What's your long term forecast for the sport of snowmobiling 25-30 years from now?

[elf]

I feel the sport will continue to change with the times....25 years ago everything was different from what it is today (and sledding still here) and 25 years from now sledding will be different, but not gone....... I had an old lady years ago set me straight one night when I was on my "high horse" about all the money I had invested in the sport between sleds, gear, trailer, truck, weekend runs, etc..etc..etc.. She said to me and it's stuck in my thick head.. "son, do you like sledding?? does your wife like sledding?? does your kids like sledding?? do you create unforgettable memories for yourself?? does your family create lasting memories?? do you all enjoy being together?? do you and family have fun doing"?? I answered YES to all her questions... she then said.. "then stop bitching about money, you cant put a price take on the memories you and your family are creating forever".........from that day in 2001 I've never put money ahead of the memories ......the sport will survive.

Thats exactly the same way I look at it. How many things can you do that your 15 yr old daughter and 13 yr old son still want to do with you?
We snowmobile, thats who we are as a family. We spend the money on sleds, on trucks, trailers, gear, even a freakin cabin. But when we go we have a great time, we talk about the previous weekend and look forward to the next weekend. As much as I enjoy riding with the guys, I love going with my wife and kids. My daughter even counts down the days to Haydays.

So I hope it stays around for a long time so I can take grandkids snowmobiling some day (just not in the next few yrs please!)

 

[lotoftoys]

OK half glass empty! My spin; when the middle class is destroyed completely the snowmobile industry will be also. Middle class is most of this sport and when their $ are gone so are all trails, hotels , sticker revenue on and on. Sorry but we did it to ourselves.

 

[buddah2]

Honda will finally enter the game

Doubt it......they looked at it in depth in the mid 80's and passed then.......and that was when the market was hot, not declining

- - - Updated - - -

25 - 30 years....Let's see, 25 from today would put me at 92 (well actually 91 years, 11 months). Not sure what I would be riding at that point but the odds are good it will have an electric motor and a top speed of 3 mph.

Oh quit your whining......I'm 3 yrs and some months older than you.......by that time I'll (we'll?) be long since worm food.......

 

[snoluver1]

My fear for the future is there won't be enough gear heads around for the sport to continue. If you enjoy motorized sports, you are by nature a gear head at least to some degree. I just dont see it in the next generation very much. Sure there are a few exceptions. There are a few guys like Indy 500 around but they are few and far between. Guys/girls that grow up in rural america still have some of those values, but it seems rural america is disappearing and fast! Heck most kids now a days don't even care about getting their drivers licence. They see it as more of a burden than a sence of freedom like we did. Without the next generation being involed on a large scale, i just don't see how the sport could continue on? I hope I'm wrong cuzz i really want to be able to take my grandkids snowmobiling!!

 

[byr 13]

OK half glass empty! My spin; when the middle class is destroyed completely the snowmobile industry will be also. Middle class is most of this sport and when their $ are gone so are all trails, hotels , sticker revenue on and on. Sorry but we did it to ourselves.

I agree

 

[snobuilder]

<header id="page-header" class="clearfix headroom headroom--pinned headroom--top" style="position: fixed; z-index: 10; right: 0px; left: 0px; transition: transform 350ms ease-in-out; transform: translateY(0px); color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: medium; top: 31px !important;"><nav id="page-nav" style="padding-top: 5px;">New York Post</nav>

</header>

​

• Facebook
• Twitter
• Google
• Email
• Copy

OPINION​

[h=1]The Supreme Court sided with science against Obama[/h]By Will Happer and Rod Nichols

February 15, 2016 | 8:24pm

Modal Trigger
<source srcset="https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/usa-obama_.jpg?quality=100&strip=all&w=1328&h=882&crop=1 2x, https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/usa-obama_.jpg?quality=100&strip=all&w=664&h=441&crop=1" media="(min-width: 640px)"><source srcset="https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/usa-obama_.jpg?quality=100&strip=all&w=600&h=400&crop=1 2x, https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/usa-obama_.jpg?quality=100&strip=all&w=300&h=200&crop=1" media="(max-width: 639px)"><img alt="The Supreme Court sided with science against Obama" style="vertical-align: middle; border-bottom-width: 4px; border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-color: rgb(204, 51, 51); padding-bottom: 3px; width: 618px;"></picture>Photo: Reuters

