# Fighting the US Wilderness bicycle ban, is it possible?



## Haus Boss (Jun 4, 2010)

I've been reading up quite a bit about the US Wilderness Act of 1964, and the USFS's subsequent decision to officially ban bikes from wilderness lands in the 1980s. After reading numerous articles and portions of the 1964 act, there appear to be some pretty major flaws and inconsistencies on how portions of the act are interpreted- specifically those pertaining to mechanical forms of transport. 

I have a couple of questions if anyone could help me out:

- Can you appeal a citation for biking in a wilderness designated area? Since the citation is handled in federal court, what is the next level it would move onto? Are there any instances of someone successfully appealing their citation (I found a few bikers who ended up paying their fine, but nothing beyond that)?

- I'm trying to find further info on the USFS's defacto decision to reinterpret the 1964 Wilderness act as they saw fit to ban bicycles. I'm trying to find further information on this. Any additional references that can shed more light on the USFS's reinterpretation and banning of bicycles in 1984 would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

You're not the first to notice inconsistencies. But you've probably also wondered why nothing has changed regarding those inconsistencies.

I think it is due in large part to the environmental lobby. It's because of an interpretation of a law...not the literal text of the law itself. So in effect, it would have to be challenged at the agency level (to change the interpretation) or at the legislative level (to update the law and clarify the text to specifically include/exclude things).

If would be a huge uphill fight either way against an entrenched lobby with a lot of money who would take your efforts to mean a challenge to the core ideas of the Wilderness Act.


----------



## Curtis C (Mar 28, 2009)

Seems pretty clear to me. NO Mechanized Transportation. Its easy to read something else into that when its for ones own benefit or liking. I'd suggest paying the ticket and next time you want to explore the wilderness leave the bike at the boundary and walk in. Ask yourself how you would feel if you were on a designated bike trail and some motos buzzed you after passing the "No Motorized Travel" signs. I bet you'd like to see them ticketed.

Sure it would be fun to ride my bike on some of those trails but I also like the solitude after hiking in for a few miles.

Think about it, you open it up to mountain bikes you essentially open it up to horses with trailers in tow as well as hunters/hikers using wheeled buggies.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

I think it could be done, as biking does not fit the mechanized category any more than skiing does. It would take a concerted effort and ten years, but demographics are changing.


----------



## Liquidmantis (Jan 5, 2008)

bsieb said:


> I think it could be done, as biking does not fit the mechanized category.


What do you call someone who works on bikes?


----------



## JmZ (Jan 10, 2004)

As Bsieb says, it will take concerted effort and time. It could be a long and bloody fight. Would the end result be worth it? If we overturn the ban (in at least selected areas), we NEED it to be defensible. If allowing bikes in is overturned quickly, or allows for development instead, then our short term win will be a much bigger loss.

And yes it is possible. The important question is instead - Is it likely and realistically possible? Is it an effort that we want IMBA to lead and fight. Will it deplete their coffers from allowing them to do the work on the local level, pay for the trail care crews, and all the other things that they currently do?

I don't have the answers to those questions. We will be on the opposite side of the usual suspects, and we may even have some new opponents that we considered (at least marginally) allies over there too.

Look at REI as a prime example; they give money and time to both local trail groups, and to the Sierra Club. Would they take a stand? I think it unlikely. It would slight one, or both groups. I know they are a company and not a landholder or policy maker, but they illustrate the point.

Then we have to look at our own members. There are more than a few who would argue against us. (I don't tend to agree, but that's a different discussion). Their reasons will be their own: from being a environmentalist first, and a cyclist second, or that they want their horses undisturbed when they are riding those instead of their bikes.

Then we have to look at who could be our allies. I don't care if you agree or disagree with the Blue Ribbon Coalition. They will be very interested in our efforts. Some of us will see no problems with their stance, some of us will think limited use for motorized vehicles is fine, and some of us will think they have horns and long serpentine tails.

If we are going to take on this fight, and we will, we want to make sure our timing is right and that we will win. Decisively.

We are making progress. IMBA has developed expertise, and trust from those in government, local groups have managed to open and build areas once thought impossible. We are now getting politicians in office that are mountain bikers. All this is in our favor.

*With all this "I don't know" and "it depends" - I still think it a fight worth fighting. But we need to manage our resources and fight this on the local level too. Have the local groups keep working on local trails, and getting people riding and involved. I just see it as a march instead of a sprint.*


----------



## EMrider (Sep 9, 2007)

Trying to overturn the ban on bikes makes as much sense as starting a bonfire with $100 bills. With the environmental groups opposed and the law relatively clear (IMHO "mechanized travel" includes bikes, which are machines after all), plus a lot of caselaw, it won't happen in my lifetime. Much more realistic is a selective exemption for bikes in certain unique wilderness areas. I think this is what IMBA is pushing for. Others have floated the idea of another land status designation that is less restrictive that the current wilderness status.

I don't want bikes in all wilderness areas. But I also feel that the tendency over the past 20-30 years to designate darn near everything as wilderness has gone way too far. Too much has been designated wilderness. An exemption may have a chance, but it will be a tough and expensive battle. Environmental groups are well funded and they like to sue the USFS or dept of interior as in intimidation tactic. It is a very effective strategy too. Legal defense is one of the largest items in the USFS's budget.

If you have a specific wilderness area in mind and want to know more, just use the freedom of information act. The USFS is a federal agency. I have done this twice and the USFS was very helpful and responsive in both cases.
R


----------



## Haus Boss (Jun 4, 2010)

Curtis C said:


> Seems pretty clear to me. NO Mechanized Transportation. Its easy to read something else into that when its for ones own benefit or liking. I'd suggest paying the ticket and next time you want to explore the wilderness leave the bike at the boundary and walk in. Ask yourself how you would feel if you were on a designated bike trail and some motos buzzed you after passing the "No Motorized Travel" signs. I bet you'd like to see them ticketed.
> 
> Sure it would be fun to ride my bike on some of those trails but I also like the solitude after hiking in for a few miles.
> 
> Think about it, you open it up to mountain bikes you essentially open it up to horses with trailers in tow as well as hunters/hikers using wheeled buggies.


Actually, it is not that clear. Why don't you try reading Theodore Stroll's legal analysis of the situation? Did I mention he was a staff attorney for the California State Supreme court and his article was published in a reputable legal journal. Oh yah, he's not an IMBA crony nor does he have any vested interest in the the mountain bike industry. I've never received any sort of citation while riding my bike, but I see you like to jump to conclusions. Once you start reading up on the history of Wilderness Act and what congress and the senate intended it to encompas- your mechanized transportation argument becomes rather feeble. Why are kayaks w/ pedal driven fins (extremely similar to a bicycle's drivetrain) allowed in Wilderness areas? What about cross country skies? Why was mountain biking explicitly mentioned and allowed in the 1980 wilderness designation of Rattlesnake Wilderness in Montana? Why was bicycling allowed in Wilderness areas until 1984, at which time the USFS decided to reinterpret the Wilderness act and ban bicycles and hang gliders?

Stoll mentions litigation as one possible option of fighting the wilderness bicycle ban, but recommends against it. Out of my own curiousity, I am wondering what type of litigation options exists, how this would move through the courts, and if we so much as have a seasoned lawyer on the boards, any ideas why litigation would not be the preferred route to fight this?

Ted Stoll's legal review of the Wilderness Act
http://www.imba.com/sites/default/files/Penn State Law Review TS.pdf


----------



## EMrider (Sep 9, 2007)

Haus Boss said:


> Actually, it is not that clear. Why don't you try reading Theodore Stroll's legal analysis of the situation? Did I mention he was a staff attorney for the California State Supreme court and his article was published in a reputable legal journal. Oh yah, he's not an IMBA crony nor does he have any vested interest in the the mountain bike industry. I've never received any sort of citation while riding my bike, but I see you like to jump to conclusions. Once you start reading up on the history of Wilderness Act and what congress and the senate intended it to encompas- your mechanized transportation argument becomes rather feeble. Why are kayaks w/ pedal driven fins (extremely similar to a bicycle's drivetrain) allowed in Wilderness areas? What about cross country skies? Why was mountain biking explicitly mentioned and allowed in the 1980 wilderness designation of Rattlesnake Wilderness in Montana? Why was bicycling allowed in Wilderness areas until 1984, at which time the USFS decided to reinterpret the Wilderness act and ban bicycles and hang gliders?
> 
> Stoll mentions litigation as one possible option of fighting the wilderness bicycle ban, but recommends against it. Out of my own curiousity, I am wondering what type of litigation options exists, how this would move through the courts, and if we so much as have a seasoned lawyer on the boards, any ideas why litigation would not be the preferred route to fight this?
> 
> ...


As mentioned above, the environmental lobby is responsible for the subjective bias against mountain bikes.....and others. They pressure the USFS, sue often, and the USFS dutifully rolls over. Reasonable people will differ on this of course, but after many years of studying and working on land/access rights, that is solidly my view.

That said, if the "mechanized travel" question really was a legal grey zone, I have to assume it would have been challenged in court. Has it been challenged, and if so, what was the court's decision?

R


----------



## DeepseaDebo (Oct 20, 2009)

> What do you call someone who works on bikes?


Bike repair person

from dictionary.com the branch of physics that deals with the action of forces on bodies and with motion, comprised of kinetics, statics, and kinematics. 
so you could apply this definition to horses and the human figure, hence all the dispute. 
me personally i hate all the laws and all that crap they impose on normal people staying out of trouble to make us criminals i will continue to ride my bike where ever i please and not care.


----------



## Pentharian (Apr 13, 2011)

So could "mechanized travel/transportation" as I keep reading people refer to it also include those people with handicaps who want to see the forest, people with mechanical prosthesis, wheelchairs, crutches? 

If they're going to hold that against people, then physically handicapped people can not look at the forest from within.

If they allow wheelchairs, they should allow bicycles. 

Change the law.


----------



## DeepseaDebo (Oct 20, 2009)

> So could "mechanized travel/transportation" as I keep reading people refer to it also include those people with handicaps who want to see the forest, people with mechanical prosthesis, wheelchairs, crutches?


 never thought of that, so than means since my bro has no real legs and both of his are mechanical they won't allow him in the trails?! imma sue the **** outta someone!


----------



## M_S (Nov 18, 2007)

EMrider said:


> Trying to overturn the ban on bikes makes as much sense as starting a bonfire with $100 bills. With the environmental groups opposed and the law relatively clear (IMHO "mechanized travel" includes bikes, which are machines after all), plus a lot of caselaw, it won't happen in my lifetime. Much more realistic is a selective exemption for bikes in certain unique wilderness areas. I think this is what IMBA is pushing for. Others have floated the idea of another land status designation that is less restrictive that the current wilderness status.
> 
> I don't want bikes in all wilderness areas. But I also feel that the tendency over the past 20-30 years to designate darn near everything as wilderness has gone way too far. Too much has been designated wilderness. An exemption may have a chance, but it will be a tough and expensive battle. Environmental groups are well funded and they like to sue the USFS or dept of interior as in intimidation tactic. It is a very effective strategy too. Legal defense is one of the largest items in the USFS's budget.
> 
> ...


This fellow knows what he/she is talking about.

I have pretty mixed feelings on Wilderness as a land use policy, but I do see it as overwhelmingly good, just misapplied in a few cases, and flawed in some ways like all human endeavors. Allowing bicycles in existing Wilderness is about as low on my priority list as it comes, but working within the system and within collaborative groups to make sure land is used wisely and designated in ways that make the most sense is something we should all work towards.


----------



## Mojo Troll (Jun 3, 2004)

As an avid mtn biker, hiker and not so much backpacker anymore. There are areas that simply should only be explored on foot. Haul everything you need to sustain life on your back for a couple of weeks and sleep with nature. Perhaps then, one will understand.


----------



## Frozenspokes (May 26, 2004)

I see the Wilderness advocates have already gotten the word out on this. Three posts in this thread already from people who have been registered for years and have a few hundred posts or less. I'm sure that if you looked at their post history, most would be along the same vein as the ones in this thread also. 

If you are wondering who these "environmental groups" are, start with the Sierra Club. While they officially state that they are not anti mountain bike, if you look at there practice over the years, you will see that they are one of the biggest advocates of the the Wilderness designation for just about every strip of dirt in the country. They are MUCH bigger than IMBA, they are well funded, and they are legally well represented. They are not alone, but they are the biggest. 

In my opinion, the Sierra Club does lots of good. But on the bike issue they are completely wrong. Unfortunately, I don't see any change coming from the organization any time soon.


----------



## JonathanGennick (Sep 15, 2006)

Haus Boss said:


> - Can you appeal a citation for biking in a wilderness designated area?


You would need extraordinarily deep pockets. You'd be fighting against a well-entrenched lobby. Probably it would be less expensive to just pay off tickets for the rest of your life.


----------



## BeanMan (Jul 6, 2006)

You'll have to count me as someone who doesn't post much but supports wilderness. I don't want to see new wilderness without a bike proviso but firmly believe in the non mechanized travel doctrine of existing wilderness. Plenty of other places to build trails in Colorado.


----------



## idbrian (May 10, 2006)

Why is that the people defending the Wilderness act assume the opposition expects to bike wherever the hell they want to? I don't think anyone expects it to be any different than with state parks; there would be trails that allow bikes (multi-use), and trails that don't.


----------



## jmmUT (Sep 15, 2008)

Remember these "environmentalists" and there "lobbies" are often mtbrs too.

Even as a biker myself, I fully support the ban. 

Don't want to start a fight but actually try to prevent one by reminding everyone to continue this good civil discussion before it goes downhill (no pun intended) like it has in the past.


----------



## gravitylover (Sep 1, 2009)

My biggest gripe with the wilderness ban is that it eliminates most of what would be the best point to point rides in the country. Sure there are some good ones open to us but I want more. I would particularly like to see the AT available to us.


----------



## tim208 (Apr 23, 2010)

wilderness. to each his own. I have been lucky enough to grow up doing the weeklong horse packin trip for elk, floated many wilderness rivers, backpacked for weeks. But personally we have enough wilderness in the us of a. We need another designation that allows the land to be protected but recreated on. no new wilderness.

trying to figure out the whys of the no mechanical advantage overland thinking is hard. i guess that is why rafts and kayaks can go in wilderness as they don't go over land. but skis do. remeber fulcrums and levers are mechanical advatages. bikes, skis, paddles


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

I'd suggest doing a better job of stewardship of the trails where mountain bikes are currently allowed before getting into fights to allow bikes where they currently are not.

A question to ask is how much time people who post so passionately on this issue have spent doing the decidedly unglamorous work of trail maintenance or working with various agencies doing the long tedious work it takes to get new trail built in the areas where bikes are by law allowed?


----------



## desrcr (Feb 8, 2004)

I suggest joining the fight to stop further designations.
Many of the targeted areas are NOT wilderness. True wilderness is needed, but seems to me, the designation is being used to shut out undesirables, such as mtbikes.
There has to be sound science behind land management, not emotion.


----------



## smilycook (Jan 13, 2004)

Seems like a good battle to fight in the courts. First you need lots of money and a good lawyer. Put together a non-profit and I will send in check.

