# Babe Winkleman article



## Southwest Fisher (May 14, 2004)

Oil and gas development on Western public lands threatens fish and wildlife habitat
They were dressed in cowboy hats, blue jeans and snakeskin boots.

And they had a blistering message for federal lawmakers and the Bush administration: keep your greedy hands off our public lands. 
In late January, Trout Unlimited, a national conservation organization, brought a small but hardcore group of hunters and anglers from four Rocky Mountain states to Washington to protest an energy bill whose provisions include opening up Western public lands to oil and gas drilling. 
The drilling, they believe, will destroy some of the most pristine fish and wildlife habitat in North America, disrupting their lives as hunters and anglers and depressing the region's billion-dollar tourism economy. 
These aren't your prototypical suit-and-tie-clad lobbyists, professional talkers who've turned BS into high art. 
No, we're talking about salt-of-the earth and plain-spoken men who typically support Republicans but who have become increasingly disillusioned with the Bush administration's environmental policies -- a record that, many political observers believe, could decide the 2004 presidential election. 
One of them is Stoney Burk, an attorney and avid bow hunter and angler from Choteau, Montana.
"I voted for Bush in the last election, but there's no way in heck I'm voting for him this time around," said Burk, who was among the group who traveled to Washington in late January.
"The Bush-Cheney cartel is trying to invade are remaining roadless areas. These wild lands are some of the last tracts of uninterrupted wildlife corridors, habitat and renewable wildlife populations we have. It's a disgrace."
The omnibus energy bill, which the Bush Administration and the Republican leadership support, is, as of this writing, bottled up in Congress. But that could change in the not-so-distant future, I'm told. 
The idea of tapping Western public lands for oil and gas first surfaced in January 2001, when President Bush created an energy task force to develop a national energy policy. Headed by vice president Dick Cheney, the task force was criticized from the beginning because Cheney arranged secret meetings in which energy companies were major players. But after 9/11, the administration made energy independence a national priority, setting the stage for the current public lands dispute. 
"Certainly, our nation needs reliable energy sources," said Chris Wood, vice president of conservation for the Virginia-based Trout Unlimited. "But if energy production comes at the expense of fish and wildlife, we all lose. Congress needs to ensure that our public lands are managed for true multiple uses, and that oil and gas development does not have priority over wildlife, and hunting and fishing interests."
According to Trout Unlimited -- which recently released a report on how gas and oil development on Western public lands would impact fish and wildlife habitat and, by extension, hunting and angling -- roughly 9 million people spend more than $5 billion each year to hunt, fish and otherwise enjoy the outdoors in Montana, Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and New Mexico. 
The outdoors, Wood says, is the engine that drives many of the small, rural economies that dot those Rocky Mountain States. "Without quality hunting and fishing, some of these small communities would face an uncertain future," said Wood. "And the folks who have the most to loose from this energy bill have been conspicuously absent from this debate. Their voices need to be heard." 
What's more, in the fall of 2003, more than 100 economists sent a letter to President Bush and the governors of western states telling them that protecting and enhancing natural environments would increase the ability of western communities to generate more jobs and higher incomes. "The West's natural environment is, arguably, its greatest, long-run economic strength," the economists wrote. 
Wood and others wonder if drilling alone will solve the nation's energy problems. According to the TU report, the U.S. Energy and Information Administration says that streamlining environmental reviews and increasing access to federal natural gas on public lands "would increase supplies by less than 1 percent, and save the average U.S. household $5 per year through 2020."
Burk, who is a member of Friends of the Rocky Mountain Front, worries that oil and gas development will destroy some of the best elk and deer habitat in the West and turn into a "God awful eyesore." 
"I've hunted the back country my whole life," said Burk. "If this untrammeled country is developed, damaging critical wildlife corridors and habitat, it would be a blight on our hunting heritage. Teddy Roosevelt would roll over in his grave." 
According to Wood, critical fish habitats hang in the balance as well. More than 50 percent of the nation's healthiest trout streams originate on public lands, and these sensitive waterways face an uncertain future due to plans for increased coal bed methane development, which can harm water quality and quantity. "Several studies have demonstrated the adverse impacts that come from coal bed methane development," Wood said. "If this bill passes, miles of trout streams will be in jeopardy." 
What the Bush administration doesn't understand is that for many of us hunting and fishing isn't just something we do. It is, in fact, who we are. 
Guys like Stoney Burk understand this truth. Here's hoping our politicians get the message before its too late. 
Said Burk: "I encourage everyone who reads your column to contact their legislatures and tell them that this policy is reckless and ill-conceived. We cannot let this happen."


