|
|
|
|
|
|
Turns All Year Trip Reports
(1) Viewing these pages constitutes your acceptance of the Terms of Use.
(2) Disclaimer: the accuracy of information here is unknown, use at your own risk.
(3) Trip Report monthly boards: only actual trip report starts a new thread.
(4) Keep it civil and constructive - that is the norm here. |
|
|
|
|
Author
|
Topic: WMC Update 2012 (Read 29541 times)
|
yammadog
Member
Offline
Posts: 145
|
Fabricated conflict.
If this wasn't a blanket means of simply closing out areas to other users, why would WMC solicit letters from 5 other states and extreme environmental wilderness groups?
Save it for the fall when all users will be more interested in participating in the discussion. And as Marcus requested, stop with the "boiler plate" posts for letters.
And drop the slander about "significant" portions of wilderness. We have visited this endlessly, those that violate need to be fined to the maximum the law will allow and there is not "significant" area that is being poached, it's actually a very small area by a very few users. the exageration is getting old.
Wilderness is non-motorized and more than 4.5 million acres are designated as such, add to it the amount of area that is simply off limits to motorized users for many verious reasons. Add that up and then talk about parity.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
WMC
Member
Offline
Posts: 263
|
Fabricated conflict.
If this wasn't a blanket means of simply closing out areas to other users, why would WMC solicit letters from 5 other states and extreme environmental wilderness groups?
Save it for the fall when all users will be more interested in participating in the discussion. And as Marcus requested, stop with the "boiler plate" posts for letters.
And drop the slander about "significant" portions of wilderness. We have visited this endlessly, those that violate need to be fined to the maximum the law will allow and there is not "significant" area that is being poached, it's actually a very small area by a very few users. the exageration is getting old.
Wilderness is non-motorized and more than 4.5 million acres are designated as such, add to it the amount of area that is simply off limits to motorized users for many verious reasons. Add that up and then talk about parity.
Nothing new here Yammadog. We have had this discussion for a while. It has been a while since refreshing the general purpose of this thread.
We are trying to get skiers to think about this and get involved. In the end, USFS will decide how to appropriately manage the Forest.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
WMC
Member
Offline
Posts: 263
|
"Backcountry snow sliders are about six million strong?"
"2009 United States Snowmobile RegistrationsTotal 1,652,642"
Article today at Wildsnow:
http://www.wildsnow.com/3474/backcou...kiing-numbers/
http://www.snowsports.org/
(quote)
Rumors of Our Demise Were Exagerated
SIA released their annual snowsports participation study. Some tidbits to make you laugh or cry:
... Snow sports participation increased by more than than a 1.5 million people during the2008/09 season. That includes 573,000 alpine skiers, 309,000 Nordic skiers, and 262,000 snowboarders...
... about 20% of skiers are going backcountry one way or another... U.S. snow sports participation has reached 30,000,000, close to 10% of the total population. I’m assuming SIA is talking snowboarders and skiers in that number (don’t know about snowshoes)...we backcountry snow sliders are about six million strong?...
...“The recreational transport category suffered a double-digit category decline in 2009. Wholesale sales were $27.33 billion in 2009, down from $31.48 billion in 2008 – a decline of 13.2%. As recently as 2007, the recreational transport category was at $37.47 billion. The line items in this category include motorcycles, jet skis, recreational vehicles, snowmobiles, bicycles, and pleasure boats & motors.”...
(end quote)
Statistics from ISMA:
(quote)
http://www.snowmobile.org/stats_registrations_us.asp
2009 United States Snowmobile Registrations
State # Registered Snowmobiles
Alaska 55,249
California 22,930
Colorado 33,367
Idaho 52,259
Illinois 39,500
Indiana 9,373
Iowa 28,400
Maine 98,472
Massachusetts 16,136
Michigan 346,315
Minnesota 252,003
Montana 39,531
Nebraska 2,100
New Hampshire 60,000
New York 136,471
North Dakota 15,822
Ohio 17,300
Oregon 17,392
Pennsylvania 40,066
South Dakota 12,231
Utah 28,768
Vermont 36,400
Washington 35,150
Wisconsin 219,907
Wyoming 37,500
Total 1,652,642
(end quote)
The Wenatchee Mountains Coalition is actively advocating for significant new winter designated non-motorized areas along the pristine unroaded crest of the Wenatchee Mountains. Please see Page 1 of this thread. Thank you for your consideration and support.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 07/23/10, 02:14 PM by WMC »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
hyak.net
Member
Online
Posts: 552
WWW
|
"Backcountry snow sliders are about six million strong?"
