# What Bears Want - No MTB in the woods for you



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

Through the different discussions/arguments I have seen and been involved on this site around ebikes, it got me thinking a lot of the arguments about e-bikes sounded a lot like those from hikers. So I started to dig around the Sierra club and others and found this article.

https://www.warriorssociety.org/News/mtn_bike.pdf

Within the first page there are comments that almost mirror several I have read here, with minor differences.

Here you read "there are plenty of moto trails to ride on for ebikes" from the article " surrounding region contained hundreds of thousands of acres of non-wilderness public land where mountain biking is allowed"

Here you read "ebikes have motors and are not allowed on these trails" from the article " the biker's disregard for wilderness convention was still
annoying........ I simply thought-this is no place for a bike [aka wilderness area]"

There are others as well (like the increased number of trail users), is this really what we want mountain biking to become? A group that excludes others and actively works to keep like minded trail users off the trails?

Anyway it is an interesting set of articles I thought I would share since they sound very much like many of the conversations had here. Just the who's who in the articles is different than here.


----------



## mtnbikej (Sep 6, 2001)

That group above.....maintains the trails in the Santa Ana Mountains so that hikers, mtn bikers, trail runners and equestrians can continue to enjoy those trails. Otherwise, no one else would and the trails would eventually get taken back by the forest. Those volunteers have spent countless hours doing dirt work and brushing through miles of poison oak so the rest of the users can enjoy them.

And once again, the non motorized trails in the Santa Ana Mtn's....ebikes are prohibited.....yet, they still poach the trails. It's sad. :nono:


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

mtnbikej said:


> That group above.....maintains the trails in the Santa Ana Mountains so that hikers, mtn bikers, trail runners and equestrians can continue to enjoy those trails. Otherwise, no one else would and the trails would eventually get taken back by the forest. Those volunteers have spent countless hours doing dirt work and brushing through miles of poison oak so the rest of the users can enjoy them.
> 
> And once again, the non motorized trails in the Santa Ana Mtn's....ebikes are prohibited.....yet, they still poach the trails. It's sad. :nono:


That's not the point of my post or the links. The terms used by the people in those articles against mountain bikers are the same type of terms(there like motorcycles, don't belong in the wilderness, are too fast, are dangerous, are outlawed here etc..) being used towards ebikers. I am making a point that many mountain bikers are becoming very much in tone and terms the same as those that want to stop them(mountain bikers) from having access to trails and wilderness.

It is an interesting observation.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

KenPsz said:


> It is an interesting observation.


Not really.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

KenPsz said:


> That's not the point of my post or the links. The terms used by the people in those articles against mountain bikers are the same type of terms(there like motorcycles, don't belong in the wilderness, are too fast, are dangerous, are outlawed here etc..) being used towards ebikers. I am making a point that many mountain bikers are becoming very much in tone and terms the same as those that want to stop them(mountain bikers) from having access to trails and wilderness.
> 
> It is an interesting observation.


 The line in the sand? It's the motor. So many trails are human powered only. Laws and such. Plenty of places also have moto areas to ride. Pretending that the e bike is only an " assist" and not motorized? Good luck with that. I no problem with e bikes using moto trails. Maybe grow some thicker skin here? Keyboard warriors and all.


----------



## TheDwayyo (Dec 2, 2014)

KenPsz said:


> Here you read "ebikes have motors and are not allowed on these trails" from the article " the biker's disregard for wilderness convention was still
> annoying........ I simply thought-this is no place for a bike [aka wilderness area]"


You really see these as comparable? One is clear-cut, hard and fast - 'vehicles with motors should not be allowed in places that ban motor vehicles' while the other is totally subjective and opinion-based.

There are some parallels between us trying to gain access back then and e-bikes now... But that all goes out the window when you simply focus on what matters; the motor. Bicycles do not have motors, non-motorized trails do not allow vehicles with motors, e-bikes have motors. See how simple that all is?


----------



## LargeMan (May 20, 2017)

KenPsz said:


> There are others as well (like the increased number of trail users), is this really what we want mountain biking to become? A group that excludes others and actively works to keep like minded trail users off the trail


We are not like minded, that is your problem. You believe that ebikers are mountain biking, they are NOT. Mountain biking is human powered only. Ebiking is entire new sport.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

LargeMan said:


> We are not like minded, that is your problem. You believe that ebikers are mountain biking, they are NOT. Mountain biking is human powered only. Ebiking is entire new sport.


This is the only truth.


----------



## roughster (Dec 18, 2017)

LargeMan said:


> We are not like minded, that is your problem. You believe that ebikers are mountain biking, they are NOT. Mountain biking is human powered only. Ebiking is entire new sport.


Agreed as well. I'll provide a little anecdotal from yesterday.

I was out working on my trail. It is starting to gain some local popularity and I see more and more people on it. Yesterday evening was the first time I saw an E-Bike on it. Much of my trail goes over rounded knolls / hills which are actually quite steep. As a result, I have put in large arcing switchback that are both fun to ride up and down while keeping the grade moderate. There is nothing "stopping" a rider from going straight up these knolls other than their steep grade. It is in essence, just a field of "steep grass".

Guess where I saw the e-bike riding? Straight up the fall line completely cutting the switchbacks and creating a new "trail" through the grass. A powerful non-motorized MTB'er could certainly do it as well, but wouldn't given the obvious trail of switchback going up the hill.

This really hit home with me about some of the "dangers" of e-bikes in regards to trails. That extra power boost doesn't just make you faster up the trails, it allows you to in essence completely avoid the trails entirely.

The real irony? The land the trails are on at EVERY SINGLE ENTRANCE clearly state, "No motorized vehicles". Yes, I understand, one person poaching doesn't equate to an accurate stereotype of all e-bikers, but sure does align my mental image of e-bikes being more equivalent and in nature with motobikes than mountain bikes.


----------



## TheDwayyo (Dec 2, 2014)

LargeMan said:


> We are not like minded, that is your problem. You believe that ebikers are mountain biking, they are NOT. Mountain biking is human powered only. Ebiking is entire new sport.





Travis Bickle said:


> This is the only truth.


That's a bit harsh, and subjective on top of it... I consider myself like-minded with anyone who enjoys getting out in nature. Just because they hike, moto, four-wheeler, or even e-bike doesn't mean we aren't like-minded. The term 'like-minded' is far broader than you seem to allow and if you disagree with me then you are proving my point... What is the definition of 'like-minded' and how narrow is it? (Totally subjective.)

That said, your point stands about it being a distinct hobby.