----------



## drjongy (Oct 13, 2003)

If Americans are going to keep raising a big fuss over $2/gallon gas prices, then the reality is that we are going to have to find oil closer to home. We can certainly keep environmental impact lower in the US if we import more, but then we must quit complaining about higher gas prices.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I think Bush should redirect NASA's mission from going to Mars to developing the technologies necessary for alternative power sources, especially solar. Simultaneously congress should place incentives for more use of, and development of, hybrid and true electric cars. Hybrids are very common down here in Atlanta.


----------



## jimboy (Apr 1, 2003)

We need to put preasure on Saudi and kuwait. we save their A$$ and they gouge us for oil. we should be getting cheap oil from Kuwait for the favor we did them in "91" We should be getting cheap oil from the Saudi's for protecting their borders. Does anbody know if Kuwait gave us anything for saving their country? or do they think we owed them this multi-billion dollar favor. :******:


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

How about the 400 year or so supply of coal for the entire country that rests beneath the soil of ND. Talk about economic development. I would only wonder how much money goes into the pockets of our elected officials at the state and federal level in terms of campaign contributions. Didn't the legislature just vote down a bill to give some type of funding for the development of Ethanol in the state of ND....if it's a bad idea why is SD jumping on the band wagon.....We've got free WIND, why are we not developing that on a state-wide basis and selling it to the highest bidder?


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

The Infrastructure is not capable of moving the power from wind energy and its still not cost effective compared to other sources of energy. If oil prices keep going up eventually these alternatives will become cost effective.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Interesting message to all politicians on the value of quality of life. Maybe they will heed the call.
Never understood why the countries energy policy is to produce more oil instead of conserving use. 
gg, although the transmission grid isn't in place for exporting wind gen elct, could it not be used here? If they used wind generated electricty to crack water and compress the H, would it be cost effective?


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

The heat from sportspersons.....the upcoming elections.....the recent CRP extension announcement. Coincidence?


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I can't resist Bob!!!....are these those nasty Republicans,whoops,I mean conservatives, trying to plunder our public resources for their own benifit??? :eyeroll:


----------



## Southwest Fisher (May 14, 2004)

Dan, we're thinking along some similar lines there.

Now, now, Ken, be the bigger person, no matter how much fun it is, at least Bob admitted to the existence of renewable resources, that is more than most Republicans can do.

If we pushed our funding into wind and ethanol technology development we could make them cost-effective in no time, while becoming self-sufficient. If we lowered our oil consumption by exploiting these technologies we could end the Middle East's control over our economy and not have to tap into oil reserves found under wonderful parks.

Hybrid fuels will be the key, I just wish I hadn't gotten that D in chemistry.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Ken, sadly you're correct some of the greedy ones anyway, but not by any means representative of most of us conservatives. We don't want the wild places plundered either. I will say the drilling should be allowed in many places that it is currently not allowed but only for a fixed period of time as part of a comprehensive plan to get off the foreign oil dependency and on to renewable resources. The potential of solar power is unlimited.
I think the problem is the politically powerful and well connected ( plenty of whom are Democrats including the Kennedys) are always too concerned with the "not in my back yard" attitude hence the search for fuel in pristine areas. I'm no expert on oil reserves but I seem to remember reading about lots of it off the coast of both California and Florida. The technology for retrieveing it is sound and clean ( I used to fly to oilrigs and do pump startups). I would be in favor of tapping it and using it as we develop our solar options. And I would love to see the Russians and the Arabs not have us as prisoners to their oil supplies. The solar technology is non polluting and the science is well documented we just have to get the guts to just do it. Its kind of like going on a diet it won't be fun but the result is worth it.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

