Motocross track up Mt. Loop

[climbaround]

Don't know if many CC.com members have heard about this.

 

There is a proposal to build a big pro moto-cross track just up the Mountain Loop Highway below Mt. Pilchuck. This will negatively impact all non-motorized users of the mountains in this area - noise polution being the biggest problem on nearby Mt. Pilchuck. If you want to help, write the people at the bottom of this letter to the editor (Lake Stevens Journal). You can also visit the web site of The Mountain Loop Concervancy, a group that is working to stop the track:

 

Dear Editor,

The proposed Motocross Track complex along the Mt. Loop Highway has stirred debate which is important towards the community making the best decision. The proposal can also generate arguments not based in reason and cloud the facts. Here are a few facts:

 

The proposal involves clearing 75-85 acres of forest. That amount of forest removes approximately 400,000 pounds of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere annually. CO2 is the primary cause of global warming. Approximately 75 riders per day would use the tracks resulting in approximately 600,000 pounds of CO2 being introduced into the atmosphere annually. Net result: a “Carbon Footprint” of over 1,000,000 pounds of CO2 annually.

 

Long distance from emergency services. This means slow response from Fire and Medical services. The area can become extremely dry during summer months. Virtually all the private forested land in the region is closed to access during those times -- the risk is too great.

 

Over 4000 motocross riders are injured seriously enough to require hospitalization annually. A rider who is injured on the proposed track would have to “hang on” for over an hour while (1) paramedics are called to the site and (2) determine the injuries are life-threatening and (3) call for a helicopter (4) to transport the victim to the hospital.

 

Any person, plant or animal within at least a three mile radius would be impacted by the noise and dust.

 

These are facts that are often not fully weighed until it’s too late. The issue is where to best locate a motocross facility. The promoter has made a poor choice and the County Planners need to know. Contact Erik Olson at Project Manager, Snohomish County PDS, 3000 Rockefeller, Everett, WA 98201, Erik.olson@co.snohomish.wa.us.

 

Jeff Van Datta, President

Stillaguamish Citizens Alliance

 

[offset]

what are the facts about the number of climbers/hikers that go in that area? that risk injury or death having to 'wait around' for help? the emissions from climbers/hikers driving there?

 

wanting to keep the forest there is noble... granted.

 

hiding your dislike for motocrossers behind global warming facts... is less noble

[climbaround]

Offset,

 

The letter to the editor isn't mine, and I don't really agree that the distance from medical help will be much of an issue - many places dirt bikers go are further out there.

 

I don't have the facts on number of climber hikers up the Mt. Loop, but it must number in the thousands/year (just on nearby Mt. Pilchuck). Yes, they do use their cars to get there (I feel a bit guilty everytime I make a long drive somewhere for climbing/skiing fun), but at least they don't use a motorized vehical once there, and don't generate the noise pollution that a motocross track would.

 

I don't think that a dislike of motocrossers has anything to do with it. Some of the people opposed to this track have ORVs, they just don't want a huge complex in their backyard (the developer predicts 50-100 riders on a typical weekday), and think it would be better located in an industrial/freeway area where there are no nearby residents, or other existing popular recreation areas that would be adversely affected. Granted that might be hard to find, but that is the nature of the game when the activity has such a large impact.

[Fairweather]

Is "The Mountain Loop Conservancy" one of the groups that is trying to block the repair/reopening of Mountain Loop Road? If so, screw 'em. Also, many statements of fact in the letter that are just plain wrong. Is the area USFS? DNR? More "details" that seem none-too-important to this not-too-brilliant author.

[climbaround]

Fairweather,

 

No, The Mountain Loop Concervancy is not a group interested in blocking the reopening of the Mt. Loop rd., infact at our last meeting we discussed extending our area of interest (in conserving the natural environment, but also allowing noninvasive access for future generations) all the way to Darrington once it opens.

 

Go to the web site link I put in the first posting to see what they are about and to find many important details about the organization and the motocross track.

 

Which statements do you feel are just plain wrong?

[dberdinka]

So what's the carbon footprint of all the hikers driving to the Pilchuck Trailhead? Maybe they should just close the road in Granite Falls?

 

What a lame bunch of arguements, seems like they should focus on the noise pollution aspect....

[olyclimber]

I can't believe this!