I certainly don't want access to all wilderness trails just some which never should have been made wilderness in the first place. Since it take 3 times as much tax dollars to maintain wilderness trails it seems only right that those of us who actually pay taxes should have access to some of these trails.


----------



## EMrider (Sep 9, 2007)

daves4mtb said:


> Why doesn't it make sense? What environmental groups are you referring to? (I am sure they are out there, but who are they?) And what "caselaw" are you referring to? I doubt there is any "caselaw" on this subject, as that would imply someone litigated it and had an appellate court review the issue.
> 
> I don't necessarily disagree with you that seeking certain exemptions might be a more productive route, I just don't find the idea of challenging the application of the current regulation to be completely crazy.


Based on my experience, waging a legal battle against the USFS and environmental groups on a subjective issue like "what does mechanized travel really mean" is expensive suicide.

Land rights and land use policy has always been a busy legal area and my assumption is that the courts have heard hundreds, maybe thousands, of cases involving wilderness designations and the legal conflicts these designations create. A few hours spend searching the Lexis database could probably provide some facts, but I'm not going to invest my time in that effort.

Again, it appears that MTB advocacy groups have figured this out years ago. None are going head-on to overturn the ban because they are realists. But some (IMBA, and perhaps others) are working on creating a legal option for selective exemptions to permit MTB use.

All that said, I do think that new wilderness designations are coming under greater scrutiny and have therefore become more difficult to get approved. That is a sign of wilderness fatigue. A good thing IMHO since the bar had fallen too low in previous decades.

R


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

In canada the use the phrase no motorized vehicles.


----------



## EMrider (Sep 9, 2007)

daves4mtb said:


> It really isn't my intent to pick a thread-fight with you or anyone else, but as a lawyer, when I read your postings on this subject, I am always left with more questions than answers and I've got the big "bs alert" bell going off in the back of my head. Perhaps the whole point is to drop hints about your background, so that people will slowly draw out of you all the wonderous things you've done. I prefer that when you, a semi-anonymous message board user, reference your "experience" that you tell us what that is, and how it applies here.
> 
> First of all "in your experience": Do you HAVE experience litigating against the USFS and other environmental groups on issues like this? Very few people do. I don't and don't claim to. What is "your experience?" Are you a lawyer? You write very well, so you might be.
> 
> ...


So many questions. So much sarcasm. 
Just to be clear, I have zero interest in convincing you of anything. My intent is to express an opinion about the topics raised in this thread. And no, I'm not a lawyer. But I have been actively involved in land use advocacy for 15+ years. Usually on the losing end too! I have listened to and discussed this topic with "experts" and the USFS, and as you can probably guess, reasonable people are all over the map.

I don't hold opinions that are detached from fact or experience. But I don't feel any obligation to skeptics like you to extensively footnote everything so that you can be comfortable or convinced. This is not a lab experiment and there is plenty of room for opinions to differ. If we could turn to the facts for truth, there would be no debate about MTB access in wilderness areas.

If your opinions differ from mine, feel free to share as much as you like. As a lawyer, I'm sure you have no trouble expressing yourself clearly.
R


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

EMrider said:


> So many questions. So much sarcasm.
> Just to be clear, I have zero interest in convincing you of anything. My intent is to express an opinion about the topics raised in this thread. And no, I'm not a lawyer. But I have been actively involved in land use advocacy for 15+ years. Usually on the losing end too.
> 
> I don't hold opinions that are detached from fact or experience. But I don't feel any obligation to skeptics like you to extensively footnote everything so that you can be comfortable or convinced. This is not a lab experiment and there is plenty of room for opinions to differ. If we could turn to the facts for truth, there would be no debate about MTB access in wilderness areas.
> ...


Sounds like you two need to get with George W Bush and start the process.


----------



## @dam (Jan 28, 2004)

Frozenspokes said:


> In my opinion, the Sierra Club does lots of good. But on the bike issue they are completely wrong. Unfortunately, I don't see any change coming from the organization any time soon.


Well said. I used to be a member, but I figured why give money to both them and IMBA? Most mountain bikers and sierra club members, I think, want _almost_ the same things. Rather than spending resources fighting bikers, they should treat them as allies. Same goes for hang gliders. Are they REALLY a problem. As long as you're quiet and don't cause any more damage than the equestrians, I don't see any rational reason to disallow bikers. "Mechanized" should be changed to "Motorized".

As far as the guy saying some areas should only be seen on foot: I'm a backpacker too, and I think the areas that should only be seen on foot are the ones that are too rough to reach on bike. Besides- I assume that also means you think horses and pack animals should be banned, no?

One more thing: Horses, obviously, are far more damaging to trails than bikes. I heard they're allowed while bikers are banned is in order to maintain "...a more primitive experience". Seems arbitrary, with all the high-tech backpacking gear availalbe now. Perhaps people shouldn't be allowed any backpacking or equestrian equipment that wasn't available before 1950.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

EMrider said:


> A good thing IMHO since the bar had fallen too low in previous decades.


I would have to agree with this statement. I have recently visited a nearby Wilderness Area designated in the 1980's for a hiking trip. I really cannot in good conscience say that I agree with the designation. I understand the reason for the designation. The area was designated as a Wilderness to protect an area of unlogged longleaf pine savanna, as well as some small bogs containing rare carnivorous plants.

However, the designation wasn't done until AFTER people had built roads through the area and run cattle and dug water tanks and all that. It's obvious people have driven their cars through there in the past, and I even found old trash on the "trails" (which are really just old roads, and are still maintained at doubletrack width). I have seen evidence of old home sites.

How this area is any kind of "wilderness" I don't know. That doesn't mean those plant communities shouldn't be protected from development, but there are ways to protect them from development without going to the Wilderness extreme. Really...if all the trails out there are just on old road beds in the first place, what is the harm of allowing people to ride bicycles there? If the trail crews are going to maintain the trails at doubletrack width anyway, why not let them use a chainsaw?


----------



## mudflap (Feb 23, 2004)

daves4mtb said:


> ...
> 
> There is no right or wrong answer, but I think that most here would like there to be more access to wilderness areas by mountain bikes, instead of a general presumption against it. That wouldn't preclude the agencies in charge from designating a trail to be hikers-only. It would mean that a special act or agency approval wouldn't need to be obtained to take a mountain bike onto an appropriate trail in federal wilderness areas. Which I think would be great. From the article by Stroll, it doesn't seem like an entirely losing proposition.
> 
> I did look up on Westlaw and at least in California and in the 9th district federally, there are no reported cases involving a mountain biker getting cited on federal land. I did find some interesting legislative information that indicated in certain federal lands where mountain biking was allowed on trial basis, the environmental effects were found to minimal and special use of the trails was allowed, but that required some kind of Agency or Legislative activity. Also found an interesting case, involving litigation that included both the Sierra Club and the IMBA organization, involving mountain bike trails in Marin County. (You can find it online at Bicycle Trails Council of Marin v. Babbitt, 82 F.3d 1445). This case demonstrates the difficulty of litigating such an issue when faced with a legislative scheme that presupposes that mountain bikes should not be permitted in wilderness areas.


bottom line, that's some good info I'm Not Really A Lawyer, But I Play One On MTBR.
but remember, no one cares who you are, only what you have to say.
do we need to know you are a lawyer to validate your response to the thread?
your quoted words add something of value to the discussion, but most of your post is laying into someone and adds nothing pertinent.
and BTW, when you do that it makes you look unprofessional...as a lawyer, that is.


----------



## Howley (Nov 23, 2005)

A good resource:
http://www.wildernessbicycling.org/bikesbelong/bikesbelong.html


----------



## Fischman (Jul 17, 2004)

@dam said:


> "Mechanized" should be changed to "Motorized".
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## M_S (Nov 18, 2007)

The doctrine of traditional use is as important as "mechanized," just as a clarification.

I like Wilderness, and I think the Wilderness Act has done good overall, but I do think it is sometimes used in place of a better, nonexistent land designation.

Also, there is no reason mountain biking _couldn't _ be grandfathered into/excepted to the bike ban in new Wilderness areas. Most Wilderness has some sort of non-wilderness aspect, such as helicopter landing sites or reservoirs. Politics is about compromise after all.


----------



## M_S (Nov 18, 2007)

daves4mtb said:


> Is it really true that new wilderness areas are coming under greater scrutiny? And why do you say so? Have you sat in on meetings with the USFS or do you drink coffee at Starbucks with Smokey the Bear so you have some secret ninja voodoo insider stuff you can't tell us? Inquiring minds want to know! And just what are your long-held and deep-seated beliefs on the "bar being too low" for wilderness areas?


Anyone who lives in the West knows this is so. The reasons are complex, but one of the biggest is that pretty much all of the Wilderness Areas already designated are of the "rock and ice" variety: land of little commercial value (excepting, perhaps, mining) that is highly scenic. That's easy.

Are you familiar with any of the fights over current Wilderness Study Areas, such as the ones around Bozeman, MT? And the now perhaps dead Forest Jobs and Recreation Act? These are examples local to me but not the only ones. The Act mentioned would have designated a lot of new Wilderness, among other things, but there was certainly a lot of debate about whether some of the lower elevation areas with a history of human use were appropriate. I had my own concerns about it, but they related more to a misapplication of the term "restoration" to include subsidized logging, but that's a different debate entirely.

Anyways, this is what I'm pretty sure he/she was referring to with the "low bar" bit. There are only so many "untrammeled" areas in the United States, and there's a reason so much US Wilderness is in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Alaska. But even in these places there are lots of areas with preservation and conservation values which don't really have Wilderness (capital "w") characteristics.


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

Pentharian said:


> So could "mechanized travel/transportation" as I keep reading people refer to it also include those people with handicaps who want to see the forest, people with mechanical prosthesis, wheelchairs, crutches?
> 
> If they're going to hold that against people, then physically handicapped people can not look at the forest from within.
> 
> ...


Not a well thought out argument. (I know, hard to believe on the interwebz)

Following your logic, since that technical single track you like is unavailable to people on crutches, prosthetics and wheelchairs maybe we should widen and smooth them out and allow motor vehicles so they're available to all those folks. Millions and millions of acres of forest are available for people to travel on wheels via motorized allowed roads and yes, even wheelchair accessible trails.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

zrm said:


> Not a well thought out argument. (I know, hard to believe on the interwebz)
> 
> Following your logic, since that technical single track you like is unavailable to people on crutches, prosthetics and wheelchairs maybe we should widen and smooth them out and allow motor vehicles so they're available to all those folks. Millions and millions of acres of forest are available for people to travel on wheels via motorized allowed roads and yes, even wheelchair accessible trails.


:facepalm:


----------



## The Prodigal Son (Apr 22, 2008)

Yes, of course it is possible. However you will lose and you will lose big. 

Rather than throw hundreds of thousands of dollars at attorneys and waste many years getting occasional bad news from them that will raise your blood presure and cause a great deal of stress, I suggest you pack your bags and depart Marin and head to some beautiful riding destination in central Oregon, or perhaps Colorado. The legal trails are plentiful and will keep you smiling for the rest of your life.

Fighting the government is a sucker move and will take your eyes off the prize. Focus on maximizing your riding experience. That means fleeing Marin. Use your time and energy to accomplish the greater goal of finding a riders nirvana.


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

M_S said:


> The doctrine of traditional use is as important as "mechanized," just as a clarification.
> 
> I like Wilderness, and I think the Wilderness Act has done good overall, but I do think it is sometimes used in place of a better, nonexistent land designation.
> 
> Also, there is no reason mountain biking _couldn't _ be grandfathered into/excepted to the bike ban in new Wilderness areas. Most Wilderness has some sort of non-wilderness aspect, such as helicopter landing sites or reservoirs. Politics is about compromise after all.


Those infrastructures are not actually in the wilderness, they are in holdings of either private property or prior use authorizations. It isn't uncommon for roads and trails that aren't managed as wilderness to be "cherry stemmed in to wilderness boundaries.
As to alternate designations, during talks with the Hidden Gems wilderness folks, the (Colorado) Summit Fat Tire Society has proposed "companion designations" as buffer areas around core designated wilderness that could allow mtn bikes and some other uses but otherwise be managed as wilderness. The concept is in its infancy but is gaining at least a little momentum within the agencies and Congressman Polis's office. If anything comes of it though, it will be years away


----------



## EMrider (Sep 9, 2007)

> There is no right or wrong answer, but I think that most here would like there to be more access to wilderness areas by mountain bikes, instead of a general presumption against it. That wouldn't preclude the agencies in charge from designating a trail to be hikers-only. It would mean that a special act or agency approval wouldn't need to be obtained to take a mountain bike onto an appropriate trail in federal wilderness areas. Which I think would be great. From the article by Stroll, it doesn't seem like an entirely losing proposition.


Unless I'm missing something, it seems we have the same view about realistic goals here. Selective access, maybe. Universal access, not a chance.

That no individual or group has sued over MTB access to wilderness areas makes perfect sense. On this specific issue, you'd need a warped sense of reality, lots of time and lots of unwanted money to fight the rule.



> Isn't "turning to the facts for truth" what is always done? Where in the world did you learn to come up with these phrases - great stuff, really - but it also contradicts your other statement that "there is plenty of room for opinions to differ" and that "reasonable people are all over the map.


No. In some aspects of life, facts settle the dispute. But in a majority of cases they don't because human judgment, emotion and biases are involved. The wilderness debate is one of the latter cases. Pretty obvious in my view....... The entire legal profession exists because we seldom agree on what "facts" and which 'truth" and much depends on one's point of view.

R


----------



## EMrider (Sep 9, 2007)

M_S said:


> Anyone who lives in the West knows this is so. The reasons are complex, but one of the biggest is that pretty much all of the Wilderness Areas already designated are of the "rock and ice" variety: land of little commercial value (excepting, perhaps, mining) that is highly scenic. That's easy.
> 
> Are you familiar with any of the fights over current Wilderness Study Areas, such as the ones around Bozeman, MT? And the now perhaps dead Forest Jobs and Recreation Act? These are examples local to me but not the only ones. The Act mentioned would have designated a lot of new Wilderness, among other things, but there was certainly a lot of debate about whether some of the lower elevation areas with a history of human use were appropriate. I had my own concerns about it, but they related more to a misapplication of the term "restoration" to include subsidized logging, but that's a different debate entirely.
> 
> Anyways, this is what I'm pretty sure he/she was referring to with the "low bar" bit. There are only so many "untrammeled" areas in the United States, and there's a reason so much US Wilderness is in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Alaska. But even in these places there are lots of areas with preservation and conservation values which don't really have Wilderness (capital "w") characteristics.


Yep, there are similar conflicts around proposed wilderness designations in the Sequoia NF (Piutes area) and in the eastern sierras. The local communities are opposed. Lots of conflict with private property owners in the proposed wilderness areas and worry about hurting local businesses that serve visitors to the area. Fun fact. Wilderness areas don't generate nearly as much biz for the local economy as national forests. Check the BRC website for many other examples.
R


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

There is a small area of Montana where the locals simply tore out all gates used to close off Roads by the Forst Service, finally the forest service simply gave up. Just saying.