"2009 United States Snowmobile RegistrationsTotal 1,652,642"
... about 20% of skiers are going backcountry one way or another... U.S. snow sports participation has reached 30,000,000, close to 10% of the total population. I’m assuming SIA is talking snowboarders and skiers in that number (don’t know about snowshoes)...we backcountry snow sliders are about six million strong?...
I consider myself a BC snowboarder, but your numbers are way out of wack IMO. The 20% number for BC riders is a total guess because there is no way to verify this, and most BC riders do so near ski areas. The numbers of people that enter areas your proposing to rope off to the rest of the civilized world I'd bet have very very small numbers of BC skiers/boarders compared to snowmobilers.
Instead of hiding behind your group name, why don't you post as the individual that you are? Who are you? A few years back there was an issue of people hiding behind anonymous profiles and posting here. Has that restriction changed?
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 02/08/12, 12:57 PM by hyak.net »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
WMC
Member
Offline
Posts: 263
|
I consider myself a BC showboarder, but your numbers are way out of wack IMO. The 20% number for BC riders is a total guess because there is no way to verify this, and most BC riders do so near ski areas. The numbers of people that enter areas your proposing to rope off to the rest of the civilized world I'd bet have very very small numbers of BC skiers/boarders compared to snowmobilers.
Instead of hiding behind your group name, why don't you post as the individual that you are? Who are you? A few years back there was an issue of people hiding behind anonymous profiles and posting here. Has that restriction changed?
Those are quotes from a Wildsnow - Lou Dawson article. Pertinent to the discussion. It is fairly straightforward for an intuitive person to realize that non-motorized winter Forest users greatly outnumber motorized/ snowmobile Forest users. What is your point? Do you wish to advocate for more of USFS Lands to be made available for snowmobile/ motorized use?
This discussion was allowed because it is pertinent to this website. Thank you Marcus.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
md2020
Member
Offline
Posts: 377
|
...“The recreational transport category suffered a double-digit category decline in 2009. Wholesale sales were $27.33 billion in 2009, down from $31.48 billion in 2008 – a decline of 13.2%. As recently as 2007, the recreational transport category was at $37.47 billion.
One positive outcome of the great recession and the record oil prices of 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Mike Metz
|
|
|
hyak.net
Member
Online
Posts: 552
WWW
|
Those are quotes from a Wildsnow - Lou Dawson article. Pertinent to the discussion. It is fairly straightforward for an intuitive person to realize that non-motorized winter Forest users greatly outnumber motorized/ snowmobile Forest users. What is your point? Do you wish to advocate for more of USFS Lands to be made available for snowmobile/ motorized use?
This discussion was allowed because it is pertinent to this website. Thank you Marcus.
You can have a discussion as an individual without hiding behind a group name. If I believe in a cause I would have no problem in staying so and I would not hide behind an anonymous name.
No, I am not a snowmobiler and do not push for more land to be made available, though it might not be a bad idea. I am a dual sport bike rider and restrictions to snowmobiles could have a ripple effect which is why I support them.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Joedabaker
Member
Offline
Posts: 1748
|
Just when I thought this thread was a dead horse....
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If it's called common sense, why isn't it more common?
|
|
|
ruffryder
Member
Offline
Posts: 125
|
It is fairly straightforward for an intuitive person to realize that non-motorized winter Forest users greatly outnumber motorized/ snowmobile Forest users.
and yet your previous source for numbers showed it almost a 50/50 split between the two user groups. I guess the meaning behind the numbers doesn't count for much these days, only the number.
Figures lie and liers figure, seems fitting with this discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ruffryder
Member
Offline
Posts: 125
|
One positive outcome of the great recession and the record oil prices of 2008.
