summer. My wife and I are listed as stakeholders on the last version (a few others that are on the forums are too). If/when they make a decision on the lot, we should be in a position to appeal anything we don't like since we have some of us listed as stakeholders from what I understand.
I think the parking lot will be on hold for about 5 more years. The beetle problem up there is going to use up all the manpower and resources they have. Just my opinion though.
Just kind of day dreaming a bit on that question 
I was thinking more of a way to address the "92% against the parking lot" issue than an issue preservation for appeal.
I was thinking more of a way to address the "92% against the parking lot" issue than an issue preservation for appeal.
Just kind of day dreaming a bit on that question
I was thinking more of a way to address the "92% against the parking lot" issue than an issue preservation for appeal.
Analyze where that number came from and who the 92% are.
Were there only 12 responses and 11 were against (91.67%)? Hardly a statistically viable sample.
Was there proper notification of window for input?
Are the 'against' group real, living US Citizens with valid addresses? Or rather illegals, deceased, fictional, pets...
Are they really visitors to the area/residents or just hired letter writers?
...
All good questions!
There was the proper window for notification and input.
The sample was very one sided. For one BCA had people in June sitting at the parking lot near Lake Marie signing postcards\petitions. So they poor a poor me story on everyone that passes through the parking lot...They also let all of their followers know and had the sending in letters against us. During the Forth of July Party in the Park in Laramie, they were collecting more Signatures...
So I would say yes they were real people!
Snowmobilers were unaware or just did not care to respond when the info came out on the parking lot.
We as Snowmobilers were caught with out pants down!
Bascially my thoughts if the notice was good, but the only real way for me to analyze those comments is a FOIL request and they can be a pain.
Yikes! that's how they work, lie to the public & get signatures, too many people will just sign anything
What's a "FOIL request"? Procedural?
P.S. I hope no pics with pants down show up... mom always said to wear clean underwear... damn
.
Similar threads