----------



## socal_jack (Dec 30, 2008)

Sierra Club is the 800 pound gorilla in the room, bnent on Wildernessizing everything in sight. Unforuntately the IMBA thru the Park City agreement in 1994, basically agreed not to fight them on Wilderness designations(in fact quite the opposite, to help promote Wilderness designations). In addition, the Sierra Club works to eliminate mtbs from non-Wilderness areas seemingly whenever possible, from their own talking points.

This page gets more regressive every year.

http://www.sierraclub.org/policy/conservation/mtnbike.aspx


----------



## Boyonabyke (Sep 5, 2007)

Liquidmantis said:


> What do you call someone who works on bikes?


pretty much what you call anyone that works on any form of vehicle used for transportation. A Mechanic.

If it's involves any form of transportation that includes wheels, bearings, grease, oil, plastic, teflon, gliding lubricant, be it dry or wet, wax, oil or any derivative of petroleum or synthetic hydrocarbon molecule chain lubrication based, metal on metal bearing points or pivot points, pins, axles screws or fasteners, some sort of inspection or recommended maintenance schedule, it's mechanized, as far as I am concerned. In short, any material used by it to reduce friction or increase efficiency of propulsion makes it mechanized.

In short, if the item is made with any form of power tool that runs on electricity, where the labor to produce it is not all done by hand, or non powerized hand tools, then it's mechanized, because all of those tools basically were designed by Mechanical Engineers, then manufactured and produced.

As I see it, the design would have had to been made sometime before the timeframe of the Industrial Revolution, and before the carriage was designed for horse and buggy or carriage operation. Non mechanized, pretty much means on foot, or swimming, without support of outside produced devices by mechanized production methods. All the steps of production must be done by hand, by hand tools, no power.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

RandyBoy said:


> pretty much what you call anyone that works on any form of vehicle used for transportation. A Mechanic.
> 
> If it's involves any form of transportation that includes wheels, bearings, grease, oil, plastic, teflon, gliding lubricant, be it dry or wet, wax, oil or any derivative of petroleum or synthetic hydrocarbon molecule chain lubrication based, metal on metal bearing points or pivot points, pins, axles screws or fasteners, some sort of inspection or recommended maintenance schedule, it's mechanized, as far as I am concerned. In short, any material used by it to reduce friction or increase efficiency of propulsion makes it mechanized.
> 
> ...


:evenbiggerfacepalm:


----------



## Boyonabyke (Sep 5, 2007)

Frozenspokes said:


> I see the Wilderness advocates have already gotten the word out on this. Three posts in this thread already from people who have been registered for years and have a few hundred posts or less. I'm sure that if you looked at their post history, most would be along the same vein as the ones in this thread also.
> 
> If you are wondering who these "environmental groups" are, start with the Sierra Club. While they officially state that they are not anti mountain bike, if you look at there practice over the years, you will see that they are one of the biggest advocates of the the Wilderness designation for just about every strip of dirt in the country. They are MUCH bigger than IMBA, they are well funded, and they are legally well represented. They are not alone, but they are the biggest.
> 
> In my opinion, the Sierra Club does lots of good. But on the bike issue they are completely wrong. Unfortunately, I don't see any change coming from the organization any time soon.


I think what it all gets down to is we all want to enjoy the outdoors. It's the fractions of Outdoor users that see differently as to what the Best Use policy is of our lands, and rule by majority and money. There are far more hikers and well monied ones at that, in the Sierra Club. The average Sierra Klubber is female, makes at or close to middle management money or more, and single, and enjoys hiking, and considers her non profit contributions/donations to Sierra Clb as practically tithing. They are passionate about their outdoors enjoyment, and they aren't cheap, like most mountain bikers are, about supporting the organization with huge charitable donations. Mountain bikers, on the other hand, tend to spend a large portion of their money on their bikes, leaving little for donations. At least that is my observation here out west in California.


----------



## jmmUT (Sep 15, 2008)

RandyBoy said:


> pretty much what you call anyone that works on any form of vehicle used for transportation. A Mechanic.
> 
> If it's involves any form of transportation that includes wheels, bearings, grease, oil, plastic, teflon, gliding lubricant, be it dry or wet, wax, oil or any derivative of petroleum or synthetic hydrocarbon molecule chain lubrication based, metal on metal bearing points or pivot points, pins, axles screws or fasteners, some sort of inspection or recommended maintenance schedule, it's mechanized, as far as I am concerned. In short, any material used by it to reduce friction or increase efficiency of propulsion makes it mechanized.
> 
> ...


The law (or interpretation thereof) does not only apply to transportation. Chainsaws are also not allowed in designated wilderness-even for trail crews.

And again just since my side is being under-represented:

I fully support the ban. Do we need to have sex with every single person we find attractive? No, that would be silly and disastrous. Your bike doesn't have to go everywhere.

And noting about the "lowered bar"- often wilderness designation is to protect wildlife and sensitive flora. The ideal environment for most wildlife rarely looks good on a postcard-the purpose of wilderness is not just for human eye-candy and recreation. That's what National Parks and Monuments are for-easy access, developed infrastructure, and calender shots.


----------



## Fischman (Jul 17, 2004)

*Wow, talk about a red herring . . .*

"Do we need to have sex with every single person we find attractive? No, that would be silly and disastrous."

This is a ridiculous analogy. It's not even apple to oranges.

Let's break this down a bit . . .

First, nobody has advocated putting MTBs on "every single" trail

Second, allowing MTBs on some trails currently in wilderness areas would not be "disastrous" (unless you have a really narrow definition of disastrous--i.e."My hike was ruined because I saw a bicycle!").

Third, if an individual has the emotional maturity and takes the necessary precautions, all that sex needn't be disastrous. I have always been, currently am, and always be a monogamous guy, but that doesn't mean I feel the need to push my lifestyle on others or deprive others of their chosen lifestyle (unlike blind wilderness advocates).

Fourth, even if I can't have sex with every attractive person, that doesn't mean I should be denied any opportunity of having sex with what I consider to be the most attractive one--so long as I can do so without bringing harm to either of us. (side note--I do not automatically all see off-limits trails as the most attractive just because they're unobtainable; but ya' gotta' admit, there's some killer scenery out there in those Wilderness areas!)

Lastly, this thing is blown out of the water by the arbitrary bias against MTBs. If this was simply a matter of denying ourselves something we don't need anyway, then it should be equally applicable to all. Try denying hikers access to 40-50% (or more) of the roadless areas in our most beautiful Western states and see what kind of a reaction that provokes . . .


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

RandyBoy said:


> pretty much what you call anyone that works on any form of vehicle used for transportation. A Mechanic.
> 
> If it's involves any form of transportation that includes wheels, bearings, grease, oil, plastic, teflon, gliding lubricant, be it dry or wet, wax, oil or any derivative of petroleum or synthetic hydrocarbon molecule chain lubrication based, metal on metal bearing points or pivot points, pins, axles screws or fasteners, some sort of inspection or recommended maintenance schedule, it's mechanized, as far as I am concerned. In short, any material used by it to reduce friction or increase efficiency of propulsion makes it mechanized.
> 
> ...


Cool so I guess automobiles are in then after all
Homeless Man Builds a Car From Scratch

http://gajitz.com/extreme-diy-homeless-man-builds-a-car-from-scratch/

Probalby should throw away your clothing then since its made from automated machines, looks like you will be doing the wilderness thing nakedsssss


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

Curtis C said:


> Seems pretty clear to me. NO Mechanized Transportation.


That's not what the original law said and intended. Anything human powered should be allowed. If anything, horse travel should be excluded as it is destructive and it is immoral to utilize slave animals for entertainment. Or, at least, it should be.



Curtis C said:


> Sure it would be fun to ride my bike on some of those trails but I also like the solitude after hiking in for a few miles.


Bikes do not ruin solitude. They are quite, non-destructive and they will be further away then you are, and it is only a question of proper trail design to avoid conflicts, as any objective study shows.



Curtis C said:


> Think about it, you open it up to mountain bikes you essentially open it up to horses with trailers in tow as well as hunters/hikers using wheeled buggies.


As long as they are not motorized, no harm is done. Better horse and a cart then a horse train carrying the supplies.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

I can even understand the goal of allowing previously developed lands to revert to an increasingly wild condition (like my local Wilderness areas with much obvious human impact).

I do think it's a problem, though, that Wilderness designations are used by many as a weapon to exclude bikes and other user groups (but primarily bikes) from the trails. I know a number of hikers who hold that specific opinion, that Wilderness designation should continue to be used to close more and more trails to bikes.

I think there is a very solid argument for allowing case-by-case (trail-by-trail) allowances to grandfather mountain bike access onto specific trails that are part of a new Wilderness designation. I think such an allowance would add to the support for new Wilderness, because many mountain bikers are weary of new designations because their favorite trails often get included in these areas.

It would make me even happier if some trails that formerly allowed mountain bike access (prior to designation) became permissible to ride again if the land manager decided that allowing bikes there would be okay (even if the feds mandated surveys to do so, it'd be better than the current environment).

The original 1964 Act allowed for certain exemptions for air strips and motorboats to be grandfathered into new Wilderness designations, so I don't see why it would be a big problem to create a Wilderness around a mountain bike trail, allowing bikes to continue to access that particular trail (and do maintenance to said trail including reroutes when necessary within Wilderness regulations).


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

daves4mtb said:


> If one were to take your definition, then what about cross-country skis, which have bindings that are worked on by mechanics? Wouldn't fixing a tent perhaps require some "mechanic" knowledge (ok., so not much, but still)? At what point does this argument stop? Do we have to consider whether mechanical tools were used to build the device? That rules out my hiking shoes! Isn't a compass mechanical? The test isn't whether it was invented prior to the industrial revolution. If the Act meant that it would say that.


My hiking equipment is heavier and more technological then my bike(s). Space age metals, fabrics, and more electronics then in a cold war ear bomber. Satellite navigation and emergency beacons. Solid state light emitters with advanced batteries. Titanium cookware and compressed gas cylinders. Polarized eye protection. Kevlar and spectra ropes.

My bike is essentially a hundred year old technology at its core. Welded tubes, rubber tires, chain and an air sprung shock absorbers.


----------



## Boyonabyke (Sep 5, 2007)

daves4mtb said:


> I disagree. The test isn't whether a "mechanic" works on the device being used. The actual intent and meaning of "mechanized" in the 1964 Act is discussed in Mr. Stroll's article which is excellent, and which seems to indicate the intended meaning of that term at that time was to prohibit motorized transport and not bicycles. Again, at the time, there was no mountain bike industry and this was not a serious concern, but it does seem like the idea was to allow bicycles. Way back then, that is, in whatever form they existed.
> 
> If one were to take your definition, then what about cross-country skis, which have bindings that are worked on by mechanics? Wouldn't fixing a tent perhaps require some "mechanic" knowledge (ok., so not much, but still)? At what point does this argument stop? Do we have to consider whether mechanical tools were used to build the device? That rules out my hiking shoes! Isn't a compass mechanical? The test isn't whether it was invented prior to the industrial revolution. If the Act meant that it would say that.
> 
> Unfortunately, we are in a system where the meaning of a law can be lost if the powers that be don't follow it for long enough. See our Constitution for an example.


How long has the expression been for Wilderness area to "leave nothing behind but footprints" ? I think that is the guiding principle. Footprints are acceptable in Wilderness area, not much else can or should be left behind.

Look up your state Vehicle code at the department of motor vehicles, and tell us if a bicycle is considered a vehicle in your state, and if it's held to the same operator standards as a licensed driver. Then take a look at your drivers license. Ask the DMV what standards it's possession implies when you are on public land operating any vehicle motorized or otherwise, including a bicycle on public lands. You are held to the same standards as stated in the Motor Vehicle Code handbook,while riding a bicycle,when in possession or owning a current drivers license. It is implied law that by possessing/owing a drivers license, you will obey all rules and laws applicable while on public or private roads, trails, or paths.
Since the "mechanized" section applies to all vehicles, motorized or otherwise by state law, the mechanized clause, by your friends interpretation, effectively bans all vehicles, as all vehicles are mechanized, regardless of if they possess a motor or not. It goes back to the vehicle code. If you can operate said vehicle on public roads, and are held to the same standards as a car or motorcycle on public roads, and the intent of the law was to ban motorized vehicles, it in effect, bans all vehicles, as all vehicles are held to the motor vehicle code and motor vehicle laws here in CA.


----------



## sanjuro (Sep 29, 2004)

jmmorath said:


> The law (or interpretation thereof) does not only apply to transportation. Chainsaws are also not allowed in designated wilderness-even for trail crews.
> 
> And again just since my side is being under-represented:
> 
> ...


Trail advocates and builders would never recommend destroying a pristine ecosystem to build some jumps.

They would only suggest working with trails that already exist.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

RandyBoy said:


> How long has the expression been for Wilderness area to "leave nothing behind but footprints" ? I think that is the guiding principle. Footprints are acceptable in Wilderness area, not much else can or should be left behind.


How about postholes from iron clad hoofs with some non-native seed containing manure on top?

Cyclist with bike weights less then a fully loaded hiker, does not stray off trail, and it is a proven fact that it does not not impact trail any worse.


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

Blurr said:


> There is a small area of Montana where the locals simply tore out all gates used to close off Roads by the Forst Service, finally the forest service simply gave up. Just saying.


Yeah but where else but Montana are you going to find anyone with enough balls to do this? The American people need to make a stand and take back what is being taken away from us in the name of an elite few special interest groups.


----------



## Boyonabyke (Sep 5, 2007)

Axe said:


> How about postholes from iron clad hoofs with some non-native seed containing manure on top?
> 
> Cyclist with bike weights less then a fully loaded hiker, does not stray off trail, and it is a proven fact that it does not not impact trail any worse.


I suggest you take some basic engineering courses to figure out how to do load calculations, before stating that as "fact".


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

RandyBoy said:


> I suggest you take some basic engineering courses to figure out how to do load calculations, before stating that as "fact".


I suggest you shove your smug attitude where sun does not shine and enroll in some reading comprehension classes.

Where there is anything said about load? How did you relate "weights less" with load? As far as impact on trail - read it up.


----------



## curtboroff (Sep 21, 2010)

Convince them that they are missing out on revenue, and the trails will open tomorrow! Play their greed.


----------



## Fattirewilly (Dec 10, 2001)

Haus Boss said:


> - I'm trying to find further info on the USFS's defacto decision to reinterpret the 1964 Wilderness act as they saw fit to ban bicycles. I'm trying to find further information on this. Any additional references that can shed more light on the USFS's reinterpretation and banning of bicycles in 1984 would be greatly appreciated.


http://www.wildernessbicycling.org/index.html


----------



## Fred Smedley (Feb 28, 2006)

Liquidmantis said:


> What do you call someone who works on bikes?


Poor


----------



## chuck80442 (Oct 4, 2009)

Blurr said:


> There is a small area of Montana where the locals simply tore out all gates used to close off Roads by the Forst Service, finally the forest service simply gave up. Just saying.


Blurr is a real rebel. No way the man is gonna tell him where he can't ride. Even though the man did build the trails he thinks he has every right to ride.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

chuck80442 said:


> Blurr is a real rebel. No way the man is gonna tell him where he can't ride. Even though the man did build the trails he thinks he has every right to ride.