In his State of the Union Address, President Obama invited “anybody [who] wants to dispute the science around climate change . . . to have at it.”
The Supreme Court’s response? Thank you, Mr. President, for the offer. We will.
On Feb. 9, the court upheld a delay of Obama’s war on fossil fuels, which is supposed to “stop climate change,” in the form of new restrictions on factories’ greenhouse-gas emissions. Apparently a majority of the court is less confident of the “science around climate change” than Obama is.
As well they should be. Obama’s policies will have negligible effects on the climate and will be all pain with no gain.
Two critical points about “the science around climate change” stand out in a review recently completed by the CO2 Coalition, a new independent, nonpartisan scientific-educational group (CO2Coalition.org).
First, carbon dioxide, CO2, is emphatically NOT a “pollutant.” All living things are built of carbon that comes from CO2. An increase in essential CO2 in the atmosphere will be a huge benefit to plants and agriculture. Satellite measurements show that the increase of CO2 over the last few decades has already caused a pronounced greening of the planet — especially in arid regions.
For tens of millions of years, plants have been coping with a “CO2 famine.” Current CO2 concentrations of a few hundred parts per million (ppm) are close to starvation levels compared to the several thousand ppm that prevailed over most of history.
We support the cost-effective control of real pollutants associated with the use of fossil fuels — for example, fly ash, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur or smog-forming volatile hydrocarbons. But CO2 isn’t a pollutant, and there’s no reason to control it.
Second, the “warming” from CO2 — and yes, CO2 is a “greenhouse gas” — has been much less than predicted by the climate models Obama bases his policies on. For 20 years, the temperature has been virtually unchanged, in stark contrast to model predictions.
The war on fossil fuels isn’t based on science but on unreliable climate models. Rather than trying to correct the models, Team Obama is trying to “dispute the science” by trying to manufacture scary warming trends.
A recent letter to the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology by more than 300 experts on data quality pointed out that the feds’ attempt to erase or ignore evidence of the recent lack of global warming arguably violated the Data Quality Act of 2001, which requires that “highly influential scientific assessments,” bearing the imprimatur of the federal government, be subject to rigorous external peer review.
It exposes the hollowness of the left’s claim that “97 percent of scientists” support Team Obama’s version of climate science.
Satellite measurements of atmospheric temperatures are the genuine gold standard — and they show negligible warming for the past two decades. Since the Obama administration can’t read just satellite data (as they have tried to do with surface data), they have unleashed a campaign to discredit the satellite temperature record.
The observational record indicates that the temperature increase by the year 2100 will be less than 1 degree Celsius as a result of CO2 emissions. This small temperature increase, together with the robust benefits to plants and agriculture, will benefit the world.
How about other concerns? Some claim that more CO2 causes extreme weather, accelerating a rise in sea levels or other horrors. But extensive global measurements reveal no increase in extreme weather: The trends in tornadoes, droughts, floods and hurricanes are flat over the past generation. Sea levels are rising at about the same rate they did before the rising concentrations of CO2 during the past century.
Inexpensive, reliable energy from fossil fuels has raised living standards in the developed world to levels that only the wealthy could dream of a few centuries ago. Eliminating fossil fuels would do nothing to stop climate change, but it would keep much of the developing world in poverty.
Rising energy costs would hurt the less privileged populations of the developed world as well.
Bravo for the Supreme Court’s vote for solid science!

 

[snoluver1]

I'm no scientist, but I have always asked the question if co2 is so "excessive" in the atmosphere then why aren't trees and plants growing at an increased rate? Why aren't leaves growing broader? Why aren't plants taking over the doomed planet?

 

[snobuilder]

actually the article says it is causing arid climates to green up.

First, carbon dioxide, CO2, is emphatically NOT a “pollutant.” All living things are built of carbon that comes from CO2. An increase in essential CO2 in the atmosphere will be a huge benefit to plants and agriculture. Satellite measurements show that the increase of CO2 over the last few decades has already caused a pronounced greening of the planet — especially in arid regions

 

[Woodtic]

I'm no scientist either. Just in the industrial HVAC world. We are not seeing any BTU load change per SQ ' on change out work? We are seeing less cooling demand because of the new tech,LED,insulation,and building automation. Global warming is a hard sell in my industry. Back to the sleds. People don't fix anything them selves anymore. Most of the guys I ride with are in the trades or they can change their own oil. It's a hands on sport. Most people can't do basic repair or maintenance for that mater. Look at how many people can't get their own lawn mower running?

 

[snoluver1]

actually the article says it is causing arid climates to green up.

First, carbon dioxide, CO2, is emphatically NOT a “pollutant.” All living things are built of carbon that comes from CO2. An increase in essential CO2 in the atmosphere will be a huge benefit to plants and agriculture. Satellite measurements show that the increase of CO2 over the last few decades has already caused a pronounced greening of the planet — especially in arid regions

Well, I haven't seen any increase in my cucumber yeild. I guess I'll just have to take their word for it?