Next step, banning all motors period!! Won't that be heaven?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
hyak.net
Member
Online
Posts: 552
WWW
|
Can we please just lock this thread......let it die.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
WMC
Member
Offline
Posts: 263
|
Thanks again to folks who have written in support of winter designated non-motorized areas on the Forest. And thanks for the thread here and the discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
yammadog
Member
Offline
Posts: 145
|
Can we please just lock this thread......let it die.
Unfortunately HJ, I don't think this topic will die, or not be resurrected if the green lines on this map are continued to be pushed out further to reduce use of public land by it's citizens.
http://www.wilderness.net/mapFull.cfm
And to think it's only summer, once winter comes rolling around I think the debate will become more active. And with the forest plan revision process in place now is the time to be heard as WMC has stated.
The question comes in to play for shared use or not and what restrictions in what areas. I feel pretty strong that increased access and reduced poaching to the wilderness would help satisfy the goal. I'd like to hear from more skiers on this position so that support for such a proposal can be mutual.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scotsman
Member
Offline
Posts: 3173
|
Instead of hiding behind your group name, why don't you post as the individual that you are? Who are you? A few years back there was an issue of people hiding behind anonymous profiles and posting here. Has that restriction changed?
Moderators ammending the rules for their friends or causes they believe in and has always been a problem on this website Hyak -Jack. However, it is a private entity so they are entitled to do what they like.... they should just be honest about it.
Rest assured if an anyonymous entity was spewing stuff they didn't like, the story would be different. 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Chief Etiquette Officer of TAY and TAY's #1 Poster
Poet Laureate of TAY.
Chairman and Founder of FOTAY( Friends of TAY)
Moderator of the moderators.
"Most Brilliant Move" of the 11/12 ski season
" Knows what he is talking about"
Expert Typist.
|
|
|
Marcus
Administrator
Offline
Posts: 2236
WWW
|
I don't remember the issue of anonymous postings, etc, that Hyak_Jack is talking about -- can you link to it?
Despite Scotsman's assertions, there's no favoritism going on here. I've been happier overall with Yamma and Ruffryder's contributions here than with WMC, mostly because they've been very willing to get to the root of the problem and work on a solution that would benefit all user groups. I think that's the best way to go about resolving these conflicts. Personally, I think WMC's unwillingness to participate under his/her own name(s) is damaging their credibility in the debate somewhat, but they have their reasons.
There are very few hard and fast rules here and things that may have been "defined" in the past may well be outside my experience with the site (and are certainly outside it as an admin). If this kind of anonymous posting becomes a problem, the way it's handled will change, whether I agree with the topic at hand or not.
If this thread continues, I'd prefer it to be more discussion/collaboration and less cross-posting/boilerplate. All the necessary contact information has long since been shared here, for interested parties to find.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Scotsman
Member
Offline
Posts: 3173
|
Personally, I think WMC's unwillingness to participate under his/her own name(s) is damaging their credibility in the debate somewhat, but they have their reasons.
I agree with you!
Good post Marcus. You're making a a difference.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Chief Etiquette Officer of TAY and TAY's #1 Poster
Poet Laureate of TAY.
Chairman and Founder of FOTAY( Friends of TAY)
Moderator of the moderators.
"Most Brilliant Move" of the 11/12 ski season
" Knows what he is talking about"
Expert Typist.
|
|
|
hyak.net
Member
Online
Posts: 552
WWW
|
I don't remember the issue of anonymous postings, etc, that Hyak_Jack is talking about -- can you link to it?
I wish I could remember the details, but it was around 2004 and it is the reason my name was changed from MrHyak to Hyak_Jack. There was some talk about anonymous people and wanting real names and I changed my name so not to cause any problems. I'll search the archives to see if I can find the discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Jim Oker
Moderator
Offline
Posts: 1227
|
Just goes to show you, I thought Hyack_Jack was a pseudonym, not a first_lastname sorta deal (or last_firstname)! No worries, as Marcus asserts, WMC's tactics, including but not limited to the name thing, simply work to erode his/her(?) credibility as an advocate.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ruffryder
Member
Offline
Posts: 125
|
Just goes to show you, I thought Hyack_Jack was a pseudonym, not a first_lastname sorta deal (or last_firstname)! No worries, as Marcus asserts, WMC's tactics, including but not limited to the name thing, simply work to erode his/her(?) credibility as an advocate.