 

"The proposal involves clearing 75-85 acres of forest. That amount of forest removes approximately 400,000 pounds of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere annually. CO2 is the primary cause of global warming. Approximately 75 riders per day would use the tracks resulting in approximately 600,000 pounds of CO2 being introduced into the atmosphere annually. Net result: a “Carbon Footprint” of over 1,000,000 pounds of CO2 annually."

 

Thats comical! If you're serious about your effort, better consider putting your letter writer in charge of sharpening pencils instead or something.

 

[climbaround]

Hey guys, give Jeff a break. He is a very smart, nice guy who is working hard to preserve our little corner of the planet. In his letter he was trying to marshal every argument he could to get "the general public" out in our area involved. Global warming is the hot topic right now, and might get a few people on our side who never visit the area.

 

Porter, I haven't done the research or math on the CO2 numbers, but I trust that Jeff did. Can you point us to research or facts that shows otherwise?

 

Dberdinka, I agree that the noise aspect should be the focus, it certainly is my NIMBY concern as a frequent user of Mt. Pilchuck.

 

Like I pointed out before I find myself, a professed environmentalist and "nature lover", a bit hypocritical every time I drive to the mountains for recreation. But that is true every time I drive anywhere not absolutely necessary, or use energy for "fun" - like watching TV, or listening to the radio.

 

The point of this thread is to ask CC.com members to do what they can to help us stop the track (e-mail writing, etc.). I figured many of us drive up the Mountain Loop, or hike/climb/ski on Mt. Pilchuck and so appreciate the situation and want to help out of self interest if nothing else.

 

Thanks,

[olyclimber]

the letter (and the statistics therein) where not authored by Jeff, as he pointed out. I don't need to prove the facts or dispprove them...the global warming bit is an idiotic arguement....(the motocross track is bad because it contributes to a carbon footprint that contributes to Global Warming???? WTF? Get real...the track isn't going in or not going it is going to contribute .0000000000000000012% towards global warming. yes i just made that up. ). I'm not saying yeah or nay about the cause...just the intial letter presented here would indicate a mentally disfunctional effort. I'm just pointing out that they better work on what foot they are putting forward if they expect to raise support.

 

As pointed out by others, focus on things that actually DO matter like noise pollution, etc. At anyrate I didn't mean to distract the message, but I just couldn't believe that the case was actually being presented that way. I'm done, best of luck.

[FlyOrDieTryin]

Interesting narrative from Porter. For those who have evolved enough to understand the significance of Global Warming, consideration of CO2 emissions from our activities has become very important. For others, it's a joke and something to ridicule at every opportunity. We are an interesting species with a wide range of ability to comprehend real threats to our continued existence. I seldom get too hopeful when it comes to human intellect. Remember, the Flat Earth Society is alive and well.

[olyclimber]

Dude. I'm not a scientist nor do i play one on the internet as you do, but I'm not debating whether Global Warming (capitalized for your pleasure) is FOR REALZ or not...I'm talking about the choice to use the NET ADD of the CO2 emmissions that would be presented by this proposal and using that as an argument against it...which is RETARDED. Take all the CO2 that will be emitted by users of this track and tell me what percentage it is of the total world wide CO2 emissions? Now what difference does it make? Sure... CO2 emmissions=BAD. But you're talking about a few grains of sand on the beach. I'm just trying to stop you from appearing to be an idiot! Maybe you could tie in the poor baby seals and the whales? Find some other, more solid arguments like noise pollution or traffic problems.

 

I'm not in favor of this motorcross track. I don't do motocross. But I am in favor of rational arguments. Best of luck in your campaign against it.

[AlpineK]

In my opinion concerns about global warming are best addressed by dumping money and testing into new fuel sources not trying to fuck with dirt bikers. Sure we should all try and limit how much driving we do, but that's better addressed by not driving to the store when you forgot to buy milk or turning down your thermostat at home.

 

I'm not into dirt biking, but it is a legitimate recreation. If you want to limit where people can do that then that's fine, but trying to eliminate it is stupid.

 

I drive a lot for work. My job is to evaluate trees for safety and to help come up with plans to preserve trees in urban areas. Those trees suck up CO2 close to where humans create it by driving. I too am putting CO2 into the atmosphere just doing my job. I can't just have people send me pictures of their trees and then come up with a valid opinion. I have to drive to look at the tree.

 

I should also add that most of my recreation involves burning fuel in cars and occasionally helicopters to get out in nature. Like porter said if you want to restrict noise or damage to hiking trails then good, but you CO2 agenda is stupid at best.