----------



## cassieno (Apr 28, 2011)

roughster said:


> Guess where I saw the e-bike riding? Straight up the fall line completely cutting the switchbacks and creating a new "trail" through the grass. A powerful non-motorized MTB'er could certainly do it as well, but wouldn't given the obvious trail of switchback going up the hill.
> 
> This really hit home with me about some of the "dangers" of e-bikes in regards to trails. That extra power boost doesn't just make you faster up the trails, it allows you to in essence completely avoid the trails entirely.


ehh, cause Mountain bikers never ride straight DOWN the fall line . I agree with the OP to an extent, I think using the same rational to deny eMTBs access that hikers / horse people have used on MTBers is dangerous.

I think the line in the sand is "has a motor" and that it is a distinct / separate hobby. Everything else is really just noise and arguments over dictionary definitions.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

I agree that the anti-ebike narrative (from 90% mt. bikers and 10% pedestrians/equestrians) sounds an awful lot like the anti-MTB narrative in the 1980's thru the 1990's and even today (from 98% pedestrians/equestrians and 2% mt. bikers).

ebiking may indeed be a new kind of recreation, but I think time will tell its impact will be similar to regular mountain biking... kind of like trail running is different than hiking, but impacts are similar.

Somehow, we all need to learn to share public trails in a safe and responsible manner. There should always be an emphasis on trail user education.

Side note for OP... the 2nd author listed in that 16 year old publication was the primary Sierra Club lobbyist that succeeded in getting bikes banned from Wilderness in 1984. He doubled down with even more fiction a few years ago as STC got bills introduced into congress to remove the blanket ban on human powered, non-motorized bicycling.


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

I can see that several people that responded to this thread did not get my point at all. 

Thanks to those that did bother to read the articles and understand why I made this thread.


----------



## karthur (Apr 20, 2018)

Does not apply. Bears give me what I want, I don't give bears what they want.


----------



## noapathy (Jun 24, 2008)

Catchy title, but this is going to degrade into the same debate as every other thread about e-bikes. Please don't ride your mopeds on non-motorized trails. Thanks.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

KenPsz said:


> I can see that several people that responded to this thread did not get my point at all.
> 
> Thanks to those that did bother to read the articles and understand why I made this thread.


I read the first few essays and found them pretty interesting. In "What Bears Want" Tom Butler makes a point that I've mentioned here a few times which is that bikes shrink wilderness, and electric bikes would shrink it more. Something worth considering when evaluating appropriate land use.

One advantage North America has over Europe is that it should have enough open space to accommodate lots of user groups, including bears. I for one am all for some wilderness areas to be completely free of any mode of travel other than hiking, and I also support core wilderness zones where humans aren't allowed at all.

Anyway, I think there's enough room for electric bike trails, bicycle trails, hiking trails, and grizzly bear habitat. Some of those might well intermingle with each other and some may not.


----------



## hikerdave (Mar 8, 2006)

J.B. Weld said:


> I read the first few essays and found them pretty interesting. In "What Bears Want" Tom Butler makes a point that I've mentioned here a few times which is that bikes shrink wilderness, and electric bikes would shrink it more. Something worth considering when evaluating appropriate land use.
> 
> One advantage North America has over Europe is that it should have enough open space to accommodate lots of user groups, including bears. I for one am all for some wilderness areas to be completely free of any mode of travel other than hiking, and I also support core wilderness zones where humans aren't allowed at all.
> 
> Anyway, I think there's enough room for electric bike trails, bicycle trails, hiking trails, and grizzly bear habitat. Some of those might well intermingle with each other and some may not.


The argument that bicycles shrink wilderness resonates with me; I've spent many days alone in the wilderness and far enough from the trail head to see few or no people. But that's fundamentally a very selfish argument; there simply isn't enough wilderness out there for many people to have that same experience.

I've also backpacked on a trail that was open to motorcycles; there were quite a few but at the end of the day and in the morning I was the only one left at the lake and the only person to dig a hole and crap in the woods. Turned out that I actually knew one of the motorcyclists when he stopped to chat with me. Totally changed my attitude about eating a little dust. Perhaps when riding your mountain bike you should all stop and chat a little more, so that the hikers realize that you do have some common interest and experience.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

hikerdave said:


> The argument that bicycles shrink wilderness resonates with me; I've spent many days alone in the wilderness and far enough from the trail head to see few or no people. But that's fundamentally a very selfish argument; there simply isn't enough wilderness out there for many people to have that same experience.


I think there's enough wilderness left for everyone to have that experience, for those who want it anyway. There wouldn't be enough if motors were allowed everywhere though, whether you're for or against them motors definitely shrink wilderness.

I'm friendly enough on the bike but I'm really not out there to chat or lollygag. I love both mountain biking and hiking but for different reasons, and for me they are completely different experiences.


----------



## hikerdave (Mar 8, 2006)

J.B. Weld said:


> I think there's enough wilderness left for everyone to have that experience, for those who want it anyway. There wouldn't be enough if motors were allowed everywhere though, whether you're for or against them motors definitely shrink wilderness.
> 
> I'm friendly enough on the bike but I'm really not out there to chat or lollygag. I love both mountain biking and hiking but for different reasons, and for me they are completely different experiences.


Yes, eBikes should not be allowed in wilderness or even in de-facto or wilderness study areas.

The argunent that a bicycle doesn't belong in the wilderness seems a little suspect; the toughness and remoteness of the trail will thin out the users pretty fast. I live-tracked my much-younger brother on the AZT because I was going to meet him at the end and saw a walking pace on the tough sections.

I don't see how reprising my tour of the White Mountains 50 mile ride in 8 years from now at age 70 on an eBike would hurt anyone. All it would take for that to happen would be an executive modification of EO 11644 and a NEPA finding of no significant impact bringing the Forest Service back into compliance with the MUSYA of 1960. The Multiple Use act is really why mountain bikes are allowed in BLM and the Forest Service to begin with; they are required by law to provide recreational opportunity.


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

J.B. Weld said:


> I think there's enough wilderness left for everyone to have that experience, for those who want it anyway. There wouldn't be enough if motors were allowed everywhere though, whether you're for or against them motors definitely shrink wilderness.


Interesting there is a comment very similar in one of the articles from a hikers view as to why mountain bikes should not be in the wilderness.

It is very interesting how those that don't like one thing or another seem to gravitate towards the same type of comments, views and restrictions.

That is just an observation btw.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

KenPsz said:


> Interesting there is a comment very similar in one of the articles from a hikers view as to why mountain bikes should not be in the wilderness.
> 
> It is very interesting how those that don't like one thing or another seem to gravitate towards the same type of comments, views and restrictions.
> 
> That is just an observation btw.


I'm not sure what you mean, I agree that bicycles shrink wilderness too and I don't think they belong everywhere.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

I don't think bikes belong in Wilderness areas for the same reasons I don't think ebikes belong there. Boot horses out too while you're at it, make people walk. Let trail workers use chainsaws and wheel barrows, I'm not a sadist.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

The mental gymnastics folks here (and elsewhere on the Internet) go through to justify keeping 100% human powered bicycling out of the rugged backcountry is nothing short of shocking. "Ooooohhh... I was backpacking and I had to say hi to a mountain biker for 4 seconds as s/he passed me. My backpacking trip was ruined because I didn't want to see *ANY* humans!!!!!"