 

[agriffinjd]

I think it's going extinct. Perhaps there will still be ski-doo making sleds, but primarily just utility sleds like the tundra and tundra extreme. I think the national forests will be shut off to snowmobilers eventually which means a bunch of trails will have to close and no more mountain riders.

There will probably still be two people feuding on this site though, so at least some things will remain the same.

 

[durphee]

I'm no scientist, but I have always asked the question if co2 is so "excessive" in the atmosphere then why aren't trees and plants growing at an increased rate? Why aren't leaves growing broader? Why aren't plants taking over the doomed planet?

It doesn't really work that way. An increase in CO2 does not necessarily yield a larger or broader plant (they can get bigger) but there is a fixed capacity. The species on the planet have adapted and evolved to very specific tolerance limits and although many say the atmosphere is being overridden with CO2 that is not the case. For example, plants need water, so if we water them they will grow. More water means a larger size under that idea. While it does help them grow by that logic a flood of water would mean the plant would be huge! But we all know that a flood of water wold kill a plant. I know that is over simplified. Think of the environment as your body as they do operate on some very similiar principles. Take the corn idea out of the equation, it has been altered by man and our inputs change the equation; which is a good thing or else we would not be able to feed the population. For the record, yes I am an environmental scientist who is still skeptical of the impacts of climate change.

 

[G]

durphee - informative narrative. But you only needed one word which is adapted. We will adapt and evolve to the slowwww changes our planet is going through and we will survive just fine. There will probably be some pestilence and famine at some point just because of over population but that has been going on since the beginning. Some species will go bust but that has also been going on since the beginning. Just like climate change which is constant and also been going on since the beginning. Any politician that will argue that man alone is the sole reason for climate change is a fool. It is also a wasted effort to try to save species that have grown extinct. It is normal and natural. I wish mosquitoes would go extinct. Snowmobiling will change and adapt also over time. Maybe it too will become extinct and maybe not. Maybe something even better will take its place. Maybe we will all have the hover scooter things like they have on Star Wars. But then of course we would have to learn 3 dimensional hand signals. Up, down, right, left. We will always have something to argue about.

 

[durphee]

durphee - informative narrative. But you only needed one word which is adapted. We will adapt and evolve to the slowwww changes our planet is going through and we will survive just fine. There will probably be some pestilence and famine at some point just because of over population but that has been going on since the beginning. Some species will go bust but that has also been going on since the beginning. Just like climate change which is constant and also been going on since the beginning. Any politician that will argue that man alone is the sole reason for climate change is a fool. It is also a wasted effort to try to save species that have grown extinct. It is normal and natural. I wish mosquitoes would go extinct. Snowmobiling will change and adapt also over time. Maybe it too will become extinct and maybe not. Maybe something even better will take its place. Maybe we will all have the hover scooter things like they have on Star Wars. But then of course we would have to learn 3 dimensional hand signals. Up, down, right, left. We will always have something to argue about.

adapt and evolve would have been a lot easier!

 

[zltim]

Thats exactly the same way I look at it. How many things can you do that your 15 yr old daughter and 13 yr old son still want to do with you?
We snowmobile, thats who we are as a family. We spend the money on sleds, on trucks, trailers, gear, even a freakin cabin. But when we go we have a great time, we talk about the previous weekend and look forward to the next weekend. As much as I enjoy riding with the guys, I love going with my wife and kids. My daughter even counts down the days to Haydays.

So I hope it stays around for a long time so I can take grandkids snowmobiling some day (just not in the next few yrs please!)

I know I see very few family's sledding any more. All the kids and many parents are tied to their(stupid) smart phones and could care less about the outdoors. I am actually surprised to see a family(usually old sleds) on the trail or in the trail stops. In the past we had 6 adults and 7 kids on 10-11 sleds having a great time and not really worried about "Ricky racer". I had about $6000 invested in the trailer and sleds plus a bunch of sparkplugs and oil and a $3000 club cab pickup to pull the load. Only my family of the 3 has been sledding for the last 15-20 years.

I know things have gone up since the 80's but not many middle income families could afford that many machines today. I have had 7 new sleds since 1976. I know not many but they were sales none the less). No more, my 2006 is the last for me. When it craps out, I am done and as a leading edge Boomer I know my generation is for the most part out of the sled buying business.

Each year I see fewer sleds out and I believe I have been lucky to still be able to ride but have one sled for myself. The kids/grandkids have their own sleds and trailers and trucks but the newest sled is a 2007. None of us think a new sled is necessary any more and will just keep running the late 90's and 2000's we have paid for. My oldest son has been an avid snowmobiler and just quit a couple years ago. He was a new sled buyer every couple years but no more.