Blurr's tax dollars paid for trails and land. The man did not do it for free. The man was hired by Blurr to manage his land, but screwed him over for no good reason whatsoever.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

AZ.MTNS said:


> Yeah but where else but Montana are you going to find anyone with enough balls to do this? The American people need to make a stand and take back what is being taken away from us in the name of an elite few special interest groups.


I agree 100 percent, which is my point, we are sitting here arguing if we can have Access to our land, wtf this is AMERICA!!! we are not asking for anything unreasonable damn it.


----------



## traildoc (Mar 5, 2007)

I have spent a little time reviewing all these different posts and was wondering how many of the posters have ever had the opprotunity to ride in the Wilderness and what your experience was like?

I know some individuals who have ridden in the Wildness for over three years, and I always told them what they were doing was immoral and they would probably go to Hell for doing so. 

They just laughed at me and told me that the trail they ride is very special and for all the hundreds of times they have ridden the trail it was a very special experience and if God was going to send them to Hell for doing so, so be it. 

Apparently some of their most memorable experiences have been riding in the Wildness during snowy periods when they can barely follow the trail due to it being covered with snow. 

When I tell them they are destroying a very special place they just laugh at me and indicate that the trail has been destroyed by horses and it is barely hikable by Sierra Club type hikers. According to the Wilderness riders they have never seen a hiker on the trail. 

They said they do see alot of low flying helicopters taking tourists out to enjoy the Wilderness experience, and I think that is kind of goofy. Seems like a Wilderness experience should be earned. 

I don't know how to respond when they tell me that, maybe some of you could help with a good response. Horses are a big part of our history and I believe any damage they do is OK with me.

TD


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

traildoc said:


> Horses are a big part of our history and I believe any damage they do is OK with me.


Horses are welcome to do their damage as long as they do it on their own, without horseshoes, and not traveling in pack trains over trails.

As far as history with people - how many citizens have ridden a bike, and how many a horse? Exactly. There are ten time more cyclists among trail users. This is our history now. Slavery, wanton pollution, horse driven carriages for transportation. That is long gone, and good riddance.

Welcoming excessive damage for some selfish nostalgic reasons - and denying wholesome, quite and non-destructive enjoyment of nature to your brothers? That's some serious hypocrisy.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

daves4mtb said:


> No one, not even the Sierra club, has stated that if one leaves a tire print that is somehow a violation of the wilderness. You are taking a catchy phrase and treating it as if it is a part of a law, when it isn't. Sorry, but this is as much a fail as your "hand-made objects only" post, which would require us all to strip naked before we enter the backcountry. ('Although I hear the Germans are really into that - "Erotik Kamping")
> 
> Really? More amateur lawyering, with the usual result. I don't need a drivers license to use a bicycle in a wilderness area. Fail.
> 
> Not necessarily true. By your definition the Flintstone mobile could still operate. Please cite me the statute which says that mountain bikes in the Federal wilderness are governed by the California motor vehicle code.


You are wasting your time arguing with a dimwit.


----------



## traildoc (Mar 5, 2007)

Axe said:


> Horses are welcome to do their damage as long as they do it on their own, without horseshoes, and not traveling in pack trains over trails.
> 
> As far as history with people - how many citizens have ridden a bike, and how many a horse? Exactly. There are ten time more cyclists among trail users. This is our history now. Slavery, wanton pollution, horse driven carriages for transportation. That is long gone, and good riddance.
> 
> Welcoming excessive damage for some selfish nostalgic reasons - and denying wholesome, quite and non-destructive enjoyment of nature to your brothers? That's some serious hypocrisy.


Axe:

Very well said, but what do I tell those selfish riders when they go out in the Wildness for one of those very special rides? Even though they are doing little or no damage then a horse with horse shoes, it just seems to be somewhat immoral.

TD


----------



## Boyonabyke (Sep 5, 2007)

Axe said:


> I suggest you shove your smug attitude where sun does not shine and enroll in some reading comprehension classes.
> 
> Where there is anything said about load? How did you relate "weights less" with load? As far as impact on trail - read it up.


Are you capable of doing a load calculation for a 240 pound hikers boot in size 12 with a 5" x 13" sole, approximatley for a "footprint" pound per square inch, as well as a 2.25" tire footprint with a 5 inch length of "footprint" when inflated? I'll allow you to discount the 30 to 35 pounds of the bike too, which should also be added in for an all mountain bike.

240# / 65 sq inches = 3.69 pounds per square inch for a hike on a trail.

240# / 11.25 sq inches for the radiused foot print of a tire = 21.33 pounds per square inch for a biker with his tire on the trail . That a factor of about 5.75 times more psi on the trail surface. Now take the velocity of a hiker slowing down hiking from about 2.5 miles per hour on fat boots. Take the velocity of a mountain biker slowing down from 20 miles per hour on those tires above. Energy = mass x velocity squared. hiker = 5, mountain biker = 400. About 80 times more energy needing to be slowed down on that trail surface and thats not even including or calculating in the additional weight of the bicycle.

I can tell you for certain that a tire rut in mud on an incline erodes and forms a drainage rivulate channel in the high clay and silt areas that I ride in, where as a foot print in the same mud basically forms a puddle at the low end and a period of high rain in a storm of about 1 to 2 inches will cause said soil and foot print to saturate, the soil collapsing in and filling the lowest portions of said foot print. In other words the mud when receiving enough moisture, will self level a foot print. A bike tire track in clay or silt based mud does not "self level" on an incline like a foot print from a hiker does, in one or two good storms. It turns into an eroding drainage ditch until it either reaches a drainage bar, or drains into and fills up a low spot, turning into a puddle, a pond, or a lake.

You can debate and or argue all you want about "trail damage" but the science and the math will disprove you every time.. and that is fact. There is no comparison with hikers and mountain bikers in terms of trail erosion by the two users. A hiker needs a much less prepare/groomed surface to navigate than a mountain biker. They don't rely on a surface having to be relatively smooth to function as a tangent to a radius to roll over to maintain forward progress.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

traildoc said:


> Axe:
> 
> Very well said, but what do I tell those selfish riders when they go out in the Wildness for one of those very special rides? Even though they are doing little or no damage then a horse with horse shoes, it just seems to be somewhat immoral.
> 
> TD


Personally, I am not a fan of violating laws of the land, even those that I deem stupid and arbitrary. I do not do that. But I do not think that violation of a fairly arbitrary administrative statute with a vague history and no clear purpose is a moral turpitude question.

I would tell them to take it easy and stay out of trouble.

Added a first user to my ignore list.. Welcome and good-buy, RandyBoy.


----------



## Boyonabyke (Sep 5, 2007)

Axe said:


> You are wasting your time arguing with a dimwit.


And you, sir, lost the debate, when you started the name calling of me as a "dim wit" because you have nothing further to contribute to the debate. Like I care about your Phd from Stanford in Physics? It hasn't helped you prove your case, so why bother bringing it up when the calculations are so simple? The heat generated from slowing down a 20 mph bike at the disc rotors far exceeds the heat generated slowing down a hiking boot doing 2.5 miles per hour. 
Transfer that rotor rotational energy to friction at the point of contact between said tire and trail, as so often happens entering a turn like a switch back via drifting or skidding, and it becomes quite clear what is doing the trail damage. You don't get ruts or speed bumps from brake jack from hiker or equestrian only use trails. The conditions on horse trails didn't exist before mountain bikers showed up. Witness all the armor on trails at bike parks like Keystone, Mammoth Mountain and Northstar, to reduce and or stop the erosion problems, by paving or hardening up the trail surface. The mechanized efficiency of disc brakes and rotors is the number one cause of trail damage, slowing down for a turn. Again, it's that mechanical advantage, doing the damage, which is why I agree with keeping mechanical devices out of wilderness areas. All they do is increase the efficiency of destruction, rather than conserving or preserving.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

daves4mtb said:


> I am capable of doing a "load calculation" and I can tell you are a big one.


He still refuses to accept that he failed at parsing a compound sentence, does not know the difference between weight, pressure and environmental impact and keeps arguing with himself? Good grief... 



daves4mtb said:


> As I refuse to use the ignore feature - stubbornly - I have decided that I have to be drinking when I read your posts.


I do not think they will make any more sense that way, but you may try. Tell us how it goes.


----------



## traildoc (Mar 5, 2007)

Axe said:


> Personally, I am not a fan of violating laws of the land, even those that I deem stupid and arbitrary. I do not do that. But I do not think that violation of a fairly arbitrary administrative statute with a vague history and no clear purpose is a moral turpitude question.
> 
> I would tell them to take it easy and stay out of trouble.
> 
> Added a first user to my ignore list.. Welcome and good-buy, RandyBoy.


Axe:

Good advice, I will let them know, I hope it works, but I am skeptical. They are pretty convinced that they aren't hurting anything and the fact that horses do more damage just makes it more difficult to convince them otherwise.

It's kind of like your seventeen year old daughter who is about to turn eighteen in a couple days having sex with some old experienced single dude and really enjoying it. Is it really worth getting upset about.

TD


----------



## Boyonabyke (Sep 5, 2007)

Axe said:


> That's not what the original law said and intended. Anything human powered should be allowed. If anything, horse travel should be excluded as it is destructive and it is immoral to utilize slave animals for entertainment. Or, at least, it should be.
> 
> Bikes do not ruin solitude. They are quite, non-destructive and they will be further away then you are, and it is only a question of proper trail design to avoid conflicts, as any objective study shows.
> 
> As long as they are not motorized, no harm is done. Better horse and a cart then a horse train carrying the supplies.


I've seen what permanent damage bash guards from mountain bike cranks have done to sandstone based rocks and boulders in the Santa Monica Mountains National Park area. I've seen it in Moab too, as well as Gooseberry Mesa. It goes directly against leaving no permanent marks or trace of travel in Wilderness areas. The same can be said for pedal strikes on rocks leaving permanent scars and metal deposits. Then there will be the need to add structure like bridges for larger drainages / water crossings for creeks and rivers. Then, of course, someone will add skinnies, and teeter totters and launch ramps for jumps. Then the slobs among us will leave empty Gu packages and shot block wrappers and Clif bar wrappers trailside. I see this everywhere mountain bikers ride. Or they leave flatted tubes on the trail. Then the "sanitizers" will get in there and modify things so everything is nice, smooth and buff enough for their rigid single speeds to climb. No thank you, that's human progress. Let's not even begin to think about all the new "social" trails that will suddenly appear once access is granted.

.
Sorry, but that dog of yours don't hunt.

I've also been disgusted with riding on trails where fellow riders have bear bells constantly ringing going both up and down trails. It's about as appreciated as the motorhome camper that fires up their generator at 5 am in the morning so they can electrically brew a cup of expresso before they start their 6 AM roll call for a mountain bike ride. In the mean time, I get stunk out by the exhaust of a not so quiet generator.

Sorry, I don't think mountain bikers belong in wilderness areas, and I'm glad they aren't allowed to ride in Wilderness areas.

That's not solitude. Nor are the group social rides that assemble at the bike shops or the trail heads representative of "solitude". Solitude means the situation of being alone, all by ones self. Not the buddy system, not a group, or a gaggle or you riding with your best buddy. It means you riding by yourself.

Perhaps you see now, why mountain bikes don't conveniently fit in Wilderness areas, despites your special interest desires to make it so. The definitions by Congress are quite clear what the intended purpose of Wilderness was for.


----------



## curtboroff (Sep 21, 2010)

Wow!! Being a machine builder, im here to tell ya, a bike is a machine. It has NOTHING to do with how it was built, hand or power tools. If you use a 2x4 to move a big rock, you used MECHANICAL ADVANTAGE, hence a machine. 
So to clarify; shovels, pry bars, beerbottle openers, wheels, hand tools and BICYCLES are machines.

Saying that hand tools can't build machines makes you the biggest powertool around. 
Go for a bike ride, then sign up for Mech-1 and quit talking like blathering fools.


----------



## jmmUT (Sep 15, 2008)

sanjuro said:


> Trail advocates and builders would never recommend destroying a pristine ecosystem to build some jumps.
> 
> They would only suggest working with trails that already exist.


All trails require regular maintenance especially in forests where after every winter there will be deadfall across trails.


----------



## jmmUT (Sep 15, 2008)

Fischman said:


> "Do we need to have sex with every single person we find attractive? No, that would be silly and disastrous."
> 
> This is a ridiculous analogy. It's not even apple to oranges.
> 
> ...


I would call it more of a weak analogy than a red herring. But yes of course it was a hyperbole-intended for some well needed comic relief.

I feel that there is a implied value in wilderness of isolation and solitude. That one works there butt off to get to a place *no one else will be*. Mountain bikes go faster than kayaks, horses, hikers so can move into the wilderness faster making isolation less likely.

Also with bikes being allowed into wilderness, the number of people would grow greatly again cutting down one's chance of solitude.

We do prevent most hikers from getting many places by not building too many trails-and by regulating trails. "Social" or "illegal" trails made by hikers are treated the same way as ones made by bikes.

I do of course support solutions when bikes are historically popular there. In my neck of the woods, Hermosa Creek in SW Colorado, we are having his issue. Hermosa Creek is a popular bike trail that is straddled by WSA that is old growth that people want to protect form logging and land swaps. So they are working towards a cherry stem, or easement of some sort.

But to complain about a new wilderness designation because you *just, might, maybe* want to ride your bike in there one day...well that sounds like a spoiled kid that needs to clean out their toy box.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

So how many of you have even been in a wilderness area?


----------



## EMrider (Sep 9, 2007)

RandyBoy said:


> I've seen what permanent damage bash guards from mountain bike cranks have done to sandstone based rocks and boulders in the Santa Monica Mountains National Park area. I've seen it in Moab too, as well as Gooseberry Mesa. It goes directly against leaving no permanent marks or trace of travel in Wilderness areas. The same can be said for pedal strikes on rocks leaving permanent scars and metal deposits. Then there will be the need to add structure like bridges for larger drainages / water crossings for creeks and rivers. Then, of course, someone will add skinnies, and teeter totters and launch ramps for jumps. Then the slobs among us will leave empty Gu packages and shot block wrappers and Clif bar wrappers trailside. I see this everywhere mountain bikers ride. Or they leave flatted tubes on the trail. Then the "sanitizers" will get in there and modify things so everything is nice, smooth and buff enough for their rigid single speeds to climb. No thank you, that's human progress. Let's not even begin to think about all the new "social" trails that will suddenly appear once access is granted.
> 
> .
> Sorry, but that dog of yours don't hunt.
> ...


You make some good and valid points.

But you typically do so in a stunningly preachy, tangential and finger-wagging manner. Unfortunately, the result is always a spike in use of the "ignore user" feature instead of an improved signal to noise ratio on the thread. If you want people to actually focus on your arguments, a change in style would be helpful.........assuming you want to be taken more seriously, which may not be the case.

Most who have expressed a view here don't want to threaten the beauty/solitude that you enjoy in the wilderness. Or at least not in 95%+ of the current wilderness areas.