[cycling_mike]

Re: "I'm talking about the choice to use the NET ADD of the CO2 emmissions that would be presented by this proposal and using that as an argument against it...which is RETARDED."

 

No, actually its not. Let me give you an example: If you want to save $ for a big trip you might eat more meals at home, drink cheap beer or whatever. In the context of everything else you pay for (rent, car payments, insurance, etc.) you might be

cutting your expenses by only a few percentage points. However, it still makes sense to do so (and you can still save some $) even when you can't cut those other, bigger expenses.

The same is true of CO2 emissions; we can't shut down all our coal burning power plants this year, but we can start making other cuts right away.

The US with ~5% of the global population and ~30% of the global emissions is already way way the fuck over budget. We obviously don't need any more carbon-intensive modes of recreation.

 

Re: "Take all the CO2 that will be emitted by users of this track and tell me what percentage it is of the total world wide CO2 emissions? Now what difference does it make?"

 

This whole line of reasoning is ridiculous! Almost any specific point source of CO2 is "a few grains of sand on the beach" Hell, I could drive an RV instead of a bike to work, crank the thermostat to 100 and still make no detectable impact on global CO2 levels. I don't because I believe in personal responsibility, and judging by the increase in cyclists and energy* appliances other people do too.

 

We need a million tiny cuts in emissions right now while we work on making big cuts in the future.

[marylou]

The noise problem is my biggest concern about this project. Poor choice of location, with a lot of human-powered recreation and designated wilderness areas right in the neighborhood.

 

 

[olyclimber]

Re: "I'm talking about the choice to use the NET ADD of the CO2 emmissions that would be presented by this proposal and using that as an argument against it...which is RETARDED."

 

No, actually its not. Let me give you an example: If you want to save $ for a big trip you might eat more meals at home, drink cheap beer or whatever. In the context of everything else you pay for (rent, car payments, insurance, etc.) you might be

cutting your expenses by only a few percentage points. However, it still makes sense to do so (and you can still save some $) even when you can't cut those other, bigger expenses.

The same is true of CO2 emissions; we can't shut down all our coal burning power plants this year, but we can start making other cuts right away.

The US with ~5% of the global population and ~30% of the global emissions is already way way the fuck over budget. We obviously don't need any more carbon-intensive modes of recreation.

 

Re: "Take all the CO2 that will be emitted by users of this track and tell me what percentage it is of the total world wide CO2 emissions? Now what difference does it make?"

 

This whole line of reasoning is ridiculous! Almost any specific point source of CO2 is "a few grains of sand on the beach" Hell, I could drive an RV instead of a bike to work, crank the thermostat to 100 and still make no detectable impact on global CO2 levels. I don't because I believe in personal responsibility, and judging by the increase in cyclists and energy* appliances other people do too.

 

We need a million tiny cuts in emissions right now while we work on making big cuts in the future.

 

you still don't get it? i suppose you never will then. I'll say it again just for you anyway: ITS NOT THE RIGHT ARGUMENT AGAINST THE TRACK. PEOPLE WILL LAUGH AT YOU IF YOU USE IT.

 

Did I at any point say C02 emissions are great? But it IS grains of sand, so you're mixing your issues here. One is you don't like dirtbike riders. But I bet you drive around in car and spew your own CO2, which is the argument you're trying to use against them?

 

If you really think it is the crux legitimate issue that will change whether the track is built or not then why are you wasting time with this insignificant issue (the building of one dirtbike track) in the larger issue of CO2 emissions? Why are you centering on these poor people and their dirtbike track? If you REALLY want to fix the problem then work with/against the dirtbike makers to come up with a bike that reduces/eliminates CO2 emissions. Or what about cars? Or factories? THAT would make sense.

 

Or I guess you can save the planet by eliminating this one dirtbike track. Or you can get real, leave these people alone, and fix the real problem. You're trying to pin the whole world's CO2 emission problem on this one little track. I'm not denying a worldwide CO2 emission problem when I say that is retarded. Again, the issue being debated is this one track, not the whole world.

 

[Fairweather]

 

We need a million tiny cuts in emissions right now while we work on making big cuts in the future.

 

Right. And since you never liked this particular user group anyhow, they get to go first.

[cycling_mike]

"ITS NOT THE RIGHT ARGUMENT AGAINST THE TRACK. PEOPLE WILL LAUGH AT YOU IF YOU USE IT."