The hippies of the 60's were not real environmentalists as they professed. They were simply radical troublemakers. The problem is today people still remember the 60's and think that all environmentalists are tree hugging freaks. The truth is nobody wants dirty water or dirty air we are all environmentalists, but to different degrees. We on this site, as outdoor enthusiasts, are perhaps remnants of the original environmentalists. We on the most part hunt not for the kill, but for the feelings of self reliance, and for the feeling that we a part of the scheme of life. We are more technologically advanced than any other predator, yet few realize that we are as much a part of the balance of nature as the bear or wolf. Anti hunters and non hunters never will understand that. None of us want to see the wilderness breached. It is an emotional trauma because we put so much value upon our wild lands. Therefore I agree we must develop other power supplies. Clean energy. I also think that these countries where American blood was shed for their freedom do owe us. A bare minimum would be to repay the financial burden that Americans endured to free them. They have the resources to do it without any suffering on their part. Meanwhile if the power companies can extract oil with no damage to the environment I would let them. We know that all large companies will lie to us given the chance. The money is just to tempting. If they create and environmental disaster they are perfectly willing to pay a huge fine and pass it on to the consumer. I would challenge the oil companies to sign an agreement that if they create an environmental disaster that their board of directors face criminal charges. If they agree to that I will believe them. I also don't trust the radical environmentalists. Remember how all the caribou were going to die if the Alaska pipeline went in. Well, I bought into that and it didn't happen. The population flourished and went up. I hate to think of it, but I think we will eventually have to extract our oil from our wilderness areas. Perhaps not in my lifetime, but we better began now to develop plans to do it cleanly and hold people accountable. Keep in mind that even if we extract every drop from the entire planet it eventually will not be enough. If you consider that we have been on this planet for thousands of years and the internal combustion engine has only been here since when --- the late 1800's. In that context we must develop new energy or go back to the stone age. I wonder will we still have to rearrange the furniture and paint the cave every couple years? Maybe we will get to hunt more. Then again we will probly have to pay five skins per club per day.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I agree Bob,I just couldn't help myself,had to get at least 1 jab in...there has to be a balanced way to do it....kind of middle of the road.If the technology is there then it should be looked at.

Course the oil companies in Bush's back pocket are all for it rather than funding ways to use wind and solar energy.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Ken W

I think as soon as any company sees a profit in wind and solar energy they will be in it. I think bp (beyond petroleum) makes a big deal of it in their advertisements already. As a conservative I will admit that Bush more than likely has a soft spot in his heart for oil. After all he was in it for years. Would not a farmer who became president have a soft spot for farmers? As far as being in his pocket I think that is as silly as Hillary talking about the vast right wing conspiracy. I don't trust large companies myself, but to automatically hate them is to fall for the class warfare that some would like us to buy into. That is what the two Americas speech was all about. It was a wedge between what we each perceive as the have and the have not in America. It's a good strategy if you believe it. The problem is psychology goes to work. Walk up to the richest man in town and ask if he thinks he is rich. Everyone thinks they are the little guy. If a business makes $100,000 a year he looks at the guy who makes $1,000,000 and feels sorry for himself. Kerry perhaps looks at Bill Gates and sees himself as the little guy when the truth is he makes Bush and Cheney combined look like welfare cases. Up at 6:54 am on a Saturday Ken, I can see your not a lazy man. I'm surprised your anti Bush.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Ken thats Ok I actually laughed out loud when I read it thought it was funny, but I have pretty thick skin. ( no sissies allowed :lol: )
Plainsman said


> I would challenge the oil companies to sign an agreement that if they create an environmental disaster that their board of directors face criminal charges


I would agree if it was due to negligence or not meeting legal standards but if it was an accident then no way is this reasonble. If you were a manager of a company facing criminal charges for some unforseen accident would you take the risk, I'm sorry I usaully agree with you but this is not right. The fact is that we all need to understand this is not a perfect world and its all our shared responsibility to extract oil responsibly.
One thing that is often not considered is that we can clean up messes and the earth has the capacity to do the same. We humans always view things in the context of our lifetime when in reality a thousand years to the earth is comparable to a second in our lives. 
We have the technologies for alternative fuels we just must encourage our politicians to have the will.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