From Snowest,
It turns out that the WMC poster was also a character on snowest called Randonee or something like that. He gave out a bunch of threatening pm's to people when the discussion about snowmobile areas became heated last year.
Interesting how things turn about.
I think skiers need to become more organized to help their own cause. By help I mean, not to help cut up the land between users, but help in gaining more access points for their use.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
hyak.net
Member
Online
Posts: 552
WWW
|
Bump....it is all the same as before, just a re-hash. Why not just read through the entire 27 page thread so we don't have to go over it all again.... (talk about beating a dead horse)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
WMC
Member
Offline
Posts: 263
|
http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/12/02/41894.htm
Fight Over Snowmobiles in Forests Continues
By PHILIP A. JANQUART
Friday, December 02, 2011
BOISE, Idaho (CN) - A loophole in the U.S. Forest Service's travel management plan effectively exempts snowmobiles from regulation on National Forest lands, an environmental group claims.
The Winter Wildlands Alliance says the 2005 "Travel Management; Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use" rule violates laws for off-road vehicles in the Salmon-Challis, Boise and Idaho Panhandle National Forests.
The Alliance says the Forest Service continues to allow snowmobiles in those areas despite conflicts with nonmotorized recreation users.
"The 2005 Travel Management Rule violates Executive Order 11644, which directs the Forest Service to issue regulations for use and control of all off-road vehicles, including OSVs [over-snow vehicles], in order to protect national forest lands, promote the safety of all users of those lands and minimize conflicts among the various uses of those lands," according to the complaint.
Winter Wildlands and other groups petitioned the Forest Service to close the loophole in the 2005 Travel Management Rule to include snowmobiles, but the Forest Service refused. It continues to allow discretionary regulation of snowmobiles in each National Forest.
"Contrary to the direction of Executive Order 11644, the 2005 Rule exempts OSVs from the requirement that the Forest Service must designate areas as open or closed to off-road vehicles on all Forest Service lands, instead making the control of OSVs completely discretionary on each national forest," the complaint states.
The Wildlands Alliance says the Forest Service's exemption of snowmobiles is "arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion under the Administrative Procedure Act."
Fueling the complaint is the fact that snowmobiles are increasingly built with more horsepower, enabling them to travel farther into the forest and higher up mountainsides.
Winter Wildlands says the machines are still made with less efficient two-stroke engines that affect trees, vegetation, soil, animals and humans.
The Alliance cites the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's finding that older two-stroke snowmobiles pollute more than off-road dirt bikes and four-wheelers, and produce an amount of pollution equivalent to 100 cars.
The emissions are retained in snowpack and discharged into lakes and streams during spring thaw. In addition, trees and vegetation are often damaged, limbs on saplings broken or bent, leading to deformed growth.
"These impacts can change the predominant plant species over large areas ..." the complaint states. "Studies have also connected snow compaction from snowmobiles to delayed flowering of plants in spring, lower soil bacteria and inhibited seed germination, dispersal and growth."
Animal species affected by snow compaction, pollution and noise include subnivean mammals such as mice and voles, deer, elk, bobcat, multiple species of birds, bear and the threatened Canada lynx.
Part of the problem, Winter Wildlands says, is that the 2005 Rule splits the Executive Order's definition of off-highway vehicles (OHVs) into two classes: OHVs and OSVs.
"In place of the mandatory regulations used for OHVs, the Forest Service added a provision to the 2005 Rule that affords the National Forests complete discretion in regulating OSVs rather than requiring forests to regulate OSVs as they must do for OHVs."
Winter Wildlands wants the court to reverse the snowmobile exemption and make snowmobile-use designations mandatory in all travel management planning.
Formed in 2000, Winter Wildlands works on behalf of snowshoers, skiers, snowboarders, winter hikers and other outdoor adventurers.
It is represented by Lauren Rule, with Advocates for the West, and Laurence Lucas, both of Boise.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 02/08/12, 11:40 PM by WMC »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
WMC
Member
Offline
Posts: 263
|
http://www.wenatcheeworld.com/news/2012/jan/28/tension-between-snowmobilers-other-winter-users/
Tension between snowmobilers, other winter users, heats up
By K.C. Mehaffey
World staff writer
Saturday, January 28, 2012
WENATCHEE — Rob Mullins remembers the days when he could load up his snowmobile, ride for a few miles up any one of a dozen groomed snowmobile trails, park the machine and go skiing for a full day of quiet recreation.