R


----------



## mudflap (Feb 23, 2004)

RandyBoy said:


> Are you capable of doing a load calculation for a 240 pound hikers boot in size 12 with a 5" x 13" sole, approximatley for a "footprint" pound per square inch, as well as a 2.25" tire footprint with a 5 inch length of "footprint" when inflated?.......


you may be correct in your computations for a person's weight displacement who is standing motionless in one spot, or likewise a horse, but as soon as either one begins to move forward, the dynamics of their footprint begins to change dramatically...from heel-strike to lift-off.

with forward motion, your computations no longer hold true.

the true displacement of weight is much greater at the end of a step, with not only the weight of the individual concentrated in a much smaller area, but now you also have to figure in the force of the stride as the foot pushes against the ground in it's final push-off, multiplying the force to as much as twice the persons weight....

all in all, a silly argument against bicycles, but none-the-less, a physical factor in what could be used to determine impact for the various trail users that are being discussed here.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

Ya'll have special needs to even sit here and argue about the negiligable damage of a Mtn bike, horse, and human walking in a specific area surrounded by thousands of Acres of wilderness, jesus, get a life.


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

mudflap said:


> you may be correct in your computations for a person's weight displacement who is standing motionless in one spot, or likewise a horse, but as soon as either one begins to move forward, the dynamics of their footprint begins to change dramatically...from heel-strike to lift-off.
> 
> with forward motion, your computations no longer hold true.
> 
> ...


Get a grip here guys...

Depending upon the terrain any one of the 3 transportation modes can tear up a trail worse than the others....horses are by far the worst.....bikes and feet about equal (they just tear up different areas of the trail).

Secondly while special interest groups often think only they should be allowed in the wilderness area.....fundmentally anyone should be able top get access on an equally basis.

So in the end the damage is limited by limiting access and the number of people allowed....this can be by quota and lotteries or arbiltarily excluding classes of people...

The concept of never seeing anyone in a wilderness has never been a goal of the governement. The concept of having some wilderness left as been the goal.


----------



## SkaredShtles (May 13, 2007)

Blurr said:


> So how many of you have even been in a wilderness area?


I backpacked in one over the 4th of July for 3 days...


----------



## chuck80442 (Oct 4, 2009)

Axe said:


> Blurr's tax dollars paid for trails and land. The man did not do it for free. The man was hired by Blurr to manage his land, but screwed him over for no good reason whatsoever.


Maybe bikes should be allowed in wilderness, but suggesting that we tear down gates and fences doesn't do our cause any favors. That's just dumb.


----------



## chuck80442 (Oct 4, 2009)

Blurr said:


> Ya'll have special needs to even sit here and argue about the negiligable damage of a Mtn bike, horse, and human walking in a specific area surrounded by thousands of Acres of wilderness, jesus, get a life.


Blurr thinks about individual footprints or tire tracks and gets all huffy because he can't see any damage there. He may be right. But multiply that by thousands of people, and ever expanding suburbs and trophy homes, and the loss of wildlife migration corridors everywhere, and you can (unless you're blinded by anger or some anti-government paranoia) see that there is a BIGGER PICTURE to keep in mind.


----------



## chuck80442 (Oct 4, 2009)

That said, Blurr lives in Montana, where there are few people (less than a million in the whole big state) and gigantic chunks of protected wilderness. He probably feels that there is nobody around to affect the giant empty Montana wilderness, and in Montana, he's probably right.

Most other states in the west have lots more people (5 million in Colorado, 6.5 million in Arizona, 37 million in California) and much less in the way of wilderness, which means that the potential for impact (to wildlife mainly, I'm not worried about the bogus "trail erosion") is much larger should bikes be allowed into wilderness in states more populous than Montana or Idaho. Imagine the Indian Peaks Wilderness just outside of Denver/Boulder should bikes suddenly be allowed in it. It's already the busiest wilderness in America. Just saying.


----------



## Boyonabyke (Sep 5, 2007)

EMrider said:


> You make some good and valid points.
> 
> But you typically do so in a stunningly preachy, tangential and finger-wagging manner. Unfortunately, the result is always a spike in use of the "ignore user" feature instead of an improved signal to noise ratio on the thread. If you want people to actually focus on your arguments, a change in style would be helpful.........assuming you want to be taken more seriously, which may not be the case.
> 
> ...


The message is the same.... you don't shoot the messenger, regardless of whether or not you like or dislike the message, due to ones preconceived notions about implementing change.

Unfortunately, there is so much denial going on about what mountain bikers do destruction wise, to the land they ride on, that becomes quite evident if you spend 10 days a year doing trail maintenance. Many many hikers climb up to Mount Whitney every year, the trail damage is minimal. The same can be said for all the hiking trails that locals and tourist visitors use around Mammoth Lakes. The trails that see mountain bikers up at Mammoth Lakes are another matter. The wear pattern of the tread of the trail is completely different and needs far more maintenance due to damage. Even on a beginners green circle trail like DownTown on the mountain proper, the erosion from bike tires and hard braking is evident. If you were to ride Off the Top up at Mammoth Mountain Bike Park 3 years ago, you would have seen huge bump braking whoopdees carved into the mountain before every switchback turn, no matter how many time the trail crew filled them back in. The mountain finally decided enough was enough, and put "armor" blocks in, to prevent the constant erosion problems of skid brakers going too fast, and braking too late into the switchbacks, chasing down their buddies. The competitiveness of an individual really comes out when the locals are so much better riders than the visitors that try to keep up with them, due to local knowledge and knowing all the good lines on the trails through memory and experience. I would say that mountain biking attracts a lot of strong, aggressive "A" type personalities that are very competitive. It just seems to be the nature of the beast, it's not a sport for the timid, it's a sport for those who like pain when they climb to earn their downhill rewards for effort exerted.

Then look at the way some of them dress, wearing darth vader armor outfits. The hikers I hike with don't understand why one would need to use armor, like mountain biking is a contact sport like football. They don't see armor being worn in the Tour of California or the Tour de France races. It's a serious perception problem on the trails, horse back riders and hikers don't feel like "equals" on the trail, they feel like they are at a disadvantage, safety wise. Because they don't feel like equals is probably the main reason they want to keep mountain bikers out of the trails in Wilderness areas. They have to put up with them everywhere else on BLM and Forest Service multiuse trails already.

When mountain bikers "blend in" with the rest of the trail users, instead of segregating themselves and "standing out" is when they will gain permission. I doubt that will ever happen, it's a mechanized equipment war of having the latest and greatest bike every two years. The younger adults seem to thrive on being seen on the trail in their "battle" uniforms with bright colors, bold graphics, and Troy Lee designed helmet paint jobs.


----------



## curtboroff (Sep 21, 2010)

^^^^ Did you really just turn this into a fashion argument?!! You, my sir, need to give up being a prick and go ride off some tension. 
You
Sound
Like
A
Moron!!


----------



## Fischman (Jul 17, 2004)

chuck80442 said:


> But multiply that by thousands of people, and ever expanding suburbs and trophy homes, and the loss of wildlife migration corridors everywhere, and you can (unless you're blinded by anger or some anti-government paranoia) see that there is a BIGGER PICTURE to keep in mind.


Good point. The issue is too many people, whether they be on foot, hoof, or knobby.

So, tell me why one user group is discriminated against vice the others?


----------



## traildoc (Mar 5, 2007)

chuck80442 said:


> That said, Blurr lives in Montana, where there are few people (less than a million in the whole big state) and gigantic chunks of protected wilderness. He probably feels that there is nobody around to affect the giant empty Montana wilderness, and in Montana, he's probably right.
> 
> Most other states in the west have lots more people (5 million in Colorado, 6.5 million in Arizona, 37 million in California) and much less in the way of wilderness, which means that the potential for impact (to wildlife mainly, I'm not worried about the bogus "trail erosion") is much larger should bikes be allowed into wilderness in states more populous than Montana or Idaho. Imagine the Indian Peaks Wilderness just outside of Denver/Boulder should bikes suddenly be allowed in it. It's already the busiest wilderness in America. Just saying.


Is there something terrible going on in the Indian Peaks Wilderness right now with all the people hiking and riding their horse there. Seems like a great example of getting people out enjoying nature.

What am I missing here? Is there some legitimate study showing the impact usage is having on mother nature? Out of 16 scholarships (http://indianpeakswilderness.org/ipwa_scholar.htm) issued to study the IPW only ONE dealt with recreational trails.

As usual this points out that just because there is use of a natural resource by more people than someone wants to happen, that it is a terrible situation, rather than a success.

Getting people out to recreate is a good thing IMHO, and since bikes do less damage to trails than horses, it is logical that someday they will be allowed.

Does anyone have a link to the study done on the Colorado River creating a one mile deep scar in the earth's crust that can be seen from spacecraft tens of thousands of miles from the earth? I would think that environmental destruction would be a higher priority than mountain bikes in the Wilderness.

Or how about how to reduce the potential of forest fires? Are the forest fires around the country a trillion ( OK maybe a billion ) times more destructive than any mountain biking in the Wilderness? How much wildlife has been killed by those fires and how much future erosion is going to occur due to the elimination of ground vegetation? I guess because it's a natural occurrence (like the Grand Canyon) some of the time, it's not up for comparison purposes.

TD


----------



## Fischman (Jul 17, 2004)

*ditto ... and then some . . .*

I've had the good fortune to live in both Colorado and Montana and spend time hiking in multiple wilderness areas in each state. I was also a backcountry hiker (and occasional equestrian) for decades before getting my first bike. So, I can comfortably assert that my desire to see MTBs allowed in wilderness areas is easily less biased than that of most blind wilderness advocates.


----------



## chuck80442 (Oct 4, 2009)

I agree that getting people out into the wilderness is a good thing. But we have to remember that wilderness, and all open lands, are not just for human recreation but for animal habitat, wildlife migration, biological diversity, and basically a place for evolution to unfold with minimal human interference. The only problem I see with thousands of folks in the Indian Peaks is a major disruption in the life of the animals there, especially the larger predators (mountain lions, bears) that need room to move.

Other than that, I see no problem. "Trail erosion" is a big joke, especially since horses are so much more destructive.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

chuck80442 said:


> Blurr thinks about individual footprints or tire tracks and gets all huffy because he can't see any damage there. He may be right. But multiply that by thousands of people, and ever expanding suburbs and trophy homes, and the loss of wildlife migration corridors everywhere, and you can (unless you're blinded by anger or some anti-government paranoia) see that there is a BIGGER PICTURE to keep in mind.


Yes let us look at the bigger picture, first I will throw around my background in the wilderness area's, Specifically The Pintler In Montana which Is only a handful of miles from where I grew up. (Born and Raised in Rural Montana) So I have Nearly a lifetime being spent in said area, mostly on horseback later more hiking. You can litterally hike for days and never see another person. Cutting Off trail is nearly impossible as the deadfall is so thick you will find yourself rarely ever touching the actual ground, its miserable, and the animals do not like it as well, they like humans are lazy and enjoy trails which are cut. 
The deadfall causes problems in many area's, First of course falling across trails, second they do not fall anyplace you want and of course change water flow themselves causing more Erosion. Small animals enjoy the deadfall but larger animals do not, again, its hard for them to travel in and they are unable to see predators. Log an area and watch the deer and elk flock, they absolutely love it. Next all that deadfall is a crazy huge fire hazard, now think of that, at a time when we truly could use all that timber, we simply let it rot and burn at some point. Since motorized vehicles are not allowed it is considered a "let burn" area thus causing more problems as the fires can get crazy out of control thus taking more manpower/ money to contain them once they leave said area.

As for people visiting the area, as mentioned before, it is THE TAXPAYERS LAND they deserve reasonable access to said area, that does not mean limiting it to friggin hikers only, nor does it mean to limit said area to mtn bikers only. If you opened up said area several things would happen.
1. pressure is then lifted off of already heavily traveled forest service area's
2. reasonable access and trail managed system for all types of transportation allows people who possibly are not healthy via disease and or age access to the area. By allowing more people into more area's you now have more money for management, better economies in towns, and more conservation awareness. If you think people become aware of conservation by being jammed into crowded campgrounds you are seriously mistaken
3. Allowing the recourses to be used again, takes the burdon off of several area's of logging, allows a cleaner environment for the animals and hell even people to use and enjoy. Lets face it, not a single person riding a MTN bike or using a computer can complain about mining and or logging, we depend on it for our very existance.

Now I can go on and on, and IM sure I will later on, but this is all that time currently allows for me.


----------



## Fischman (Jul 17, 2004)

*More red herrings . . .*

"I've seen what permanent damage bash guards from mountain bike cranks have done to sandstone based rocks"

I can't and wont' try to deny that. You shouldn't try to deny that other trail users leave an impact as well, whether it be fire rings, actual fires, or permanent trail, or off trail, erosion from 1500lbs of horse and rider. The key lies in pursuing your chosen activity correctly. Furthermore, and I'll have to continue to beat what a should be a dead horse by now, is the fact that nobody is advocating a blanket allowance of bikes in Wilderness any more than we agree with a blanket ban against bikes in Wilderness. Areas that are particularly sensitive could still be off-limits.

"Then there will be the need to add structure like bridges for larger drainages / water crossings for creeks and rivers."

This one is the lead rational at all. Please! Anyplace a hiker can ford a stream, a biker can ride or carry his bike across the stream. Do trails go through these "larger drainages" you speak of? If so, then the bike can be ridden or carried on the designated trail just as easily as the hiker can walk it. No infrastructure will be needed for bikes. In fact, his statement shows a surprising level of ignorance of MTBers who would like access to these areas. These are folks who want a "pure" experience as much as hikers do. To them, artifical assistance is reviled, not revered. If you can't ride it correctly, then walk it or don't go there in the first place.

" Then, of course, someone will add skinnies, and teeter totters and launch ramps for jumps."

Please. Rogue stunt building goes on today. It's not right and most of the MTB community works hard to self-police this. Witness the recent event where a rogue DH trail was run from Rampart Range Road to Garden of the Gods in Colorado Springs. Within a week, a well organized clean-up was scheduled by the local MTB culb and dozens of MTBers showed up to erase any and all vestiges of the trail. Furthermore, the knuckleheads who do this aren't the type to travel deep into the backcountry to do it when they can sneak it into their local open space or park. Since they are already, by definition, breaking the law, how would making MTB legal in Wilderness make them more likely to build rogue stunts or trails in the Wilderness?

"Then the slobs among us will leave empty Gu packages and shot block wrappers and Clif bar wrappers trailside. "

Again, please don't try to pass off an assertion that MTBs are the only ones who litter. My personal experience has been to witness as much, or more disrespect to the land by hikers and equestrians than bikers. Bikes don't litter, people (of all stripes) litter.

"Then the "sanitizers" will get in there and modify things so everything is nice, smooth and buff enough for their rigid single speeds to climb."

Funny, I have seen plenty of predominantly bike trails "sanitized" by hikers who don't want to step over or around a rock. As for bikers who sanitize, a pox on them and their houses, but that doesn't mean the rest of us should be restricted. Please refer also back to my previous argument on rogue stunt building--same thought applies here, probably moreso. "Sanitizers" are by nature lazy and won't be carrying the tools necessary to sanitize miles into the backcountry. Your statement about "smooth enough for their rigid single speeds" also belies your ignorance about MTBers. Folks who ride rigid are into the most "pure" bike experience possible. Even though they have the least capabile bikes, they are often the most capable riders and they loathe trail sanitization!