I never said anything about this particular track... I'm not sure what the most socially effective means of arguing against the track are. However, for most of the people I know, this would be the right argument against the track. Sure some people will laugh, but they will laugh less as the hey-lets-not-do-this-'cause-of-global-warming line of reasoning becomes a factor in public policy decisions big and small.

 

"Did I at any point say C02 emissions are great? But it IS grains of sand, so you're mixing your issues here."

I'm not mixing issues; I'm not trying to convince you of the negative consequences of CO2 emissions. I'm arguing that dealing with the little "grains of sand" right now is a viable tactic for reducing emissions.

 

"But I bet you drive around in car and spew your own CO2, which is the argument you're trying to use against them?"

About twice a month I drive an '82 biodiesel rabbit that gets 40-50 mpg. The rest of the time I bike. I've biked to Yosemite, the North Cascades, 11worth, Glacier, etc. Sure I spew CO2, but I've made a very serious effort to cut back.

 

"If you REALLY want to fix the problem then work with/against the dirtbike makers to come up with a bike that reduces/eliminates CO2 emissions."

Umm...emission free bikes already exist. I ride one every day. It is called a bicycle.

 

"Or what about cars? Or factories? THAT would make sense."

Well, until I get the opportunity to re-tool the entire global industrial economy I guess I'll just have to try to have an impact on the emissions that are within my sphere of influence. Also, I do support efficient cars, and I buy renewable power for my house. Arguing against the track and trying to change cars/factories are (surprise surprise) not mutually exclusive actions.

 

"Or I guess you can save the planet by eliminating this one dirtbike track. Or you can get real, leave these people alone, and fix the real problem."

Did I argue that eliminating this one track would "save the planet"? No, my whole point was/is that to "fix the real problem" we have to make all the small cuts we can, immediately.

[cycling_mike]

"Right. And since you never liked this particular user group anyhow, they get to go first."

 

Actually they aren't going first and, excepting eco-concerns, I'm pretty ambivalent towards the motocross scene. I've made a sincere effort to limit my CO2 emissions, as have many people I know. The simple fact is that we're all going to have to make changes to the way we live. Unfortunately, we can't just wait for the factories and cars to get better somehow someday. We have to start making lots of simple and concrete cuts right now.

[olyclimber]

Well, why don't yall nuke a gay baby whale for jesus, as the saying goes. I personally (i realize that it makes no difference) am doing my part to reduce my CO2 output. There is always some Mother Teresa to step up an claim that they are the "normal" ones. Amen. Well, time to fire up the snomobile to got hit my favorite ice climb.

[olyclimber]

Again, no disrespect to those fighting the track. It is not my fight, but I would suggest rational, focused debate. Don't try to solve all the world's problems with your own cause.

 

 

But if you do, then I admire your optimism.

[Dechristo]

The entire "carbon-footprint" argument is made specious by the sentence in the final paragraph: "The issue is where to best locate a motocross facility."

[cycling_mike]

good point. eh, fuck it...I'm going climbing

[AlpineK]

Just a point of order.

 

Biodiesel does reduce the total percentage of pollutants into the atmosphere; however as most biodiesel is currently produced it is just as bad as petroleum diesel when it comes to CO2.

 

I'm not going to waste my time with you, but you need to spend some time listening to some programs on the NPR program Science Friday. Biodiesel has potential if it can be made differently then it currently is, but it does nothing for reducing CO2 right now.

 

As a side note I just put biodiesel in my Chevy, but I did it since it was cheaper than other diesel prices.

I feel so green. Now I need to burn some fuel to go evaluate trees.

[cycling_mike]

Biodiesel does result in a net decrease in CO2 - when it's produced from used fry oil. It radically decreases localized emissions of almost all pollutants except for nitrous oxides unless you retard the engine timing a little. It also wont do much for PM10/2.5 if your engine isn't well maintained.

 

I buy from SeQuential biofuels: "The feedstock is primarily based on used cooking oil, secondarily regionally produced oil from seed crops like canola. Many companies in Oregon and the Pacific Northwest, such as Kettle Foods, currently have their used cooking oil collected for processing into BIODIESEL."

 

"I'm not going to waste my time with you, but you need to spend some time listening to some programs on the NPR program Science Friday"

jesus, what condescension! I'm well aware of Science Friday; in fact I often read the actual peer reviewed journals that they discuss on the show.

 

If you want to legitimize your arrogance maybe you should try to enroll in a few chemistry classes.

 

[AlpineK]

You've convinced me to take up dirt biking.