As a positive ending note I have ridden about 500 miles in the last 2 weeks on mostly great trails right from my home.

 

[groomerdriver]

This is why we won't have trails 25 years from now:

This is what was on the Hurley Chamber web site this morning. The responsible riders in our community need to speak up against the people that are going off trail and causing big problems for the clubs. This problem seems to be getting worse with the popularity of Crossover/Mountain sleds and backpack wearing boondockers out there looking for every last flake they can crush. There is a time and place for that kind of riding and I'm all for it when its done in areas that allow it. The fact is off trail riding isn't allowed along side most trail systems in WI and MN. We need to be vocal when we see people going off trail when they should not be!
Welcome to Hurley Wisconsin!

With the recent abundant snowfall, we have had several visitors to the area. We would like to point out how important it is to stay on the marked trails. Read on:
If you do not understand why it is so important to stay on the trail I urge you to come to a club meeting and get involved. Spend hours or days or weeks convincing the land owner to use THEIR land so that snowmobilers can cross it. Once you convince them that snomobilers are a responsible group, we need you to spend all day for several days clearing brush in the fall from the trail. Then after several days of clearing brush we need you to sign the trails, marking corners, dangerous areas, placing stop signs and intersection signs and business signs pointing riders in the right direction. Once the signs are placed make sure you're available to groom once the snow storm comes, because everyone wants to ride and know when the trails are going to open. Finally the trails have opened and YOU have decided to go off trail. Now, we have to explain to the land owner why someone went off trail and destroyed part of the winter crop or destroyed young trees and ask and convince them to let us continue to cross their land.
If you cannot stay on the trail then STAY HOME so at least us responsible riders still have a trail to ride on.

 

[Cirrus_Driver]

There's a portion of trail 10W, just west of trail 3, before it intersects with 13N, (Vilas Cty - Eagle River) where it runs the edge of a winter wheat field planting. There's signs clearing stating it's a winter crop, with taped fencing and warnings to stay off, but every year, including last weekend, there's 2 or 3 tracks across it to "cut the corner" and save 20 seconds, or run the untouched snow. I noticed last weekend signficantly fewer brand new model year sleds. It was noticeable for the 1st time. Many older model sleds in Vilas Cty. People are holding onto sleds longer, and I myself likely will do the same thing. I just couldn't find the right deal this year to buy a 2nd sled, and the wife admits she doesn't really want it anymore. With the kid at college, he can't get home to ride anyways. I'll probably ride my 2013 another year. The prices have just got to the point where it's ridiculous to spend that much for a sport you can enjoy maybe 3 months a year. I myself will NEVER pay over 10 grand for a sled, so I will always ride a 1-2 year non-current model and look for a deal. If I can't get performance for less than 10 G's, I'll be done, because I won't buy used either.

 

[red_dog]

I predict the price of Sea and Snow will drop even further to $2.35/ gallon and Snowbuilder will have made many new friends. The Vikings still won't have a superbowl win though.

 

[G]

Nailed it red dog. When I got married 25 years ago I had a pre-nup. If the Vikings ever win the Superbowl I have to take my wife to Tahiti for a week. So far so good. Feel pretty good about the next 4-5 years also.

 

[Jonger1150]

As for #1 & #2 above: Time will tell. I believe there is something to global warming but 2 years ago we had a COLD, SNOWEY & LONG winter so we are dealing with trends, not absolutes.

#3: Think about the sleds & pricing. Manufacturers give the best top dollar sleds to the magazines to run all season. The magazines add thousands of dollars of accessories provided free by the advertisers. The consumer believes he or she can only have fun on the top of the line machine with accessories just read about. Now at the manufacture's level, there is obviously a cost of adding features but typically the 600 & 800 have the same features except for the engine. There is no $1000 or larger cost to build bigger engines (I'm talking 2 cylinder, 2 stroke vs 2 stroke). The profit margins are built into the big engines to artificially keep the cost of entry level sleds lower. Still, entry level sales are poor. Low sales = low parts, oil, garments & accessory sales. Low sales = higher cost of development per sled sold. So, is it best to sell less high margin machines or more machines with lesser margin? IDK

#4: Without respect for the landowner, trails are in jeopardy. I won't go into specifics, they are discussed in all sorts of threads on this forum & others.

#5: Sales are typically made during the spring programs & then again start to pick up about Labor Day. Poor snow this year will hurt this spring's 2017 sales & next fall's sales. So with poor snow all over south, central & western WI and most of MN last season it's no wonder this season isn't doing well.

People are not flocking up to snow country to live. I don't know about Wisconsin and Minnesota, but the UP is pretty much stagnant and the population is actually falling the last time I checked.