Trail runners "shrink" Wilderness. So do horses. /faceinpalm


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

Empty_Beer said:


> The mental gymnastics folks here (and elsewhere on the Internet) go through to justify keeping 100% human powered bicycling out of the rugged backcountry is nothing short of shocking. "Ooooohhh... I was backpacking and I had to say hi to a mountain biker for 4 seconds as s/he passed me. My backpacking trip was ruined because I didn't want to see *ANY* humans!!!!!"
> 
> Trail runners "shrink" Wilderness. So do horses. /faceinpalm


The only thing that ends up being shrunk is personal choice.

One can legally fly over any Wilderness area in a matter of minutes if their goal is to shrink the Wilderness. Even then, while flying over Wilderness my head was glued to Window and I truly felt like I was connecting with the Forest in a way that is different then before.

There are several ways to shrink a wild land like;
Deforestation
Selling off to landowners who kick out the public with construction or fencing.
Confine the public to one particular use so they see only one part of it and tons of people occupy that space.

Come to think of it, bikes (eBikes) don`t shrink Wilderness for me, they expand it!


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

figofspee said:


> The only thing that ends up being shrunk is personal choice.
> 
> One can legally fly over any Wilderness area in a matter of minutes if their goal is to shrink the Wilderness. Even then, while flying over Wilderness my head was glued to Window and I truly felt like I was connecting with the Forest in a way that is different then before.
> 
> ...


Whens the last time our widerness lands were sold off? Deforested?


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

life behind bars said:


> Whens the last time our widerness lands were sold off? Deforested?


Thanks for the invitation to converse, but since your posts come off as soulless and mean (emotionally stupid) I am going to pass this time around.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

figofspee said:


> Thanks for the invitation to converse, but since your posts come off as soulless and mean (emotionally stupid) I am going to pass this time around.


In other words, you don't have an answer.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

leeboh said:


> The line in the sand? It's the motor.


This ^ There has to be a line somewhere. It seems reasonable to me that people should be free to get out into the country and enjoy 'getting away from it all'. Enjoy the quiet and nature. It also seems reasonable that for it to remain an unspoiled experience of the wilderness certain kinds of intrusive technology should be banned. Meeting a horse on your hike isn't going to ruin your day, meeting a dirt-bike might.

So you have to draw a line and a motor seems a very reasonable place to draw it to me.

Also:

High-powered electric bikes should not share space with walkers and pedal cyclists. The disparity in speed is dangerous and the weight and torque of the machines can potentially damage certain trails.

It is inevitable that some selfish people will either modify lower powered eBikes to exceed safe limits, or simply buy powerful bikes, and ride them in inappropriate places.

Those charged with regulating and policing trails, parks and paths cannot be expected to differentiate between a low-powered eBike and modified or higher powered bikes at the side of the trail/road. As the technology improves, and eBikes get more stealthy, this task will only become harder.

As it is necessary to keep powerful machines off of the routes in question, there is no option but to blanket ban all electric bikes from them.


----------



## hikerdave (Mar 8, 2006)

life behind bars said:


> Whens the last time our widerness lands were sold off? Deforested?


It's not so clear cut anymore; there are lots of sales out there because so many forests are burning or are about to.

Here's an example; hardly a sell-off of the forest.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna803886

Large-scale logging of old-growth forest is done; the logger is as endangered as the spotted owl and for the same reason; loss of habitat.

I remember mourning the loss of one particularly good stand of Douglas Fir as a teen in Montana when the men with the blue paint showed up; years later a massive fire burned everything left; the whole mountain turned to smoldering ash.

We'll see lots of low-value timber sales, both for salvage and fire prevention, but thankfully the days of clearcutting are long gone, at least in the US.

I'm a forest management expert because I used to install two-way radios in logging equipment. Nobody knows more about forest management than me.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Empty_Beer said:


> The mental gymnastics folks here (and elsewhere on the Internet) go through to justify keeping 100% human powered bicycling out of the rugged backcountry is nothing short of shocking. "Ooooohhh... I was backpacking and I had to say hi to a mountain biker for 4 seconds as s/he passed me. My backpacking trip was ruined because I didn't want to see *ANY* humans!!!!!"
> 
> Trail runners "shrink" Wilderness. So do horses. /faceinpalm


It's fine to disagree but why disparage people with opinions different than yours?


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

figofspee said:


> The only thing that ends up being shrunk is personal choice.
> 
> One can legally fly over any Wilderness area in a matter of minutes if their goal is to shrink the Wilderness.


Some wilderness areas have no fly zones or minimum altitude requirements.


----------



## bronxbomber252 (Mar 27, 2017)

J.B. Weld said:


> Some wilderness areas have no fly zones or minimum altitude requirements.


FAA regs say min altitude over any federal wilderness is 2000' AGL (above ground level) there are exceptions for forest service aircraft and such when required to perform their duties, and certain ones have exemptions for military aircraft.


----------



## hikerdave (Mar 8, 2006)

J.B. Weld said:


> Some wilderness areas have no fly zones or minimum altitude requirements.


The Selway-Bitterroot wilderness has several air strips including the public Moose Creek airstrip. We visited with some of the pilots on a family rafting trip; they have picnic / camping parking spots for airplanes. The downside is a little extra noise in the morning when they all fly out.

The quietest place I've ever been is in a Juniper forest in the Owyhee Canyons area near Deep Creek; it's amazing to hear the echoes of your own footsteps off of the trees. This was not a wilderness area.

Whether or not aircraft are flying into or over the wilderness isn't the issue here.

Going back to the original series of articles quoted, I find it amazing to find radical preservationist Dave Foreman willing to grandfather mountain bike use in protected areas, as long as we don't call it wilderness. I used to be hardcore no mountain bikes in wilderness when I was both a backpacker and mountain biker but I've mellowed on this as I've gotten older. If I spotted an illegal mountain biker in the wilderness (and I never have) I'd probably just step of the trail and say good morning.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

hikerdave said:


> It's not so clear cut anymore; there are lots of sales out there because so many forests are burning or are about to.
> 
> Here's an example; hardly a sell-off of the forest.
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna803886


We've been discussing designated Wilderness Areas, not National Forests. At least most of us have been anyway.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

hikerdave said:


> Whether or not aircraft are flying into or over the wilderness isn't the issue here.


I never said otherwise, it was just part of the conversation.