I've also been disgusted with riding on trails where fellow riders have bear bells constantly ringing going both up and down trails."

Bear Bells? That's great! I've spent many days hiking the backcountry of Glacier National Park and the Bob Marshall Wilderness in Montana--prime bear country. It seems every hiker I encountered had a bear bell attached to his walking stick (or super hi-tech, shock-absorbing hiking poles). I've only heard bike bells when a biker is passing a hiker from behind on a crowded multi-use trail, and then it's only a brief jingle. Those damn bells on sticks jingle-jangle with every friggin' step and can be heard for a mile--is that a wilderness experience? Thanks again for pointing out how hikers are as bad, or worse, than bikers.

" I get stunk out by the exhaust of a not so quiet generator."

Now you're really off the reservation. No exhause in the Wilderness under any circumstances. My experience with generators has been exclusively with hunters or RV campers who want all the comforts of home. They don't go into the wilderness and, if they do, they certainly don't take their generators. In fact, the only people who burn fossil fuels in the wilderness are the backpackers who set up camp and break out their propane or white gas stoves!

"That's not solitude. Nor are the group social rides that assemble at the bike shops or the trail heads representative of "solitude". Solitude means the situation of being alone, all by ones self. Not the buddy system, not a group, or a gaggle or you riding with your best buddy. It means you riding by yourself."

At least you've got one thing right--"Solitude means the situation of being alone." So how is it that encountering another hiker or an equestrian doesn't intrude on your solitude? The issue is people, not whether they are on foot or knobby. If anything, the encounter with a bike (when ridden politely) is far less intrusive on your solitude as it will pass by more quickly, coming or going, and be out of your field of vision/hearing sooner.

"Perhaps you see now, why mountain bikes don't conveniently fit in Wilderness areas"

Nope. don't see it as all your arguments are bogus.

"despites your special interest"

And your's isn't a "special interest?" That certainly shows your level of self-centeredness. desires to make it so.

"The definitions by Congress are quite clear what the intended purpose of Wilderness was for."

Only if you thoroughly research the history and intent behind the Wilderness Act of 1964, which you either haven't done are are blatantly misrepresenting.


----------



## playpunk (Apr 1, 2005)

> Seems like a great example of getting people out enjoying nature.


What the debate really comes down to is a debate over the nature of wilderness. The positions exist in a continuum. On one end, you'd have the pure environmentalists, who say that the environment exists for itself, and should be absolutely protected against human interference. On the other hand, you have, I dunno, Exxon Mobile? Anyway, those who think that the environment exists solely for its availability to humans, and to be exploited by them.

Every single person who sets foot in the wilderness falls in the middle of those extremes.

I have spent tons of time in the woods in a non-cyclist capacity - I worked at a camp in the Adirondak Mountains of NY, and spent two weeks leading a trip on the Long Trail in VT. I've hiked all over the place, and ridden my bike many more places.

The biggest problem I have with the Sierra Club Nazi Facist Evil Wilderness Advocates is that they want to have their cake and eat it too. Hikers want to slog their chubby butts over badly-designed trails at their slow, dreamy pace and set up camp and eat out of their titanium bowls. That's cool, I've done that.

Mountain bikers want to ride their bikes faster, and usually not for overnighters, and be back out to their cars (or homes).

Both activities are recreational. Both cause roughly equivalent impacts. Environmentalists (who are mostly shants and khaki shirt wearing hikers) don't want to share their piece of the quiet, alone pie with EXTREME mountain bikers who do truly AWFUL things like wear bright clothing and helmets. (Ride Naked for Access?)

Looking at the Sierra Club rationale reafirms this "Concerns have been raised about effects such as soil erosion, impacts on plants and animals, displacement of other trail users, and impacts on other users' safety and enjoyment. These concerns argue for special regulation, with effective enforcement, of off-road bicycling." Concerns about soil erosion, and impacts on plants and animals have been effectively answered by IMBA and other organizations. These Nazi's want "special regulation" because they don't like bikes, plain and simple.

Now back to the subject that started this thread. Challenging the agency interpretation of the Wilderness Act would be practically impossible. _Chevron_ deference makes judicial review of agency interpretation impossible if there is any "reasonable" rationale for the interpretation.

So I think you're out of luck challenging the agency interpretation of the Wilderness Act.

Do I think the interpretation is stupid? Yes. But government agencies and courts do things that are blatantly self-serving and stupid all of the time. Environmental law is rife with courts finding agency determinations "unreasonable." A recent decision found that mountain top removal mining didn't deserve Clean Water Act review because the rubble dumped by the mineral removal companies into the streams didn't impact a "navigable water," because the rubble made the streams unnavigable.

Seriously crazy.


----------



## Haus Boss (Jun 4, 2010)

C'mon RandBoy. Taking Whistler, Northstar, or Mammoth Mountain as examples of normal erosion caused by MTB bikers is an extreme. The amount of traffic these trails see is insane. No one denies that mountain bikes cause erosion, some of our foes just like to completely blow out of proportion the amount of damage done- and in the process deny that their use group is responsible for a shred of environmental impact. Thousands of mountain bikers flying down a trail week after week is going to have a serious toll on any trail. Can you imagine the damage if you let that many horses run over a trail? There are plenty of hiking trails around Northern California that have been completely been destroyed by poor construction paired with rainfall, and many have experienced detrimental erosion from our furry hoofed friends. One of the biggest causes of erosion are fire roads- and they're everywhere!


----------



## traildoc (Mar 5, 2007)

chuck80442 said:


> I agree that getting people out into the wilderness is a good thing. But we have to remember that wilderness, and all open lands, are not just for human recreation but for animal habitat, wildlife migration, biological diversity, and basically a place for evolution to unfold with minimal human interference. The only problem I see with thousands of folks in the Indian Peaks is a major disruption in the life of the animals there, especially the larger predators (mountain lions, bears) that need room to move.
> 
> Other than that, I see no problem. "Trail erosion" is a big joke, especially since horses are so much more destructive.


"Evolution to unfold with minimal human interference" sounds good to me. It will be interesting as natural climate change takes place and the earth's mean temperature drops or increases by 20 degrees or so how man will adapt to those changes. Hopefully the law will have changed by then. If it will eventually happen I vote for sooner rather than latter.

TD


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

if the point of Wilderness is to maintain an environment with minimal human influence, then wouldn't it just make sense to heavily limit access from all users with a permit system? I understand a permit system is used already in some cases, but from what I understand, it still doesn't keep use low enough to allow for solitude or "minimal human impact" in some of the busiest Wilderness areas.

In the one I visited recently, I think it goes for long stretches without seeing a single human user of any kind. I saw one set of footprints in the trails that were not mine...and it had been weeks since the last rain so there's no telling how old they were.

obviously land managers are not seeking to heavily limit access. I think access gets limited more in many popular National Parks with permit systems in place.

where does that leave us? well, there's definitely a significant population that doesn't mind not having much solitude when they visit certain Wilderness areas. there is a group that does prefer that, though, and I understand and respect that.

but what we can say about mountain bikers is this: the folks doing shuttle runs at the popular resort trails are highly unlikely to be the same ones seeking solitude (JUST LIKE many hikers) on Wilderness trails. they certainly won't be riding the same way and they're pretty likely not to be out there in big groups. they would be more likely to be carrying their camping gear (bikepacking is becoming increasingly popular, with few choices for long trails to visit). in short, different people doing different things. the mountain bikers you're likely to see seeking a Wilderness experience are likely to have more in common with a hiker seeking a Wilderness experience than they are with the storm trooper set at the resort trails.

it's like comparing trail runners and parkour folks to backpackers. they're all traveling on foot, but they're not looking for the same experience, are they?


----------



## EMrider (Sep 9, 2007)

RandyBoy said:


> The message is the same.... you don't shoot the messenger, regardless of whether or not you like or dislike the message, due to ones preconceived notions about implementing change.
> 
> Unfortunately, there is so much denial going on about what mountain bikers do destruction wise, to the land they ride on, that becomes quite evident if you spend 10 days a year doing trail maintenance. Many many hikers climb up to Mount Whitney every year, the trail damage is minimal. The same can be said for all the hiking trails that locals and tourist visitors use around Mammoth Lakes. The trails that see mountain bikers up at Mammoth Lakes are another matter. The wear pattern of the tread of the trail is completely different and needs far more maintenance due to damage. Even on a beginners green circle trail like DownTown on the mountain proper, the erosion from bike tires and hard braking is evident. If you were to ride Off the Top up at Mammoth Mountain Bike Park 3 years ago, you would have seen huge bump braking whoopdees carved into the mountain before every switchback turn, no matter how many time the trail crew filled them back in. The mountain finally decided enough was enough, and put "armor" blocks in, to prevent the constant erosion problems of skid brakers going too fast, and braking too late into the switchbacks, chasing down their buddies. The competitiveness of an individual really comes out when the locals are so much better riders than the visitors that try to keep up with them, due to local knowledge and knowing all the good lines on the trails through memory and experience. I would say that mountain biking attracts a lot of strong, aggressive "A" type personalities that are very competitive. It just seems to be the nature of the beast, it's not a sport for the timid, it's a sport for those who like pain when they climb to earn their downhill rewards for effort exerted.
> 
> ...


I ride all of those areas often and would tend to agree with you.

The intensity of use on most good MTB trails within a reasonable distance of any population center has got to be a lot higher than comparable hiking only trails. For that reason alone the "impact" would be greater, even if it were provable that the impact of a single MTB rider is the same or less than a single hiker/equestrian.

But IMHO, if a trail is somewhat remote and not accessible to shuttlers, then it won't end up looking line downtown or off the top in Mammoth. It will show minimal wear, but nothing that merits closure or restricted use.

And now that I've thrown shuttlers under the bus, let the fun begin. :nono:

R


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

chuck80442 said:


> Imagine the Indian Peaks Wilderness just outside of Denver/Boulder should bikes suddenly be allowed in it. It's already the busiest wilderness in America. Just saying.


Bikes are allowed in many public lands around San Francisco Bay Area, where I live. Some 10 million people live here in a fairly small area. I drive 10 minute from my office for a trail run or a bike ride, and often I would not see more then a couple other people on trails as soon as I get away from the few most popular spots.

Drive just a bit further, like to Coe park, and often you would not see anybody for miles and miles.

Bike presence and impact can be effectively managed. Proper trail construction, maybe permit system for the most busy trails, just like with hiking.


----------



## Boyonabyke (Sep 5, 2007)

Blurr said:


> So how many of you have even been in a wilderness area?


I've caught almost every native genetically pure strain of Cutthroat species known of in the United States, and almost all of them were found with a 4 to 6 mile hike in one way, to a Wilderness Area. It seems to be the only way they are able to survive. Making it easier to get at them via a bike does not, to me, seem to be in their best interest.


----------



## SkaredShtles (May 13, 2007)

RandyBoy=Vandeman?


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

SkaredShtles said:


> RandyBoy=Vandeman?


Could be, but there are plenty of similar kooks around.


----------



## Ptor (Jan 29, 2004)

NateHawk said:


> the mountain bikers you're likely to see seeking a Wilderness experience are likely to have more in common with a hiker seeking a Wilderness experience than they are with the storm trooper set at the resort trails.


This is an excellent point and should be the starting point if there ever were a negotiation related to opening Wilderness to bicycles. However, I am suspicious that as many as half the posters on this thread are looking to cherry-pick a cool Wilderness trail near the trailhead rather than seek a Wilderness experience.

Way back in the late '70s, I worked one summer with some collegiate-ski-racer-types and when they' weren't bagging skiable peaks in SW Colorado on their off-days, they were doing 20 mile point-to-point trail runs through the Weminuche Wilderness Area. Several times on these runs they were met with out-right hostility from backpackers who had spent a couple of days reaching the point that was in the middle of the runners route, and who somehow felt their "Wilderness experience" was compromised by hard-ass young men wearing little more than running shorts blowing by them on the trail. My point (and also an attempt to make this little story relevant) is that one person's Wilderness experience is another person's pre-kegger exercise, and there would undoubtedly need to be some heavy regulation of mtb access to preserve the standard "Wilderness experience" (whatever that is) for Sierra Club members.


----------



## SkaredShtles (May 13, 2007)

Speaking of pre-kegger... I'm gonna go get a beer. Cheers, guys. Fun conversation here...


----------



## DeepseaDebo (Oct 20, 2009)

yea 37 million people in cali, how many of those people actually go in the woods versus how many just wanna go clubbing.
if preserving nature was really a concern for government they wouldn't allow stuff like dredging out shore lines to restore NATURALLY eroding beach. Keeping beaches pretty attracts tourist and keeping people out of the woods keeps them in malls all about $$$


----------



## Boyonabyke (Sep 5, 2007)

Haus Boss said:


> Thousands of mountain bikers flying down a trail week after week is going to have a serious toll on any trail. Can you imagine the damage if you let that many horses run over a trail? There are plenty of hiking trails around Northern California that have been completely been destroyed by poor construction paired with rainfall, and many have experienced detrimental erosion from our furry hoofed friends. One of the biggest causes of erosion are fire roads- and they're everywhere!


That's the point, exactly... there are so many mountain bike users compared to horseback riders, that it's not a fair comparison to say horses do all the damage. I doubt in the state of California that there is one horse owner on the trail for every 200 to 300 mountain bike riders I see on the trail per mountain bike ride I go on. I can go for weeks at a time without seeing a horseback rider, yet see 10 to 25 riders on a ride, on an average Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday night Group ride. Multiply that factor by 3 or 4 fold if its on a Saturday Morning on a 3 hour ride, EASILY 30 to 45 or more riders on a 15 mile loop. 
This goes on year round, here in Southern California, rain or shine, the weather is always rideable, we rarely get snow or frost. If it's dark out, all of us own night lights for riding at night, and the temps are always manageable. We flat out don't have hikers on the private property trails we ride on, so almost all the damage is due to mountain bikers, and severe rain storms, like the one we had March 20th where we got 6" of rain in 8 hours.

I have never seen a horseback rider out on a night ride on the trails I ride, I've seen 100's of night riders out at night on mountain bikes.

I will not imply that it is like this everywhere, for everyone else, but it certainly is this way in California, with almost 40 million people living here. We just have too many people that want to drive locally to enjoy the outdoors, and not enough areas close by to keep them all happy. Hence the conflicts of interest. It might explain why, when I get out of the city and want a Wilderness experience, I don't want company. That's the best part about fly fishing in wilderness areas, not another soul around, for the most part. I sure wouldn't look forward to a Hope or a Chris King hub buzzing by me on a trail in a Wilderness area, coasting, ratchets slipping and sounding all mechanical, or the squeal of overheated, burnt pads sounding like a turkey call, rubbing against a hot brake rotor. I hear those sounds, all the time, on local rides, every week. Nothing special about it.