That’s back when a snowmobile could barely chug through deep snow off a groomed trail.
But those days are gone. Now, Mullins says, he’s hard-pressed to find a spot — even deep in the back country — where he won’t run into a group of snowmobilers, carving up the powdered slopes that took him hours on skis to reach.
A former Leavenworth logger and trapper who retrained as a nurse, Mullins says he has nothing against snowmobilers. He relates to these guys when they stop to chat with him. And, after all, he uses one himself.
His issue is with the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, which, he says, is refusing to recognize that snowmobiling isn’t the same sport it was 20 years ago.
“It’s ridiculous. We’re out on foot, with our family or our dog, and we’re being asked to share the space with a vehicle that weighs 450 pounds and goes 80 miles per hour,” said Gus Bekker, who heads a Wenatchee backcountry ski and snowshoe club and, with Mullins, founded the Wenatchee Mountains Coalition.
There have long been tensions between people who like to recreate in the winter on skis or snowshoes and those who prefer riding on a snow machine.
But a newly proposed Forest Plan has brought the issue to a head.
Snowmobilers are upset because the Forest Service may recommend changing popular snowmobile play areas into wilderness, which is off limits to snowmobiling.
And some non-motorized users aren’t happy because the plan makes no changes with regard to snowmobiles, even though the machines themselves — and their use on the forest — have changed dramatically since the last plan was enacted some 20 years ago.
“Any time there’s a change, it rolls down to us,” said Cal Anderson, president and groomer of the Apple Country Snowmobile Club.
He said when a skier or other winter user gets injured or lost out in the woods in the winter, ski patrols or the sheriff’s office call out the snowmobile clubs to help in the search. But if some areas used for winter recreation become wilderness, snowmobiles won’t be able to respond there, he noted.
Anderson said he’s not aware of any issues between skiers and snowmobilers sharing trails. “We really don’t have a problem with the skiers or snowboarders in our area,” he said. “In Lake Wenatchee, they share their trails with the dog sledders. Everybody seems to slow down for them — same with the skiers.”
But some skiers say slowing down — while respectful and appreciated — isn’t really the issue, although noise, emissions and safety are reasons they think that sharing trails doesn’t work.
Bekker and Mullins say snowmobiles have taken over the forest in the wintertime, and no one’s doing anything about it. “Your average hiker or person that recreates in the summer, if they actually knew the extent of forest domination by snowmobile riding in the winter, I think they would be outraged,” Bekker said. “We’ve gotten to the point where, through default, and by non-management, they’ve come to accept that the entire forest should be open to motorized use in the winter.”
He said the agency should be preparing for more non-motorized users, as national trends from 2006 to 2010 show a 47 percent decline in the sale of snowmobiles, while backcountry skiing, snowshoeing and alpine ski touring all grew.
Mullins said when he first raised the issue with the Forest Service, officials told him to bring his concerns to a committee developing the new Forest Plan, so he did. But now that the plan is out, he finds no change with respect to snowmobiles.
Forest Service officials say they agree snowmobiling on the forest needs to be addressed. But it’s not part of the proposed Travel Management Plan, which covers only motorized vehicles used in the summer, and it doesn’t belong in the Forest Plan.
Margaret Hartzell, the Forest Plan revision leader, said the level of detail needed to set aside certain areas for non-motorized winter use doesn’t fit with the broad over-reaching planning that’s set out in the Forest Plan.
The Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest recognizes that recreation trends are changing, and that snowmobiling must be addressed, said Mary Bean, Forest Service recreation manager. But currently, the agency is in the middle of reviewing a proposed Forest Plan and Travel Management Plan, and cannot take on another major forest-wide planning effort.
When the Forest Service does get around to developing a plan for winter recreation, it’s likely to cause a bit of a stir.
Andy Dappen, content editor for the online magazine WenatcheeOutdoors.org, said not even skiers and snowshoers agree among themselves about how the increasing use of snowmobiles should be addressed, particularly since some of them use snowmobiles to get to their favorite skiing spots. But most agree that there aren’t enough places set aside specifically for non-motorized users.