To be clear I'm not an exclusionist, I don't care if I occasionally meet an illegal trail user and it wouldn't affect my day in the least. I would never police anyone. My concern is policy. I didn't read the Dave Foreman article but I kind of agree about allowing bicycles in certain wilderness areas but then changing the wilderness designation to something else. Semi-wilderness or whatever.


----------



## rlee (Aug 22, 2015)

The first page talks about the wilderness area recovering from historical logging and mining. Then it talks about the area is too sensitive for mountain bikes. But hiking is okay.
As humans we just don't get it do we?
I think the author really needs to think about if areas are so sensitive that they should be closed to everyone. Wouldn't that create a stir?


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

rlee said:


> The first page talks about the wilderness area recovering from historical logging and mining. Then it talks about the area is too sensitive for mountain bikes. But hiking is okay.
> As humans we just don't get it do we?
> I think the author really needs to think about if areas are so sensitive that they should be closed to everyone. Wouldn't that create a stir?


Any trail that allows for horse and hike needs to allow for all non-motor-vehicle travel. Any attempt to curtail personal choice has and will lose in a court of law.


----------



## rlee (Aug 22, 2015)

As much as I like my outdoor activities, and we can argue forever about what does and doesn't do damage. I do think that there are areas that should be closed to everyone.
In the simplest term there are areas in National Parks that are closed. In a larger scale it could be for wildlife protection.
To argue about how sensitive something is then build a hiking or horse trail is just not using common sense.
A lot of mountain bikers and trail groups think that a mountain bike trail needs to be 3 feet wide and groomed smooth. If it isn't it will turn that way and have uncontrolled traffic. We are our own worst enemy at times.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

figofspee said:


> Any trail that allows for horse and hike needs to allow for all non-motor-vehicle travel.[/QUOTE
> 
> Got it, these are good to go!
> 
> ...


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

Harryman said:


> figofspee said:
> 
> 
> > Any trail that allows for horse and hike needs to allow for all non-motor-vehicle travel.[/QUOTE
> ...


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

figofspee said:


> Harryman said:
> 
> 
> > It's amazing the experiences I have had on bikes and eBikes, experiences that I would gladly pay thousands for, and it has all been free of charge!
> ...


----------



## karthur (Apr 20, 2018)

figofspee said:


> Harryman said:
> 
> 
> > That is very much a motor vehicle, not that I care.
> ...


----------



## hikerdave (Mar 8, 2006)

rlee said:


> The first page talks about the wilderness area recovering from historical logging and mining. Then it talks about the area is too sensitive for mountain bikes. But hiking is okay.
> As humans we just don't get it do we?
> I think the author really needs to think about if areas are so sensitive that they should be closed to everyone. Wouldn't that create a stir?


I spotted lynx tracks in the Sawtooth National Forest; the rangers wouldn't confirm that they knew the animals were there, other than to say that there were some sensitive areas where they, the rangers, weren't allowed to go. So I think that the feds don't always advertise the existence of sensitive habitat because it's counter-productive.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

J.B. Weld said:


> . I didn't read the Dave Foreman article but I kind of agree about allowing bicycles in certain wilderness areas but then changing the wilderness designation to something else. Semi-wilderness or whatever.


Other designations that provide suitable protection from road development, extraction and facility development would be great... except that doesn't work for the Wilderness industry. They'd rather have WSAs remain in limbo for 30 years... expecting they will become Wilderness instead of a National Monument or other designation. And even National Monuments can be gobbled up by later Wilderness designation (I think). There doesn't seem to be much compromise from the seemingly powerful Wilderness industry. So let's create more Wilderness, but allow low impact human powered uses where it makes sense... as the Wilderness Act originally intended.


----------



## hikerdave (Mar 8, 2006)

Empty_Beer said:


> Other designations that provide suitable protection from road development, extraction and facility development would be great... except that doesn't work for the Wilderness industry. They'd rather have WSAs remain in limbo for 30 years... expecting they will become Wilderness instead of a National Monument or other designation. And even National Monuments can be gobbled up by later Wilderness designation (I think). There doesn't seem to be much compromise from the seemingly powerful Wilderness industry. So let's create more Wilderness, but allow low impact human powered uses where it makes sense... as the Wilderness Act originally intended.


Even backpacking and river rafting are high-impact in popular areas, which is the reason for permit systems.


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

KenPsz said:


> That's not the point of my post or the links.


Thinly veiled E-bike garbage.


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

*OneSpeed* said:


> Thinly veiled E-bike garbage.


Did you bother to read the articles? There is no thinly veiled at all please read the first post.


----------



## twd953 (Aug 21, 2008)

hikerdave said:


> We'll see lots of low-value timber sales, both for salvage and fire prevention, but thankfully the days of clearcutting are long gone, at least in the US.


No clear cutting? They must not have gotten the memo here in western Oregon. Clear cutting is still common practice for Doug Fir here.

https://oregonforests.org/clearcutting

Maybe you meant no clear cutting of old growth?


----------



## hikerdave (Mar 8, 2006)

twd953 said:


> No clear cutting? They must not have gotten the memo here in western Oregon. Clear cutting is still common practice for Doug Fir here.
> 
> https://oregonforests.org/clearcutting
> 
> Maybe you meant no clear cutting of old growth?


Damn. What a mess. That really feels like a corporate propaganda site though, with the imagery of those baby trees loving the warm sun made possible by the clearcuts.

Nothing destroys the recreational value of a firest like a clearcut or industrial tree-mining operation. That's why we need more wilderness and wilderness-lite.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

hikerdave said:


> It's not so clear cut anymore; there are lots of sales out there because so many forests are burning or are about to.
> 
> Here's an example; hardly a sell-off of the forest.
> 
> ...


I was a hardwood chainsaw and cable JD640 skidder logger for almost 10 yrs, year around in upstate NY. We also managed 60,000 acres of family timberlands. So you're the one that installed my 2 way radio! Private places for the animals is a huge plus.


----------



## twd953 (Aug 21, 2008)

hikerdave said:


> Damn. What a mess. That really feels like a corporate propaganda site though, with the imagery of those baby trees loving the warm sun made possible by the clearcuts.
> 
> Nothing destroys the recreational value of a firest like a clearcut or industrial tree-mining operation. That's why we need more wilderness and wilderness-lite.


Not saying I am a fan of clear cuts, just pointing out that it is common thing we see at virtually all of our riding areas.

The thing that really gets my goat is when land managers and land owners that allow clear cutting on their lands cite environmental concerns with allowing mountain bikes on trails on those same lands.


----------



## hikerdave (Mar 8, 2006)

Gutch said:


> I was a hardwood chainsaw and cable JD640 skidded logger for almost 10 yrs, year around in upstate NY. We also managed 60,000 acres of family timberlands. So you're the one that installed my 2 way radio! Private places for the animals is a huge plus.