That said, if you truly believe in what you are doing, I would encourage you to try for change in Wilderness areas for mountain bike access, but don't be surprised if nothing becomes of your effort.


----------



## SkaredShtles (May 13, 2007)

Hahahaha - the arbitrary exclusion of mountain bikers was made when there "weren't any mt bikers"... now the rationale to sustain the exclusion is because there are "too many mt bikers."

That tactic is doomed to failure. All it takes is time. I just hope I'm still able to mt bike when the time comes. :thumbsup:


----------



## Fischman (Jul 17, 2004)

*More false analogies and piss poor examples*

SoCal is a hugely overpopulated area. Western Montana is not. Neither are most (by area) regions where wilderness areas exist. You can't compare the two. Choteau, MT or Ten Sleep, WY will never suffer the type of impact as SoCal. Not even close. Those group rides you are so fond of brining up are formed in urban areas where large numbers of people naturally congregate. Your local MTB club or shop is not going to be running a weekly ride in the Bob Marshall, even if it is legal.

You want a wilderness experience. I sympathize. So do I. But what makes you more special than anyone else? I'll admit, my brakes squeak a couple times after a creek crossing but, on balance, I'm no more noisy than anybody else in the backcountry, expecially hikers who are constantly jingling their bells to alert bears of their presence. Just because I would choose to enjoy the Wilderness in a different way than you, doesn't mean it's any less valid. We all seem to agree that some degree of solitude is deisrable. If so, then we limit the number of people in a particular area by some fair and rational criteria, not just letting your group in and keeping another group out.

As for your final statement, you are correct--nothing likely will come of it, so you've nothing to fear. Just have the honesty to admit that it's based on politics, influence, and power, and not any rational or fair process in which all angles are considered, analyzed and the concerns of all people are addressed.


----------



## Black Bart (Apr 19, 2004)

RandyBoy said:


> It might explain why, when I get out of the city and want a Wilderness experience, I don't want company. That's the best part about fly fishing in wilderness areas, not another soul around, for the most part. I sure wouldn't look forward to a Hope or a Chris King hub buzzing by me on a trail in a Wilderness area, coasting, ratchets slipping and sounding all mechanical,


Your fly fishing reel is every bit as mechanical as a CK hub and greatly disturbs my solitude, your line is mechanically made and further more, piercing the mouths of the indigenous fishes of the wilderness and traumatizing them is doing nothing to ensure their continued survival.


----------



## playpunk (Apr 1, 2005)

RandyBoy said:


> I've caught almost every native genetically pure strain of Cutthroat species known of in the United States, and almost all of them were found with a 4 to 6 mile hike in one way, to a Wilderness Area. It seems to be the only way they are able to survive. Making it easier to get at them via a bike does not, to me, seem to be in their best interest.


You really contribute nothing to this discussion - you just keep moving the goalposts and throwing out non-sequiters.

If you love those trout so much, why do you stress them and pull them from their habitat? You must hate trout.

Thus, I've proven that you hate nature, and have no place in this debate. Good bye.


----------



## Fischman (Jul 17, 2004)

*More false logic and unsubstantiated assertions*

"I feel that there is a implied value in wilderness of isolation and solitude. That one works there butt off to get to a place *no one else will be*. Mountain bikes go faster than kayaks, horses, hikers so can move into the wilderness faster making isolation less likely."

I must repeat--if bikers go faster (not necessarly true in my case, especially uphill!), then an encounter will affects solitude less as the encounter will be more brief.

"Also with bikes being allowed into wilderness, the number of people would grow greatly again cutting down one's chance of solitude."

Would grow greatly? Do we know that? Would everybody suddenly stop riding Porcupine 
Rim, Gooseberry Mesa and the Downievill Downhill and head for Cloud Peak or Bob Marshall? I doubt it. We shouldn't make decisions based on what we thing but rather what we can prove or reasonably assert based on evidence. Even if the numbers would grouw "greatly," why should the restriction be levied only on one equally impactful user group? Again if numbers is the issue, let's restrict and share evenly.

"But to complain about a new wilderness designation because you *just, might, maybe* want to ride your bike in there one day...well that sounds like a spoiled kid that needs to clean out their toy box."

The complaint is far larger than that and it's not just me. I may not (nor could I) ride even a small fraction of trails in Wilderness areas in my lifetime, but as a group, MTBers would and they should not be denied. In fact, my indignation is not for my self as I'm getting older, more feeble, and far less able to make strenuous backcountry pursuits. If the Wilderness ban on bikes was ever adjusted, it would be far too late for me.

Oh, by the way, the more trails you let us ride on, the more spread out we'll be and the less effect we'll have on solitude.

As far as new Wilderness is concerned, MTBers are already excluded from as much as 50% of roadless areas in Western states with large Wilderness areas. So you can see why we'd be a little sensitive about new Wilderness areas. Especially since there are, or could be developed processes and designations that would preserve wild areas without discriminating against MTBs. You wanna' preserve more wild places? You wanna' get a whole nother lobby behind you? Then give that a go. Inclusion usually beats exclusion when you want to achieve a goal.

Oh, by the way, it's actually worse than the % of land that's off limits. Many great trails lie mostly outside Wilderness areas but a portion passes through a corner of a Wilderness boundary; thus these trails are rendered of little or no use to MTBs.

As far as "spoiled" goes, my level of entitlement is no where near that of hikers, who have everything at their feet. To see the absolute folly of your charge, try telling hikers they are excluded from half of their most desireable locations and see what kind of a response that draws. Are you sympathetic to them? It would be inconsistent if you were.


----------



## Fischman (Jul 17, 2004)

*Another bad fish reference for the Fischman to pull apart*

C'mon, Randy--how many bikers ride around with a fishing rod and bait in their camelbacks? Do you know? Do you have ANY idea what the impact would be? Everything with you is opening the floodgates, slippery slope, and the sky is falling, but there's no substance to back any of it up.

Even if your fear was well founded, it's easily managed in any number of ways. Species with low numbers are declared off limits all the time, regardless of whether they live in a Wilderness area. Some species are not to be caught at all, others are strictly catch and release, and in some cases, areas are declared off limits. For instance, I can't ride the Severy Trail, which is a killer downhill run, near my home in Colorado Springs because it is home to the rare Greenback Cutthroat Trout (I'm sure you know this since you've caught every species of Trout known to man--or maybe not since this area is nowhere near a Wilderness area--but we were still able to protect the fish!). That's a law and I can't change it, nor would I, nor would most of the other folks posting on this forum in favor of MTB access in Wilderness. We're all okay with restrictions where restrictions are needed.

Not only does your dog not hunt, your rod don't fish.


----------



## Boyonabyke (Sep 5, 2007)

Black Bart said:


> Your fly fishing reel is every bit as mechanical as a CK hub and greatly disturbs my solitude, your line is mechanically made and further more, piercing the mouths of the indigenous fishes of the wilderness and traumatizing them is doing nothing to ensure their continued survival.


Hey! You're talking to the third person to ever achieve the California Heritage Trout Award. Yes, I've taken many fish scale samples in the name of science. The last sentence in the link provided may provide you with a clue.

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/fish/Resources/WildTrout/WT_HeritageTProg.asp


----------



## curtboroff (Sep 21, 2010)

Woah, woah fellas!! We are in the presence of greatness. 

All hail the master baiter!!!:ciappa::ciappa:


----------



## Black Bart (Apr 19, 2004)

RandyBoy said:


> Hey! You're talking to the third person to ever achieve the California Heritage Trout Award. Yes, I've taken many fish scale samples in the name of science. The last sentence in the link provided may provide you with a clue.
> 
> http://www.dfg.ca.gov/fish/Resources/WildTrout/WT_HeritageTProg.asp


And? If we didn't allow mechanical fishing devices or fishing at all in these wilderness areas we wouldn't have to worry about "maintaining angling opportunities." I guess this means we should all ride our bikes in wilderness areas to determine their impact on the areas and ensure that we "maintain riding opportunities where biologically justifiable".


----------



## curtboroff (Sep 21, 2010)

Whatsa matta Randyboy? Got to send bad reps cause you got put in your place. A bird is going to poop on your lip.


----------



## m3rb (Mar 6, 2007)

The Wilderness Act of 1964, and its administrative aftermath, are deeply flawed. Those who worship it are misguided fools. Those who use it to further their own personal preferences are crass manipulators of the system who deserve no respect whatsoever.

Anyone who has wandered the Utah desert to any significant extent can clearly see that cattle grazing is by far the greatest cause of damage to the ecosystem there. Great expanses have had cryptobiotic crust destroyed, sometimes to the extent of turning healthy land into sand dunes.

Cattle grazing and horseback riding are allowed in Wilderness not because they are not harmful, but because of political forces extant at the time the Act was legislated, and the resulting compromises. Mountain biking, of far less impact, is banned for no reason other than lack of political force in the early 80's. The lobbies are silent on stock animals, so far as I can see, but are rabid on such trivia as dust from dirt roads.

As to legal challenges...I have seen no evidence that the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act were followed in the 1984 ban. If so, the ban is arguably invalid, though a ranger about to hand you a ticket is unlikely to be persuaded by such argument.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

m3rb said:


> The Wilderness Act of 1964, and its administrative aftermath, are deeply flawed. Those who worship it are misguided fools. Those who use it to further their own personal preferences are crass manipulators of the system who deserve no respect whatsoever.


Quoted for truth.


----------



## Boyonabyke (Sep 5, 2007)

daves4mtb said:


> No one, not even the Sierra club, has stated that if one leaves a tire print that is somehow a violation of the wilderness. You are taking a catchy phrase and treating it as if it is a part of a law, when it isn't. Sorry, but this is as much a fail as your "hand-made objects only" post, which would require us all to strip naked before we enter the backcountry. ('Although I hear the Germans are really into that - "Erotik Kamping")
> 
> Really? More amateur lawyering, with the usual result. I don't need a drivers license to use a bicycle in a wilderness area. Fail.
> 
> Not necessarily true. By your definition the Flintstone mobile could still operate. Please cite me the statute which says that mountain bikes in the Federal wilderness are governed by the California motor vehicle code.


 I like your radical style of thinking and interpretation of law. I have some law enforcement buddies that would love to visit someone like you to get your signature.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

SkaredShtles said:


> Speaking of pre-kegger... I'm gonna go get a beer. Cheers, guys. Fun conversation here...


Drinking a Big Hole Headstrong Ale Myself, cheers


----------



## Haus Boss (Jun 4, 2010)

RandyBoy said:


> That's the point, exactly... there are so many mountain bike users compared to horseback riders, that it's not a fair comparison to say horses do all the damage. I doubt in the state of California that there is one horse owner on the trail for every 200 to 300 mountain bike riders I see on the trail per mountain bike ride I go on. I can go for weeks at a time without seeing a horseback rider, yet see 10 to 25 riders on a ride, on an average Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday night Group ride. Multiply that factor by 3 or 4 fold if its on a Saturday Morning on a 3 hour ride, EASILY 30 to 45 or more riders on a 15 mile loop.


I love how you take my quote but hack off the portion that indicates I'm talking about trails at BIKE PARKS. North Star, Mammoth, and Whistler trails are probably among some of the most traversed bike trails in the world! I live in Marin county- the birth of mountain biking. It's borderline ridiculous how many folks ride the trails around here. Even the most popular trails in the Bay Area see only a fraction of the traffic of North Star's heavy traffic trails like Livewire and Gypsey. The pace of erosion on lift access trails is probably happening at a rate that is literally hundreds of times faster than other popular bike trails that do not have lift access. So what might be evident after 10 years of heavy usage on one trail, shows up in a matter of months at your local bike park.


----------



## traildoc (Mar 5, 2007)

Haus Boss said:


> I love how you take my quote but hack off the portion that indicates I'm talking about trails at BIKE PARKS. North Star, Mammoth, and Whistler trails are probably among some of the most traversed bike trails in the world! I live in Marin county- the birth of mountain biking. It's borderline ridiculous how many folks ride the trails around here. Even the most popular trails in the Bay Area see only a fraction of the traffic of North Star's heavy traffic trails like Livewire and Gypsey. The pace of erosion on lift access trails is probably happening at a rate that is literally hundreds of times faster than other popular bike trails that do not have lift access. So what might be evident after 10 years of heavy usage on one trail, shows up in a matter of months at your local bike park.


HB:

I believe it is fair to say that RB thinks much differently than you and I. I wish he would state what are the five main things that he has personally done to benefit the mountain biking community. I could be more tolerable of his POV if he communicated what he has done to improve the user experience of the mountain biking community.

I personally don't agree with the majority of what he is saying. For me it's kind of like listening to Bill Mahr or Hugo Shavez.

TD


----------



## curtboroff (Sep 21, 2010)

I'd say he sounds more like Rosie O'donnell.


----------



## Boyonabyke (Sep 5, 2007)

I wish I'd done a search before posting anything in this thread. A link, from 15 months ago... Same sh*t, different day, same players. The only new ones are the OP, Dave, and myself.

http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?p=6654015#poststop


----------



## allenfstar (Jul 7, 2011)

i have a couple state parks in my area of cny (green lakes, highland forest) that have designated hiking trails and then have designated multi use trails (horses,mtn bikes,xc skis) what would be so wrong with doing something like this in the wilderness areas?


----------



## curtboroff (Sep 21, 2010)

I wasn't even on here 15 months ago... New player, different outlook. 
Usually I'm riding and don't even notice the BS that rolls around here, but I'm down now and interwebing waaaay to frickin much. 

Difference is, I'm not gonna act like I'm the almighty. But I'll call bs on those types, if I can back it up. If I get cocky about it, eat turds, that's how I am.


----------



## Boyonabyke (Sep 5, 2007)

traildoc said:


> HB:
> 
> I believe it is fair to say that RB thinks much differently than you and I. I wish he would state what are the five main things that he has personally done to benefit the mountain biking community. I could be more tolerable of his POV if he communicated what he has done to improve the user experience of the mountain biking community.
> 
> ...


I would agree with you, I don't follow the "blind sheep" mentality of some mountain bike riders and trail builders that don't do it by the book when building trails on public land. That said, I've had a hands on approach and built a few trails behind the Polanski, Mccloud or shovel, on local private property, without repercussions from the land manager. I also built a section of trail in Conejo Open Spaces. Then there is the forever on going trail maintanance days, trimming, cut, slope and bench, and water bar reconfiguring going on constantly in the San Gabes, locally, mainly because it consists of schist and decomposed granite and is a lot like an old Prom Queen, very High Maintenance, lots of bumps and curves in the right places, loose, likes to be ridden fast, but her age has some parts of her falling apart from too much abuse.

CORBA and IMBA are in my past, I prefer to donate hands on sweat equity instead of lining the pockets of loose lipped back door dealing folks promising the world and delivering not enough.


----------



## traildoc (Mar 5, 2007)

RandyBoy said:


> I wish I'd done a search before posting anything in this thread. A link, from 15 months ago... Same sh*t, different day, same players. The only new ones are the OP, Dave, and myself.
> 
> http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?p=6654015#poststop


OK RB, I will make it easier on you, what do you consider to be the FOUR best things you have done to improve the mountain biker user experience for other mountain bikers? You obviously have lots of diverse opinions ( do I sound like the President? ), but do you actually do anything to make the user experience for other mountain bikers better?