The idea that Bush is somehow driveing the oil business is false. let me point out a couple things
1) if kerry was elected tomorrow would any of us change our use of fossil fuels? No, of course not, we will all be driving to work in our cars trucks SUVs ect. just like every otherday
2) Our economy is absolutely dependent on oil as a fuel source and if we don't have good access to the worlds oil supply our economy would crumble overnight. Then we wouldn't have the financial resources to develop an alternative energy source, we would descend into a third world country, we wouldn't be *****in about losing pheasant hunting spots we would be fighting over firewood. So no matter who is president they have a responsibility to all the citizens of this nation to keep the oil spigot open.
3) *we as citizens of this country are the real problem because of the total ignorance of the voting public.* Most don't have a clue about these issues( or for that matter any important issues) so they do not put any pressure on politicians to make the changes to alternative fuels.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

We all have a stake in the future of our environment. Like Ken said balance is needed. We convert to ethanol and our wetlands and native grasses will disappear at a rate faster than the 60's and 70's. Our air quality will deteriorate because the grasses are huge carbon cleansing filters and our water supply will be depleted even more.

So we have to look at the least invasive to the total overall picture what is best short term and long. Wind and coal NG and oil are resources we currently have in ND. MN has no working oil wells and is energy dependent upon other states for most of the power it needs. Nuclear plants are an option but there again where is the balance and the risk of using this energy source. These issues to some degree are black and white but many are different shades of gray.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Bob

When I said make it criminal if they mess up and create another Exxon veldez , terrestrial or aquatic, I mean if they lie about the technology being clean. Accidents are accidents, but monitor them so we know if it was an accident or they simply lied to get to the oil. I don't begrudge companies a profit, but I don't trust them either. Within companies there are good people, and there are criminals just like the rest of society. It is just that I have become so distrusting after years of "accidents" I would have to have some assurance. If they really believe they have the technology then put their a$$ on the line and maybe I will believe them again. Don't get me wrong I don't automatically believe the wild eyed, frantic, self proclaimed saviors of mother earth either. Bob I still think we do agree.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Hey Ron....I am very pro-nuclear, as far as dangerous or dirty we have over 50 years of success with our nuclear powered Navy. There has not been one US citizen harmed by nuclear energy in our Navy. We need to model our electric production off of these examples.

The sad part is the same people that are ruling the world now with control of the coal/oil were awarded the priveledge of overseeing the introduction and use of nuclear energy in mainstream America.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

The problem with nuclear power is...does anyone REALLY want one of those close to where they live???

Plus they are obvious terrorist targets.Can't see them blowing up a coal mine.

Plainsman...I am up every morning at 6-6:30...have to be at work at 7:00.

As far as supporting Bush....I'm a moderate and really don't like everything either one of them stands for.Will be a tough decision at election time.

Why can't we ever elect someone from the middle ground?I'm tired of always having to choose from ultra-liberals or ultra-conservatives.It's always one extreme or the other.That's why except for Hoeven's policies toward hunters I think he is OK...But that means the most to me right now.So he won't get my vote.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Ken W

7:00 am here too, but I am kind of slow so I have to get up at 5:30 or 5:45. I agree with you on Hoeven. I sure hope we are not jumping from the frying pan into the fire. I am a little apprehensive. I wish we could get a president that would be pro environmental, pro gun, kick a$$ with the terrorists, keep our taxes down etc. I don't know if there are any of that kind. I guess I am a conservative with an environmental twist.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Hey Ken....I don't know it would be jobs and if they wanted the nuclear power plants could be in a rural area of each state. There are more than 100 nuclear power plants running now in the US, they have mainly been used to produce plutonium thru fission. Another by-product was electricity and all nuclear power plants have been operated in that manner since the beginning.

It's a shame the powers that be have managed to create the nuclear boogy man everybody is afraid of. I hate to say it but nuclear energy is just as big a player in these wars we have been fighting as oil is. I am interested in the Middle eastern countries need to build nuclear power plants. They realize it would be better to stop using oil themselves and sell us all the more, just wait and see the American interest over there will see to it.