Worked in Missoula and mostly put radios in logging trucks but once went to a logging area to install a radio in a dragging crane. I don't recall the exact terminology for the machine but I remember getting covered with grease. The guys hooking up the logs out of sight of the dragging crane have some dangerous jobs.

That kind of logging is gone as is my college summer sawmill job; the cut rate in southwestern Montana was triple the sustained yield rate back then.


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

KenPsz said:


> That's not the point of my post or the links. The terms used by the people in those articles against mountain bikers are the same type of terms(there like motorcycles, don't belong in the wilderness, are too fast, are dangerous, are outlawed here etc..) being used towards ebikers. I am making a point that many mountain bikers are becoming very much in tone and terms the same as those that want to stop them(mountain bikers) from having access to trails and wilderness.
> 
> It is an interesting observation.


One thing a hiker never said when trying to get mountain bikes banned "It has a motor"


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

sfgiantsfan said:


> One thing a hiker never said when trying to get mountain bikes banned "It has a motor"


Well this anti-bike troll often comments that bicycles have a non-living power source and therefore should not be allowed in Wilderness areas! :crazy:


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Empty_Beer said:


> Well this anti-bike troll often comments that bicycles have a non-living power source and therefore should not be allowed in Wilderness areas! :crazy:
> 
> View attachment 1235809


As sketchy as most of the comments about "you have to peddle it so it's not motorized".


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

twd953 said:


> Not saying I am a fan of clear cuts, just pointing out that it is common thing we see at virtually all of our riding areas.
> 
> The thing that really gets my goat is when land managers and land owners that allow clear cutting on their lands cite environmental concerns with allowing mountain bikes on trails on those same lands.


From a wildlife perspective, banning humans is often a bad thing.

"To evaluate the effect of hikers, we set camera traps on, near and far from hiking trails. Again, we found a few minor effects, but no pervasive avoidance of trails by animals."
https://appliedecologistsblog.com/2...king-are-not-so-bad-for-wildlife-populations/

"4.Most species did not avoid human-made trails, and many predators positively selected them."

"Although they did not avoid trails per se, four species (raccoon,bear, turkey and bobcat) avoided the most heavily used trails while (red foxes and gray squirrels) actually had higher VF at busy trails, perhaps using humans as shields against predators (Muhlyet al.2011"

http://www.asociacionfototrampeo.or...ays_et_al-2016-Journal_of_Applied_Ecology.pdf

"The authors made several key discoveries. One notable finding is that wildlife response to hikers vs. mountain bikers was identical, so the actual presence of humans is what counts, not the type of recreation."
https://daily.jstor.org/outdoor-recreation-impacts-wildlife/

Getting back to the original article;

Doug Scott writes:
"Responding to the draft regulations in September 1965,both the Wilderness Society and Sierra Club-the national organizations most intimately involved in the drafting and enactment of the Wilderness Act-had put the Forest Service on notice of its error. In comments for the Wilderness Society, its executive director wrote:The definition of mechanical transport...should specifically include contrivances powered by living power sources (such as wagons drawn by horses, bicycles, and wheeled cargo carriers) as well as contrivances propelled by nonliving power sources."

Doug conveniently leaves out that the Forest service rejected the suggestion! He glosses over the 19 years when bicycles were allowed in Wilderness areas, without issue, and transports the reader to 1984 when the next generation of Forest personnel "arbitrarily" (their words) banned bicycles.


----------



## Schulze (Feb 21, 2007)

All this ebike crap in the Trails forum is tiresome.


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

Schulze said:


> All this ebike crap in the Trails forum is tiresome.


Rules of the site say trail access discussion belong here. There is always the option to not read or respond to a thread.

Do you care to comment about the topic of the thread, I am sure you have valuable feedback.


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

KenPsz said:


> Through the different discussions/arguments I have seen and been involved on this site around ebikes, it got me thinking a lot of the arguments about e-bikes sounded a lot like those from hikers.
> 
> Here you read "there are plenty of moto trails to ride on for ebikes" from the article " surrounding region contained hundreds of thousands of acres of non-wilderness public land where mountain biking is allowed"
> 
> ...


Like minded? I think most non e-bikers would strongly disagree that you try to put us in the same category.

I'm not interested in your articles. Your post is what is e-bike BS, not the article. Sounds like you're trying to bring e-bikers and Mountain Bikers together. Sounds noble but frankly I don't want to hear it.

You try to disguise your true intentions by linking articles about trail access when what you're really saying is we are all the same. Not in my mind.


----------



## Schulze (Feb 21, 2007)

KenPss, You are of course a non entity like most pro-emotorcycle people so I won't waste my breath on you.


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

Seems many of the most recent posters are not liking that their tone and terms mirror those by anti mountain bikers. That is if you bothered to read the articles at all.

That is kind of the point of this thread to point out that we are all liked mined in the fact we want to enjoy the wilderness and share the trails. But those that come before the new guy always seem to want to be selfish and keep it for themselves. 

Is ironic though that mountain bikers will complain about hikers and horse back riders wanting to restrict them then turn around and use types of words to keep out e-bikes.

So it goes

Mods this thread has served it's purpose you can close it if you would like.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

KenPsz said:


> That is kind of the point of this thread to point out that we are all liked mined in the fact we want to enjoy the wilderness and share the trails.


No. We are not liked minded about sharing trails with motorized conveyances in most cases. Fail.


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

life behind bars said:


> No. We are not liked minded about sharing trails with motorized conveyances in most cases. Fail.


sigh.....


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

5 out of 5 bears surveyed said they greatly prefer actual bicycles (non-ebikes) in their woods.


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

here is the funny thing about those of you that don't like the topic, ebikes, me whatever. Every time you comment it bumps this topic back to the top of the forum list. 

Just let it go and be happy riding your bikes, building your trails and meeting new like minded trail users. Make some new friends since friends generally do not try to have you removed from trails. 

In the immortal words of Dalton - be nice.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

KenPsz said:


> here is the funny thing about those of you that don't like the topic, ebikes, me whatever. Every time you comment it bumps this topic back to the top of the forum list.
> 
> Just let it go and be happy riding your bikes, building your trails and meeting new like minded trail users. Make some new friends since friends generally do not try to have you removed from trails.
> 
> In the immortal words of Dalton - be nice.


No one is trying to remove you. For the most part you aren't allowed on the trails that most of us build and ride on. We just want to keep the motorized off of them in the first place.


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

life behind bars said:


> No one is trying to remove you. For the most part you aren't allowed on the trails that most of us build and ride on. We just want to keep the motorized off of them in the first place.


thanks for the bump

also you sound like the hikers in the articles, be more welcoming unlike hikers.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

KenPsz said:


> thanks for the bump
> 
> also you sound like the hikers in the articles, be more welcoming unlike hikers.


It is not in my best interests to welcome the motorized crowd. Why don't you go advocate for your own trails?