“The bigger issue for me is having places nearby where the average recreationist can go to have a quiet, relaxing outing,” he said. “Nowadays, life is pretty ramped up, and cross country skiers and snowshoers look at the outdoors as a quiet place to unwind. This isn’t compatible with the speed and noise of snowmobiles.”
He said it appears to be a problem, not just on the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, but in many areas where snowmobilers and cross country and backcountry skiers mix. “It seems like an issue that hasn’t had an easy fix,” he said.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
WMC
Member
Offline
Posts: 263
|
http://www.redding.com/news/2011/nov/14/snowmobiles-get-thumbs-up/
Lawsuit challenges snowmobiling in national forests; no restrictions in place yet
For the time being, north state snowmobilers won't have to worry about the U.S. Forest Service limiting where they can ride, even as a lawsuit challenging the recreational activity makes it way through federal court.
On Nov. 3, the Snowlands Network, Winter Wildlands Alliance and Center for Biological Diversity filed a civil suit in federal court challenging whether the U.S. Forest Service has adequately studied the potential harms snowmobiling causes California's forests. The groups allege snowmobiles are sources of toxic emissions, water and noise pollution, they disturb winter animals and damage snow-covered foliage. The suit also alleges snowmobiles are a nuisance for those who enjoy winter "nonmotorized recreation" like cross-country skiing and snowshoeing. The suit notes several members of the environmental groups are among those "seeking quiet recreation."
"Due to the adverse impacts of snowmobiles, other governmental agencies that have extensively studied snowmobile impacts — such as Yellowstone National Park — have imposed restrictions on the types and number of snowmobiles allowed, and severely limited the areas in which they may be used," according to the groups' complaint. "The Forest Service has not taken comparable action."
John Heil, a spokesman for the U.S. Forest Service's Pacific Southwest Region, said Monday forest administrators won't make any changes to how snowmobile riders access or use public lands while the suit is pending.
He declined to talk about the suit, saying the Forest Service doesn't comment on ongoing litigation.
The suit was condemned by at least one local snowmobile rider, Sylvia Milligan, the former north region director of California-Nevada Snowmobile Association. The Anderson woman called the suit "frivolous."
Milligan also is chairwoman of the Recreation Outdoor Coalition, a group that had challenged potential restrictions to off-highway vehicles on federal forest land.
She said snowmobile riders are a responsible group who ride machines that have limits on how much noise they can make and the amount of emissions they release. She said the state recently performed its own environmental reviews and found no problems.
"They couldn't sue against it (the state)," Milligan said. "Now, they're trying to sue the Forest Service."
Milligan notes her fellow riders have tried to foster positive relationships with snowshoers and skiers, many of whom enjoy trekking on the groomed snowmobile trails and the ungroomed paths the snowmobiles pack down.
"We try so hard to get along with these folks," she said.
There are 260 miles of groomed and ungroomed snowmobile trails on three national forests near Mt. Shasta. The primary access point for snowmobilers in the Shasta-Trinity National Forest is on the Pilgrim Creek Road outside of McCloud.
The suit says there are more than 1,700 miles of groomed snowmobile trails on California's national forests, providing snowmobile riders access to more than 8.3 million acres, a vastly larger amount than that given other nonmotorized recreation, where only 162 miles of trails are maintained for skiing and snowshoeing.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
hyak.net
Member
Online
Posts: 552
WWW
|
"He said the agency should be preparing for more non-motorized users, as national trends from 2006 to 2010 show a 47 percent decline in the sale of snowmobiles, while backcountry skiing, snowshoeing and alpine ski touring all grew."
This is not a trend because snowmobiles are not as popular, but because of a poor economy. You don't change permanent recreation use because of a bad economy. Also, I see you modified the date on a 2 year old thread with this years date....lol
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you to our sponsors!
|
Contact turns-all-year.com
Turns All Year Trip Reports ©2001-2010 Turns All Year LLC. All Rights Reserved
The opinions expressed in posts are those of the poster and do not necessarily
reflect the opinions of Trip Reports administrators or Turns All Year LLC
|
Turns All Year Trip Reports | Powered by SMF 1.0.6.
© 2001-2005, Lewis Media. All Rights Reserved.
|
Page created in 0.779 seconds with 20 queries.
|