It's the future and I am very interested in that... 8)


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Ken, Mr. Bush is by no stretch of the imagination ultra conservative, I think that the hatred liberals direct toward him is totally ( and unfairly )directed toward him because of the circumstance of the close vote count fiasco in Florida. IF you look at what hes actaully done so far he is very liberal for a Republican, farm bill , free medicine for the elderly ect, he has expanded many social programs not popular with conservatives. I bet if it weren't for the election circumstance he would be pretty popular with many middle of the road and conservative Democrats. Kerrys actual record on the otherhand is ultra liberal anti gun, pro gay ect and not representative of the mainstream americans, even most Dems are much more conservative on most issues than Kerry, which is why he can't get much traction, they know in their hearts hes not the right guy for president. Thats why everytime you hear someone talking about the election they don't talk about Kerry they talk about how they want to "get Bush out" its misdirected vengence against a good man and a shame . If people would really look at the records of both men and not the BS spewed by the media I don't think this would be a close election. Why Bush is blamed and hated because the election was close is beyond rational comprehension, neither he nor Gore had any hand in that circumstance.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Good post Bob.Though I'm still not convinced.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Read their actual records is all I can say. See what they actaully support and then make your decision, its the right thing to do. Don't let anything but their records determine your decision. If its based on that and not the smoldering anger about the last election then we have all done our duty as citizens. Make our decision based on what we think is best for the country, we are all in this together.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Your exactly right Bob. I don't consider myself ultra conservative, but Bush is a little to liberal for me. I guess you know where that puts Kerry in my book. Also, many conservatives are disappointed that Bush is so liberal with the money in social programs. Calling him ultra conservative is simply partisan name calling. They keep saying it in hopes they can convince the uninformed, and reinforce the closed minded.


----------



## snoopy (Sep 29, 2003)

OK, I hate to get involved in the political post because like Kew W I am very much middle of the road. I'm not really fond of either presidental candidate so for me it will be choosing the lesser of 2 evils. The juryu is still out on that.

I have to disagree with you on one point Bob. We can't judge any congressman or representative strictly on their voting record. Our house and senate bills are stuctured so that a lot of bulls**t is tagged onto the end of thse bills. So if you are a conservative voting on a gun bill a liberal will try to tag a gay rights amendment onto the end of the same bill. Now how do you vote? If I'm a liberal voting for a social program some conservative tags an amendment to allow more access to public lands onto it. So how should I vote? The point if that very few bills contain only the main bill.

It is also a system where one group will hold another hostage in order to get their vote. We will only support you on this bill if you go against party lines and give us support over here.

I'm not supporting either Bush or Kerry but I am very sure that both have had to go against their better judgement on one issue to get what they want on another. That's just the way the system works.


----------



## Southwest Fisher (May 14, 2004)

Thanky ou, Snoopy, for making a _very _good point there. It's not as black and white as some would make it out to be, I think the key is to investigate for yourself from a variety of sources. Good post.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I agree Snoopy...which is why I don't vote stricty along party lines.

There is also a huge difference between local,state,and federal elections.

Like I said above I think governor Hoeven is doing a good job EXCEPT for the area that most concerns me.I am a member of NDEA,which endorses Democrats alomost exclusively....but has endorsed Governor Hoeven this year.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Ken and SWF, Snoopys' point is only valid if you are looking at one vote.....Kerry has a twenty year track record of anti-gun, extremely liberal votes so the trend is obvious and so is where he stands, which is a far left liberal from Massachusetts. I bet if he ran in North Dakota anywhere in the south he would'nt get elected. Hes suddenly sounding like a middle of the roader for political purpose only.


----------



## Southwest Fisher (May 14, 2004)

And yet Bush is a moderate why? Because he won't take on abortion as he had promised since his days as Gov? We're moving off track here, but by your own premise for judging Kerry's record then Bush's record on enviromental issues speaks just as clearly. You can't open up national parks for thousands of snowmobiles to cruise ten feet apart at 8 mph (by the way, I've seen video of this, my GOD do these people need a life, what's fun about going so slow and destroying habitat in the process?)and call it the "Clear Parks Initiative." And after my experiences and what I've seen in the oilfields, don't even get me started on our nation's oil dependency. Remember, oil deposits and habitat go hand in hand, the best reserves in our state is found in the badlands, and that is a delightful area for gaming.


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

As a center-of-the-roader too, my main concern is what kind of Supreme Court Justice will be appointed by each man? That is the only place without checks and balances in our system. That is what is at stake in this election (but I haven't heard much about it).

I doubt I would like anytone that Kerry would nominate, and I doubt thhat I would approve of how that person would seek to change America from the bench.