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

life behind bars said:


> It is not in my best interests to welcome the motorized crowd. Why don't you go advocate for your own trails?


thanks for another bump

Who do you think build the trails you ride on now that are buying ebikes today? Oh that's right older guys like me.

but they the Sierra club mentality will serve mountain bikers well when it comes to ebikes just embrace it.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

KenPsz said:


> thanks for another bump
> 
> Who do you think build the trails you ride on now that are buying ebikes today? Oh that's right older guys like me.
> 
> but they the Sierra club mentality will serve mountain bikers well when it comes to ebikes just embrace it.


No. I built much of the trails I ride on. Keep making assumptions.


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

life behind bars said:


> No. I built much of the trails I ride on. keep making assumptions.


Good for you, I helped build the ones here.

You very much have the same attitude as those in the articles. Which will serve you well.

Thanks for the bump again.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

KenPsz said:


> Good for you, I helped build the ones here.
> 
> You very much have the same attitude as those in the articles. Which will serve you well.
> 
> Thanks for the bump again.


I keep bumping it because everyone is laughing at you with your convoluted sense of entitlement.


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

life behind bars said:


> I keep bumping it because everyone is laughing at you with your convoluted sense of entitlement.


Hey if you and your homies are having a good time, that is nice.

What entitlement? I have demanded nothing

Only thing I keep saying is you and yours sound like those in the articles that want to keep out mountain bikes. You and yours are the ones that seem to want to change the subject?

Personally I think you are lonely and really just want some attention, that is why you keep bumping the thread.

Thanks for the bump


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

There’s thousands of miles of singletrack out there that a lot of riders switching to emtbs have contributed to. Im sure in certain areas you will see more emtbs on the trails.


----------



## hikerdave (Mar 8, 2006)

Here's an article about the wilderness designation of the wilderness designation of the White Cloud Mountains with the loss of a premier trail to mountain bikes. At one time a molybdenum mine carving off the side of Castle Peak was a possibility; then it looked like National Monument status, but ended up wilderness.

https://freehubmag.com/articles/mixed-blessing

I've backpacked and fished at Chamberlain Lakes and some of the surrounding lakes and scrambled up Castle Peak (saw a mountain goat). The only mountain bike riding I've done in the immediate area is Fisher Williams, where the initial climb is soon forgotten and the trail feels like it's mostly downhill.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

figofspee said:


> Doug Scott writes:
> "Responding to the draft regulations in September 1965,both the Wilderness Society and Sierra Club-the national organizations most intimately involved in the drafting and enactment of the Wilderness Act-had put the Forest Service on notice of its error. In comments for the Wilderness Society, its executive director wrote: The definition of mechanical transport...should specifically include contrivances powered by living power sources (such as wagons drawn by horses, bicycles, and wheeled cargo carriers) as well as contrivances propelled by nonliving power sources."
> 
> *Doug conveniently leaves out that the Forest service rejected the suggestion! *He glosses over the 19 years when bicycles were allowed in Wilderness areas, without issue, and transports the reader to 1984 when the next generation of Forest personnel "arbitrarily" (their words) banned bicycles.


Correctamundo!!

We must never forget that Doug Scott was a paid lobbyist for the Sierra Club. He and every member of the Sierra Club and Wilderness Society were NOT members of congress and had no votes on passing the Wilderness Act. His embellished, twisted and fictional accounts of "what happened" have no bearing on what the original law and original regulations were. He may have helped ban bikes and other primitive things like wheelbarrows, hunting carts and baby carriages 20 years after the Wilderness Act passed, but the fact still remains that congress has never banned non-motorized, human powered recreation in our nation's designated Wilderness areas. Mr. Scott (in the past few years) appears only to be interested in protecting his legacy of causing the blanket ban on bikes in 100% of Wilderness 100% of the time.

And if Mr. Scott puts so much value on what non-bureaucrats said, he ought to listen to the recognized "Father of the Wilderness Act"... Howard Zahniser... who said this in his last testimony before congress:









^ This also means that once non-motorized bicycling is allowed in Wilderness in some capacity (within the next 10 years), it'll be another couple decades or more (if ever) before something like an ebike is allowed.


----------



## hikerdave (Mar 8, 2006)

A Jackson Hole wildlife photographer's opinion against bicycles in wilderness:

https://mountainjournal.org/america-wildernes-is-under-attack-by-recreationists

A Colorado-based group advocating for bicycles in wilderness:

Sustainable Trails Coalition

I see a couple of mountain bike associations on the roster of the Sustainable Trails Coalition; NEMBA and CORBA


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

hikerdave said:


> A Jackson Hole wildlife photographer's opinion against bicycles in wilderness:
> 
> https://mountainjournal.org/america-wildernes-is-under-attack-by-recreationists
> 
> ...


He obviously has not visited this site and viewed all the photos we take. I would be 100% against any type of flow trails in wilderness, or any machine made at all.

Maybe they could just allow in rigid singlespeeds to keep the speeds down.


----------



## hikerdave (Mar 8, 2006)

chazpat said:


> He obviously has not visited this site and viewed all the photos we take. I would be 100% against any type of flow trails in wilderness, or any machine made at all.
> 
> Maybe they could just allow in rigid singlespeeds to keep the speeds down.


We met my much-younger brother at the end of the AZT trail 300 and brought him some recovery food; bananas and tomato juice. In between wolfing and guzzling, all he could talk about was the beauty of the desert, the variety of the plant life, and all of the eyes he had seen in the night. I'd definitely trust him in the the wilderness with a bike. The first guy does come off as a nature snob.

I may have inconvenienced a Mexican gray wolf when I rode by it in the White Mountains Indian Springs trail, but probably only briefly. When bikepacking in the Sawtooths on a dry hill overlooking a meadow, the elk that came by in the morning didn't even know I was there.

I still am ambivalent about bicycles in the wilderness but I don't really know why other than the single argument that they shrink the wilderness; on the other hand, bikes don't shrink the wilderness for the hiker; only for the biker, so why care?


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

hikerdave said:


> ...on the other hand, bikes don't shrink the wilderness for the hiker; only for the biker, so why care?


I think bikes absolutely shrink wilderness for the hiker. Walk 5 miles into a busy hiking trail and you're likely to see no one whereas 5 miles into a mountain bike trail can still be a busy place.


----------



## hikerdave (Mar 8, 2006)

J.B. Weld said:


> I think bikes absolutely shrink wilderness for the hiker. Walk 5 miles into a busy hiking trail and you're likely to see no one whereas 5 miles into a mountain bike trail can still be a busy place.


Point taken.


----------



## twd953 (Aug 21, 2008)

J.B. Weld said:


> I think bikes absolutely shrink wilderness for the hiker. Walk 5 miles into a busy hiking trail and you're likely to see no one whereas 5 miles into a mountain bike trail can still be a busy place.


