Yellowstone Draft Winter Use Plan – Needs Fat-Biker's Input!- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 14 of 14
  1. #1
    =========
    Reputation: ~gomez~'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,869

    Yellowstone Draft Winter Use Plan – Needs Fat-Biker's Input!

    Do you dream about riding your fat-bike in Yellowstone National Park? You can help your own DREAM COME TRUE! Click on the link below and then click on “Comment on Document” to let the National Park Service know that you would like to ride your fat-bike in Yellowstone and that they should set policy to allow Fat-Bikes to be used in a responsible manner inside the park.


    Let the NPS hear a unified, responsible, pro-fat-bike, message from all of us!

    NPS PEPC - Yellowstone Draft Winter Use Plan Supplemental EIS
    Last edited by ~gomez~; 10-04-2012 at 05:29 AM.
    owner/raconteur at fat-bike.com

  2. #2
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    13,375
    Thanks for the heads-up: Comment sent.

    Took about 2 minutes, total. Get on the bus and send your own comments, people!

  3. #3
    nvphatty
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    Thanks for the heads-up: Comment sent.

    Took about 2 minutes, total. Get on the bus and send your own comments, people!
    me too me too

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    344
    my $0.02:

    The idea that the park would ban (or continue to ban) human powered recreation vis a vis snowbiking within the park limits due to "unknown impacts to park wildlife, and would not meet natural resource objectives" is absurd.

    Especially as the prime reasoning provided is the "conflict with and/or create safety hazards" with snowmobiles and snowcoaches.

    Those with throttles can and should be respectful of slower moving users regardless.

    Preventing people from recreating within the park boundaries because the method they choose (in this case human powered) is slower than the petroleum powered users currently allowed is asinine.

    To quote again, snowbiking's "unknown impacts to park wildlife" would be substantially LESS than that of the exhaust noise and pollution currently created by the motorized snow machines that frequent the park.

    The argument that other opportunities for snowbiking recreation exist outside the park is a poor strawman argument. And the same could be said in defense of a ban of all motorized park recreation. This part of the proposal was clearly written by someone adverse to snowbiking.

    It would be in the park's best interest to show preference to human powered recreation over motorized recreation.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    940

    Done!

    Thanks for the link

    P

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    218
    Added comment.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,243
    Comment Sent!
    Latitude 61

  8. #8
    turtles make me hot
    Reputation: NYrr496's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,432
    Done.
    I like turtles

  9. #9
    Hybrid Leftys aren't real Moderator
    Reputation: MendonCycleSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    15,944
    Done, thanks for the heads up Gomez!
    This is a Pugs not some carbon wannabee pretzel wagon!!

    - FrostyStruthers



    www.mendoncyclesmith.com

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,604
    I find it absurd that human powered transportation in the park is getting short shrift by this document. Snowshoes, hiking boots, skis, and bikes should be welcomed and encouraged with open arms - and policies should be set to encourage their use over other means of travel. I'd go so far as to say this should apply to other seasons as well - but it is a mystery to me why someone on a bike, designed for soft surfaces, and clearly having a much lower impact than any snowmachine, snow coach, or other emissions releasing, noisy machine, could have unforeseen impacts on wildlife.
    The last time I was deep in the woods in the winter I could hear snowmachines coming from miles away! And they certainly had a negative impact of my enjoyment of the outdoors.

    Muscles not Motors! Open up the park and encourage human powered movement and transportation year round!
    Done.

  11. #11
    Bad cat!
    Reputation: montana_ben's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    357
    Done... But here's the section on fat bikes. For the purposes of this draft management plan, they're not even considering them, this is about OSV (snowmobile and snowcoach use), and bicycle use will have to be addressed some other time... But still worth commenting on, especially if you have an opinion on snowmobile use in Yellowstone and can't hurt to mention getting bicycling included with skiing and snowshoeing in the future.


    ALLOW SNOWBIKES AND KITE-SKIING (AND OTHER USES)
    Snowbikes are modified bicycles with large, low-pressure tires to facilitate use on groomed routes. Kiteskiing
    is similar to kite-surfing with the exception of using the surface snow and using snow skis. Kiteskiing
    in the park is currently prohibited under the 2010 Superintendent’s Compendium (February 9,
    2010) (url: http://www.nps.gov/yell/planyourvisi...compendium.pdf. This alternative is
    outside the scope of this draft plan/SEIS as it does not meet the purpose of managing motorized use.
    Although the draft plan/SEIS does consider non-motorized uses, it does so in the context of existing uses
    to ensure they can continue, without conflicting with motorized uses. Similarly, due to impacts on park
    resources and safety concerns, dog sledding, ski-joring, and snowplanes are outside the scope of this draft
    plan/SEIS. Although outside the scope of this planning effort, these uses may be considered at another
    time through a separate planning effort. The NPS believes that the use of snowbikes and kite-skiing could
    conflict with and/or create safety hazards along routes on which substantial numbers of snowmobiles and
    snowcoaches operate, such as the groomed roads in Yellowstone, which would not meet the health and
    safety objectives of this draft plan/SEIS. These uses may also create potential conflict with park
    resources, would have unknown impacts to park wildlife, and would not meet natural resource objectives.
    Within units of the national park system, bicycles may only be used on park roads, parking areas, and on
    routes designated for such use by special regulation. Opportunities for snowbiking and kite skiing do exist
    in the area, outside of the park.
    Last edited by montana_ben; 10-04-2012 at 07:19 AM.

  12. #12
    .......................
    Reputation: ionsmuse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    3,049
    Quote Originally Posted by montana_ben View Post
    Done... But here's the section on fat bikes. For the purposes of this draft management plan, they're not even considering them, this is about OSV (snowmobile and snowcoach use), and bicycle use will have to be addressed some other time... But still worth commenting on, especially if you have an opinion on snowmobile use in Yellowstone and can't hurt to mention getting bicycling included with skiing and snowshoeing in the future.

    Belligerent comments which only address snowbiking are probably going to get round filed. Assuming normal procedure, they're counting how many pro comments each option gets, and will take that number into account when making and rationalizing the final decision. "Other" comments will have little effect.

    I'm not sure how likely the no-action option (which would prohibit non-administrative snowmachine and snowcoach use) is, but if that comes into being future snowbike advocacy would no be terribly useful. If there are few machines packing the roads rideable conditions will be extremely rare. Yellowstone snow tends to be very cold, dry, loose, and the roads are subject to prodigious wind drifting.

    That said, I agree that the current reasons to exclude snowbiking are not compelling.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,604
    Quote Originally Posted by ionsmuse View Post
    Belligerent comments which only address snowbiking are probably going to get round filed. Assuming normal procedure, they're counting how many pro comments each option gets, and will take that number into account when making and rationalizing the final decision. "Other" comments will have little effect.

    I'm not sure how likely the no-action option (which would prohibit non-administrative snowmachine and snowcoach use) is, but if that comes into being future snowbike advocacy would no be terribly useful. If there are few machines packing the roads rideable conditions will be extremely rare. Yellowstone snow tends to be very cold, dry, loose, and the roads are subject to prodigious wind drifting.

    That said, I agree that the current reasons to exclude snowbiking are not compelling.
    if the motors stay, then things should be opened up for fatbikes.
    if the motors go, then fine - a bike without a trail will be useless.

  14. #14
    .......................
    Reputation: ionsmuse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    3,049
    Quote Originally Posted by bmike View Post
    if the motors stay, then things should be opened up for fatbikes.
    if the motors go, then fine - a bike without a trail will be useless.
    Agreed, and bump for the weekend.

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.