M.
[/i]


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

MRN

I think that has been the best point so far. Judges are choosing sides, and that's not right. There job is to make decisions guided by the constitution. It's bad now, but I fear it would get worse. Bush has not been able to appoint many federal judges also. The liberals have a litmus test, and it is the abortion controversy that drives it. I think any judge liberal or conservative is doing a disservice to the nation when they interpret the constitution with a political bias. Bush has tried to appoint some very good people, but has met with blocking efforts every time. Out courts are without judges and many are backlogged more than a year.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Good points about judges.

That always reminds me of a Law and Order show where a judge is being replaced in a trial because of misconduct.

The head guy says...."Judges aren't supposed to care who wins and who loses."


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

SF, have you ever been to Yellowstone snowmobiling in the winter, that whole ban on snowmobiling out there is nothing but a farse. Snowmobiling has always been restricted to trails, and speed limit is 45MPH, I have been there 11 times, in no way are they destroying the habitat or environment. The emmissions testing that the tree huggers did on snowmobiles was totally out of wack, sometimes as high as 200-300% higher than what it actually is. Nobody was out there tearing anything up in the park, just following the trails and enjoying the views. WHAT A JOKE.


----------



## Southwest Fisher (May 14, 2004)

WHen there are fifty to a hundred snowmobiles traveling in a line, you don't think this has an effect on the animals? No, there's no noise or exhaust, they burn real clean, don't they? There are plenty of places to drives snowmobiles all over the uppermidwest, I say keep the damn things out of Yellowstone. And who wants to watch the back of his buddies bright-a**ed snowmobile jacket anyways? The best scenic views I've had in parks are ones that I've had to hike for, not drive all over habitat for.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

SWF :beer: I am 100% in agreement with you. Don't tell anyone they"ll might kick me out of the conservatives club :lol: ....I can't stand snow mobiles or four wheelers especially in a national park. The place looks like a cheap carnival. Americans wonder why they are a bunch of tubs of lard as they snomobile from bar to bar.
Yellowstone should be a place reserved for appreciation of its great natural beauty and SOLITUDE.


----------



## Red Dog (Sep 27, 2002)

:roll: 
Have you spent alot of time skiing, hiking, walking in Yellowstone in mid winter? Pretty tough on the local economy when you limit access to a national park in the winter. If your there supporting them skiiing, hiking, etc good for you but your in the vast minority and the businesses feel the effects. If not it's real easy to say preserve something from hundreds of miles away and never travel there and support it.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I'm sure your point about the effect on the local economy is correct but...the National park system is paid for by the taxpayers, all of them , and its designed to preserve wild places not provide jobs for local businesses or snowmobilers with a playground. And the park has been around a lot longer than snowmobiles have been common. To take you point to the extreme would mean why not put jeep trails all over it and run ATV trails all over in the summer, think of all the businesses that would benefit. IMHO vehicles should stay on the roads period.


----------



## Red Dog (Sep 27, 2002)

:beer: 
I'm pretty sure expanding access and maintaining the access rights that have been in place since the beginning are two seperate issues. Regardless industries develop around what the government allows, when government changes their mind these industries suffer. There are millions of acres within the United States that are protected from motorized use and they sit empty because nobody uses them for 6 months out of the year. Isn't publicly owned land supposed to be accessible to the the public? Banning motorized transportation in National Parks has no environmental upside and a significant social downside. Just my opinion, that's why we vote.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> Banning motorized transportation in National Parks has no environmental upside and a significant social downside. Just my opinion, that's why we vote.


Its a good thing to state your opinion, I didn't say ban motor vehicles in parks just keep them on the pavement. The social downside to me is to see a traffic jam or anything but nature. There is no doubt there is an effect on animals although the animal in the park are well socialized to vehicles on the road so i don't think that hurts anything, any additional stress in winter from off road vehicles can harm the animals. Public land is assessible to the public without the use of snowmobiles, use something called feet :lol: 
IF you're from ND you probably like to see a vehicle coming, you don't know how lucky you are.... I probably see more cars per week than there are in ND. Atlanta traffic sucks and its really hurting our quality of life. My 24 mile commute is 1 1/2 hours on average on a 4 lane interstate (each direction) and I go thru a set of brakes every 20 thousand miles. But hopefully I'm moving to Montana next summer.


----------