While that is true, it isn't universally true. Most of the Wilderness trails that I have hiked/backpacked on are so steep, eroded and choked full of down trees from poor/unsustainable layout and lack of maintenance that I don't think most mountain bikers would attempt to ride them more than once if they were legal. The speed differential wouldn't be that great, and on many segments, I know I could hike them faster than ride them.

Also, if "shrinking the wilderness" is a criteria to limit access to a user group, then the following should also be restricted:
Trail running
Hiking poles
Horses
Pack animals
skis
snowshoes
kayaks
canoes
rafts

Every one of those offers an advantage (mechanical or otherwise) over hiking that "shrinks the wilderness."

I'm not a big advocate for bikes in all wilderness areas (I think our advocacy efforts are better spent on the millions of acres of non-wilderness public lands and trails rather than pissing up the Wilderness access rope), but the double standards and weak arguments against mountain biking are glaring.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

twd953 said:


> While that is true, it isn't universally true.


I never said otherwise. Also I was referring to wilderness in general and not necessarily officially designated wilderness areas.

I agree that many (official) wilderness trails are to rough to ride now but if they are opened for mountain bike use I think they would likely get smoothed over here and there to make them passable.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

Empty_Beer said:


> Correctamundo!!
> 
> We must never forget that Doug Scott was a paid lobbyist for the Sierra Club. He and every member of the Sierra Club and Wilderness Society were NOT members of congress and had no votes on passing the Wilderness Act. His embellished, twisted and fictional accounts of "what happened" have no bearing on what the original law and original regulations were. He may have helped ban bikes and other primitive things like wheelbarrows, hunting carts and baby carriages 20 years after the Wilderness Act passed, but the fact still remains that congress has never banned non-motorized, human powered recreation in our nation's designated Wilderness areas. Mr. Scott (in the past few years) appears only to be interested in protecting his legacy of causing the blanket ban on bikes in 100% of Wilderness 100% of the time.
> 
> ...


Keep in mind Howard was very much anti bicycle. Giving his words to much weight can work against your pro bicycle argument.

EBikes will be leading the advocacy way for non-assisted bicycles both in Wilderness and other lands.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

figofspee said:


> Keep in mind Howard was very much anti bicycle.


I'm curious how you came to this conclusion? I don't believe I've read anything associated with him that came across as "anti-bicycle" or anti-non-motorized wheel.

Regarding your 2nd statement, I'm still waiting for ebike industry representatives, advocates and riders to express anything remotely associated with trail advocacy. Care to fill me in?


----------



## hikerdave (Mar 8, 2006)

Empty_Beer said:


> I'm curious how you came to this conclusion? I don't believe I've read anything associated with him that came across as "anti-bicycle" or anti-non-motorized wheel.
> 
> Regarding your 2nd statement, I'm still waiting for ebike industry representatives, advocates and riders to express anything remotely associated with trail advocacy. Care to fill me in?


After talking to Mrs. HikerDave about her feelings about human-powered bicycles in wilderness and getting an earful, HikerDave will no longer even consider the possibility of any kind of bicycle or wheel in the wilderness as viable. So advocacy of wilderness trail riding is out for this eMTBr.

Probably still going to work on getting eBikes carved out as a separate category for travel plan management via an amendment to EO 11644, though.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

Empty_Beer said:


> I'm curious how you came to this conclusion? I don't believe I've read anything associated with him that came across as "anti-bicycle" or anti-non-motorized wheel.
> 
> Regarding your 2nd statement, I'm still waiting for ebike industry representatives, advocates and riders to express anything remotely associated with trail advocacy. Care to fill me in?


Doug makes it appear that Howard wrote the letter to the National Forest Service in 1965, but he died in 1964 so that couldn't be the case. I do not have a direct quote from Howard regarding bikes so I will walk that statement back a little, but keep in mind that Doug uses Howard's animosity towards mechanization against bicycles even though bicycles are not mechanized.

Much of the legislation passed in the resent years regarding eBikes that equates them with bicycles, does so on all forms of bicycle infrastructure, trails included. There is usually a caveat that allows for municipalities to allow or ban them from trails, so as to make the law more palatable for the nervous communities, but those bans will be slowly expired, as will the Federal associaciation of eBikes and motorcycles. By and large, eBike political success is far better then I would have expected and its success is do to the huge advocacy funding and infrastructure provided by the bicycle industry. The eBike advocacy train is moving fast and has all the momentum, compare that with the STC which is poor and sputtering. When eBikes have nationwide acceptance as a bicycle in the US, like it does in Europe, we will start to see real improvements in bicycle access.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

figofspee said:


> Doug makes it appear that Howard wrote the letter to the National Forest Service in 1965, but he died in 1964 so that couldn't be the case. I do not have a direct quote from Howard regarding bikes so I will walk that statement back a little, but keep in mind that Doug uses Howard's animosity towards mechanization against bicycles even though bicycles are not mechanized.
> 
> Much of the legislation passed in the resent years regarding eBikes that equates them with bicycles, does so on all forms of bicycle infrastructure, trails included. There is usually a caveat that allows for municipalities to allow or ban them from trails, so as to make the law more palatable for the nervous communities, but those bans will be slowly expired, as will the Federal associaciation of eBikes and motorcycles. By and large, eBike political success is far better then I would have expected and its success is do to the huge advocacy funding and infrastructure provided by the bicycle industry. The eBike advocacy train is moving fast and has all the momentum, compare that with the STC which is poor and sputtering. When eBikes have nationwide acceptance as a bicycle in the US, like it does in Europe, we will start to see real improvements in bicycle access.


 Such a rosey outlook. Start with, bikes don't have motors. See also, regs and rules regarding motorized vehicles( e bikes) Your " regulations" passed usually refers to bike paths and roads. Not multi use off road trails.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

leeboh said:


> Such a rosey outlook. Start with, bikes don't have motors. See also, regs and rules regarding motorized vehicles( e bikes) Your " regulations" passed usually refers to bike paths and roads. Not multi use off road trails.


My bike has a motor, but it didn't start there, it started with having a crankset.

Defining an EBike as a regular bike on pavement is a slippery slope to defining them that way on trails, but I would be interested in a state by state analysis on which states allow them on non-motor-vehicle trails and which don't since you seem to know the subject well and take it very seriously.


----------



## hikerdave (Mar 8, 2006)

leeboh said:


> Such a rosey outlook. Start with, bikes don't have motors. See also, regs and rules regarding motorized vehicles( e bikes) Your " regulations" passed usually refers to bike paths and roads. Not multi use off road trails.


Two trail areas in Arizona opened as a result of the 2018 e-Bike legislation are now opened as a result of land managers interpreting the vague wording of the law as applicable two eBikes; I spoke to one of them on the phone to confirm this.

The wilderness act is pretty unambiguous with the word mechanized, so I doubt that wheels will ever touch the ground in wilderness. I remember helping to carry a sack of cement into the wilderness in the mid seventies; we couldn't use a wheelbarrow or game cart. The cement was used to fix a flume on a grandfathered irrigation dam that bolstered the volume of a mountain lake and controlled the very low water release.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

figofspee said:


> My bike has a motor, but it didn't start there, it started with having a crankset.
> 
> Defining an EBike as a regular bike on pavement is a slippery slope to defining them that way on trails, but I would be interested in a state by state analysis on which states allow them on non-motor-vehicle trails and which don't since you seem to know the subject well and take it very seriously.


You'd be thrilled with Washington law that states e-bikes are banned from natural surface trails unless otherwise specifically permitted by the land manager.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

Curveball said:


> You'd be thrilled with Washington law that states e-bikes are banned from natural surface trails unless otherwise specifically permitted by the land manager.


Sure, just like bikes can be banned in areas where they aren't specifically permitted. Washington isn't what I would call model legislation, but it is a step in the right direction. Polititians like baby steps around new things, and once land managers become educated, which for some might take a bit longer, they will be universally accepted as bicycles. Unless there is a giant EBike patrol force and heavy fines, it is a superficial restriction anyway.


----------



## Shark (Feb 4, 2006)

If wilderness is so damn fragile, there should be no humans allowed.
Then everyone can cry about it when a huge fire comes ripping though & we don't try to stop it.

Too many of these rules are for convenience. It's pretty easy for hikers and horseback riders to say no to bikes, eve though the horses do way more damage, and are a way bigger danger to other users than someone on a bike.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

figofspee said:


> Much of the legislation passed in the resent years regarding eBikes that equates them with bicycles, does so on all forms of bicycle infrastructure, trails included. There is usually a caveat that allows for municipalities to allow or ban them from trails, so as to make the law more palatable for the nervous communities, but those bans will be slowly expired, as will the Federal associaciation of eBikes and motorcycles. By and large, eBike political success is far better then I would have expected and its success is do to the huge advocacy funding and infrastructure provided by the bicycle industry. The eBike advocacy train is moving fast and has all the momentum, compare that with the STC which is poor and sputtering. When eBikes have nationwide acceptance as a bicycle in the US, like it does in Europe, we will start to see real improvements in bicycle access.


I think this attitude will change my view on bikes in Wilderness. I don't want to see motorized bikes in Wilderness and if regular bikes are allowed, then the e-mtb crowd will quickly push their way in also based upon a sense of entitlement.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Gutch said:


> There's thousands of miles of singletrack out there that a lot of riders switching to emtbs have contributed to. Im sure in certain areas you will see more emtbs on the trails.


Probably ride in Wilderness areas too if regular bikes become permitted there. You guys have done a great job in completely changing my mind about Wilderness access for bikes.

I can see now that allowing regular bikes into Wilderness will end up as an invitation to e-bikes there too.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

Curveball said:


> I think this attitude will change my view on bikes in Wilderness. I don't want to see motorized bikes in Wilderness and if regular bikes are allowed, then the e-mtb crowd will quickly push their way in also based upon a sense of entitlement.


Mountain Bikers have had 34 years to do something about the ban on bikes in Wilderness. The reality is that mt Bikers are politically impotent, so your lack of support works in the eBiker's favor. Unfortunately, once eBikers are allowed in Wilderness regular bikes will be too.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

figofspee said:


> The reality is that mt Bikers are politically impotent,


Not anymore, the S.T.C. is working very hard to open Wilderness to bicycles.



> once eBikers are allowed in Wilderness


Which will happen the second day after never.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Curveball said:


> I think this attitude will change my view on bikes in Wilderness. I don't want to see motorized bikes in Wilderness and if regular bikes are allowed, then the e-mtb crowd will quickly push their way in also based upon a sense of entitlement.


I agree, one of the main reasons I'm not all in for bikes in wilderness areas.


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

This thread is like all other e-bike threads, a **** show. Not to mention being posted in the wrong forum. 

What's it going to take to get this one locked?


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

I can't even figure out what he's trying to argue. Bicycles shouldn't be allowed in wilderness but ebikes should and ebikes are a form of bicycles and cyclist have no political clout but ebikers, who are cyclist btw, have clout and bears like ice cream. Or something like that?


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

figofspee said:


> Unfortunately, once eBikers are allowed in Wilderness regular bikes will be too.


Quoted for idiocracy.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

The USNF sign on my riding area said eBikes allowed in Wilderness, but if a Ranger caught you on a non-eBike, you could probably lie and say your bike has a hidden motor.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

figofspee said:


> The USNF sign on my riding area said eBikes allowed in Wilderness, but if a Ranger caught you on a non-eBike, you could probably lie and say your bike has a hidden motor.


Pics or it never happened.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

life behind bars said:


> Pics or it never happened.


Sorry, I don't take and post boring pictures of signs. Frankly, I would rather you not know the location too, as we don't need your kind on our trails. If you want to pretend it never happened, all the better.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

figofspee said:


> Sorry, I don't take and post boring pictures of signs. Frankly, I would rather you not know the location too, as we don't need your kind on our trails. If you want to pretend it never happened, all the better.


You think that your lies aren't entirely transparent?


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

Good, you think it is a lie.


----------



## og-mtb (Sep 23, 2018)

figofspee said:


> The USNF sign


What is "USNF"?


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

figofspee said:


> The USNF sign on my riding area said eBikes allowed in Wilderness, but if a Ranger caught you on a non-eBike, you could probably lie and say your bike has a hidden motor.


Oh cool. There's a NF sign at one my favorite trails that states that there's free beer and bikini mud wrestling at the end of the trail.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

og-mtb said:


> What is "USNF"?


United States Navy Farts.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

figofspee said:


> The USNF sign on my riding area said eBikes allowed in Wilderness, but if a Ranger caught you on a non-eBike, you could probably lie and say your bike has a hidden motor.





figofspee said:


> Sorry, I don't take and post boring pictures of signs. Frankly, I would rather you not know the location too, as we don't need your kind on our trails. If you want to pretend it never happened, all the better.





figofspee said:


> Good, you think it is a lie.


:skep:


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Curveball said:


> Oh cool. There's a NF sign at one my favorite trails that states that there's free beer and bikini mud wrestling at the end of the trail.


Is that the trail you and I are racing on? I sure hope so!


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

og-mtb said:


> What is "USNF"?


Username Figofspee


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

chazpat said:


> Is that the trail you and I are racing on? I sure hope so!


It sure is! However, the mud wrestling might be happening during my nap time.


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

My girlfriend is a model and she lives in another state, she saw one of those signs too.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

^ Im sure she is... if so, why is she with a clown like you?


----------