TD


----------



## otis24 (Apr 1, 2004)

Randy, What is Skidhucker?


----------



## Boyonabyke (Sep 5, 2007)

traildoc said:


> OK RB, I will make it easier on you, what do you consider to be the FOUR best things you have done to improve the mountain biker user experience for other mountain bikers? You obviously have lots of diverse opinions ( do I sound like the President? ), but do you actually do anything to make the user experience for other mountain bikers better?
> 
> TD


LOL! I don't foresee you ever signing my paychecks, therefore, I doubt you are in a position to make anything easier for me. Thanks for playing, John!

But to simplify it for you without going into too many details...

I've taken others on new to them trails.

I've had guests at my place up at Mammoth Mountain with me as host to ride the Bike Park up there.

I've built new trails, both on private and public lands locally, Conejo Open Spaces a few years back.

I do trail maintenance on Forest Service and National Park Lands.

I fix folks bikes when they have mechanical breakdowns on the trail.

I help the USFS do their job when I discover non kosher dumping of lumber on trails on the property they manage, and provide pictures and GPS coordinates so the assets can be removed for illegal dumping and liability purposes.

Not much different from you John, but then I'm not a mtn bike fanatic like you either.


----------



## dave54 (Jul 1, 2003)

You can lobby nationally and expect a long drawn out struggle with a lot of defeats, or learn how the local unit enforces it. Some local offices enforce it strictly, others ignore mtn bikers unless they become a problem.


----------



## traildoc (Mar 5, 2007)

RandyBoy said:


> LOL! I don't foresee you ever signing my paychecks, therefore, I doubt you are in a position to make anything easier for me. Thanks for playing, John!
> 
> But to simplify it for you without going into too many details...
> 
> ...


OK got it, as long as you are helping out I can support that.

Thanks,

John


----------



## CodyMCP (Mar 24, 2011)

I skimmed this thread but didn't read everything thoroughly, so sorry if this was asked before.. but is travel by wheelchair/prosthetic limbs allowable? If so that is mechanized travel, isn't it? Heck, a knee brace could be considered mechanized travel...


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

I think the mechanized clause should be thought off in the same sense the military uses the word. A mechanized unit is one that gets carried around by mechanical means such as horse or motor or engine drawn transport. One must consider that terminology evolves over time... almost 50 years in this case. For hikers to flaunt the bloody trophy of bicycle exclusion under the banner of legitimacy is the ultimate in cynical politics. The fact is that bicycle packing is the only practical access to many remote wilderness places that are too sensitive to accommodate heavy traffic such as horse packing trains transporting sedentary people into a "wilderness" experience. The bicycle is a self powered means of transport which actually fits the meaning of the law better than modern mechanized horse packing.


----------



## idbrian (May 10, 2006)

RandyBoy said:


> I can go for weeks at a time without seeing a horseback rider, yet see 10 to 25 riders on a ride, on an average Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday night Group ride. Multiply that factor by 3 or 4 fold if its on a Saturday Morning on a 3 hour ride, EASILY 30 to 45 or more riders on a 15 mile loop.


Wow, we have it good in the northeast then. I can go to Blue Mountain on a Saturday ( a MTB specific park about 1 hour from NYC) and once in the woods see only about 10 riders.

I've never been on any ride where i've been annoyed by the number of riders on the trails.


----------



## jmmUT (Sep 15, 2008)

CodyMCP said:


> I skimmed this thread but didn't read everything thoroughly, so sorry if this was asked before.. but is travel by wheelchair/prosthetic limbs allowable? If so that is mechanized travel, isn't it? Heck, a knee brace could be considered mechanized travel...


Wheelchairs are allowed in wilderness if the person is disabled.

Another clause that hasn't been mentioned allows in emergency purposes such as search and rescue to use motorized vehicles when they feel it necessary.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

jmmorath said:


> Wheelchairs are allowed in wilderness if the person is disabled.
> 
> Another clause that hasn't been mentioned allows in emergency purposes such as search and rescue to use motorized vehicles when they feel it necessary.


Where ? I would say a Forest Fire is an Emergency yet no motorized vehicles are allowed within said area. And second, there is no access for a wheelchair on any trail I have ever seen in a wilderness area, unless you consider letting them spin around in a parking area access.


----------



## PretendGentleman (May 24, 2011)

daves4mtb said:


> I agree with those who say this should be addressed. I read the linked article by Tom Stroll, which was very scholarly and excellent. It appears that bicycles were peripherally something that was considered and allowed. But one has to keep in mind that in 1964 mountain bikes were not prevalent (there were of course people experimenting here and there with fat tires and riding off-road for many decades) and certainly weren't on the minds of our legislators.
> 
> So that presents a double edged sword in analyzing legislative intent. On the one hand, from Mr. Stroll's article, there are some references to bicycles in various forms of legislation mentioned, and it seems the intent of the language from the 1964 Act being used to prohibit mountain bikes is being interpreted contrary to what the legislators intended, and this is due to some awkward wording of re-writes. On the other hand, there remains a good argument that the legislators had no intent, as mountain bikes didn't exist for the most part, and they certainly weren't able to calculate their likely effect on the environment, and their interaction with others (e.g., hikers, nude hippies, and kayakers).
> 
> ...


I am an environmental economist and I will be keeping my eyes open to research opportunities which support the use of wilderness by bicyclists where appropriate.

from an economic perspective, one might argue that we should allow bicycles to access wilderness if the benefits outweigh the harms.

here are a few examples of how one might approach this discussion from an economic/human welfare perspective:

Studies exist showing that bicycles have less negative impact on terrain than hikers in some cases. Especially if the cyclist is using fat tires, which disperse the cyclist's weight and lessen soil compaction.

On the other hand, studies suggest that bicycles are particularly prone to spooking animals. Many wilderness areas are intended to support threatened and endangered species. Spooking animals may decrease the likelihood of reproduction, cause calorie wasting movement, etc. Clearly some locations are not suitable for bicycles.

a bicyclist can travel more miles than a hiker, so you encounter more wildlife, compact more terrain, but for less time. Clearly the trade-offs are complex, vary by ecosystem, bicycle type, geologic setting, cultural milieu, etc.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

PretendGentleman said:


> I am an environmental economist and I will be keeping my eyes open to research opportunities which support the use of wilderness by bicyclists where appropriate.


 Oh you are one of those, just so happens this came out today :thumbsup:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/43711926



> from an economic perspective, one might argue that we should allow bicycles to access wilderness if the benefits outweigh the harms.
> 
> here are a few examples of how one might approach this discussion from an economic/human welfare perspective:
> 
> ...


Yea if only no predators existed in the wild lol, seriously? have you actually ever spent time in the mountains? A trail for a bike in a wilderness area is the equivilent of a string in a ball of yarn, get real man.



> a bicyclist can travel more miles than a hiker, so you encounter more wildlife, compact more terrain, but for less time. Clearly the trade-offs are complex, vary by ecosystem, bicycle type, geologic setting, cultural milieu, etc.


Animals really do not care about contact with people, if they did you would not see them in towns. Hell OHVs do not bother them unless the OHVs happen to be giving chase in an area where that is possible. I.E. At a motocross track I used to frequent with my racing quad there were a resident herd of deer which hang out, royal pain in the ass, they sauntered across the track at will, would lay around scary close and simply did not care. Thus is the reality of most area's where animals are.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

PretendGentleman said:


> On the other hand, studies suggest that bicycles are particularly prone to spooking animals. Many wilderness areas are intended to support threatened and endangered species. Spooking animals may decrease the likelihood of reproduction, cause calorie wasting movement, etc. Clearly some locations are not suitable for bicycles.


Please cite this research. I have seen with my own eyes more deer much closer while riding my bike than I have seen while hiking.

I have reached my own conclusions based on my observations.

bikes generally move more quickly and quietly through the forest than the average hiker. as such, a bicycle may approach more closely before the deer is even aware of the presence of the bicycle. because of the increased speed of the bicycle, the disturbance to the deer is one of much shorter duration than an ambling hiker. furthermore, a person on a bicycle has a silhouette more similar to other 4-legged animals than a hiker, which a deer tends to recognize more easily as a person by sight alone.

now, if you're referring to things like squirrels and rabbits, my conclusions would differ. small flighty animals like this do tend to startle around bikes, but IMO, no more so around bikes than others passing by. squirrels and rabbits will run and hide almost every time.

I want to know what species are MORE upset by bicycles than by a person walking.


----------



## CodyMCP (Mar 24, 2011)

I think a big mean wolf or bear will spook a deer much more than any bicycle. 

RRRAAAWWWRRR!


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

daves4mtb said:


> That actually is a good point. I think they don't outlaw access by disabled persons using such devices - or rather, they don't 'enforce' it because disabled persons would have a very effective and likely well financed means of attacking that action on Equal Protection grounds as being unconstitutional. There is no precedent for bicyclists being a "protected class" in current jurisprudence the way that disabled are.
> 
> I say that not because I wish disabled persons to not have access, because that would be absurd, but it does demonstrate the difficulty of this 50+ year old legislation applying to a world of mechanized and electronic devices. Heck, I have a brother in law who had a stroke - he walks with a device that sends electronic signals to his spine from his foot, and it comes with a remote control. There's more technology and electronics in that than there are in my mountain bike, and that is just for him to walk.
> 
> At this point, I am done with this thread.


Answers to this question can be dredged up here.

Not all answers are concrete right now. The legal issues around this question are potentially changing. Specifically regarding who's permitted to use what on your favorite trails...some trails may wind up having ATV's on them legally, because they could be considered a type of mobility device for the disabled. How that affects trails in Wilderness has yet to be seen. That said, I'm aware of a guy in CA who uses a wheelchair on a lot of rugged hiking trails.


----------



## Boyonabyke (Sep 5, 2007)

Fischman said:


> C'mon, Randy--how many bikers ride around with a fishing rod and bait in their camelbacks? Do you know? Do you have ANY idea what the impact would be? Everything with you is opening the floodgates, slippery slope, and the sky is falling, but there's no substance to back any of it up.
> 
> Even if your fear was well founded, it's easily managed in any number of ways. Species with low numbers are declared off limits all the time, regardless of whether they live in a Wilderness area. Some species are not to be caught at all, others are strictly catch and release, and in some cases, areas are declared off limits. For instance, I can't ride the Severy Trail, which is a killer downhill run, near my home in Colorado Springs because it is home to the rare Greenback Cutthroat Trout (I'm sure you know this since you've caught every species of Trout known to man--or maybe not since this area is nowhere near a Wilderness area--but we were still able to protect the fish!). That's a law and I can't change it, nor would I, nor would most of the other folks posting on this forum in favor of MTB access in Wilderness. We're all okay with restrictions where restrictions are needed.
> 
> Not only does your dog not hunt, your rod don't fish.


Fish... what model rear hubs do you roll on your bikes?


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

Thats pretty cool he's out tearing it up, not that uncommon actually, the problem being most wilderness area's, least round here are narrow trails


----------



## PretendGentleman (May 24, 2011)

NateHawk said:


> Please cite this research. I have seen with my own eyes more deer much closer while riding my bike than I have seen while hiking.
> 
> I have reached my own conclusions based on my observations.
> 
> ...


below I have listed some articles to begin with if you're interested in the peer review literature on the matter.

Threatened and Endangered species would likely receive a disproportionate share of the concern regarding being spooked. While I do expect that in some places the benefits of prohibiting cycling outweigh the harms, I can't much more than guess the proportion of lands that satisfy both the criteria that cyclists are interested in using and the expected damages from bike access outweigh the benefits. My points were more to point out how one might begin to think about this/model this in a rigorous theoretical framework.

One important consideration is that when you expand the ways one may engage in recreation in an landscape, there is no reason to expect that you are dealing with a zero sum game regarding visitation. For example, if you allow bicycles, you don't expect only to see the existing hikers pick up a bike, but you probably would expect a few hikers to hike instead, some bicyclists who otherwise do not visit would show up, and many hikers would continue to hike, etc. consequently you're not just replacing hiker impact, you're also adding bicycle impact to hiker impact. None of this is to say what should be done about it, but merely to assert what one might reasonably expect to observe should one decide to study the issue empirically.

BURGER, J. and M. GOCHFELD (1999). "Role of human disturbance in response behavior of Laysan albatrosses (Diomedea immutabilis)." Bird Behavior 13(1): 23-30.

Li, C., R. Monclús, et al. (2010). "Quantifying human disturbance on antipredator behavior and flush initiation distance in yellow-bellied marmots." Applied Animal Behaviour Science.

MARKOVCHICK NICHOLLS, L., H. M. REGAN, et al. (2008). "Relationships between human disturbance and wildlife land use in urban habitat fragments." Conservation Biology 22(1): 99-109.

Papouchis, C. M., F. J. Singer, et al. (2001). "Responses of desert bighorn sheep to increased human recreation." The Journal of wildlife management 65(3): 573-582.

Weston, M. A., M. J. Antos, et al. (2009). "Birds, buffers and bicycles: a review and case study of wetland buffers." Victorian naturalist 126: 79-86.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

PretendGentleman said:


> BURGER, J. and M. GOCHFELD (1999). "Role of human disturbance in response behavior of Laysan albatrosses (Diomedea immutabilis)." Bird Behavior 13(1): 23-30.
> 
> Li, C., R. Monclús, et al. (2010). "Quantifying human disturbance on antipredator behavior and flush initiation distance in yellow-bellied marmots." Applied Animal Behaviour Science.
> 
> ...


Your articles do not really demonstrate to me that you actually have read them and understand them. Take your first reference, BURGER, J. and M. GOCHFELD (1999). The FIRST SENTENCES from the abstract are as follows:


> Laysan albatrosses (_Diomedea immutabilis_) nest on Midway Atoll, which was historically devoid of mammalian predators. They therefore exhibit few antipredator behaviors.


What does this have to do with bicycles? How many mountain bike trails do you suspect are on the Midway Atoll? How many Laysan albatrosses nest along current mountain bike trails elsewhere?

Furthermore, the abstract goes on to state:



> These experiments suggest that albatrosses can habituate to the presence of humans, and that human exposure should be limited to confined areas


which kinda blows holes into your entire theory, eh? Sounds an awful lot like things such as trails with viewing areas fit within the recommendations and that the birds can habituate to that sort of human impact just fine.

#2 actually relates to bicycles vs. foot traffic. Thank you. I still have questions with what the data actually shows. So the researchers measured the responses of yellow-bellied marmots (not exactly a rare species) to different stimuli (walk, bike, moto). The researchers say in their discussion that the increased vigilance MAY affect fitness, but go on to say in their conclusions that predation in areas with high disturbance is lower. Hmmm...so the ACTUAL effects of human disturbance on fitness have NOT been measured. Rather, they are hypothesized and there are quite probably offsetting factors, as well.

#3 addressed bike use on trails and how it affects wildlife in California - but that's where the relevance ends. Researchers measured the affect of usage on animals by studying tracks ON TRAILS IN URBAN FRAGMENTS. What does this have to do with the discussion regarding bicycles in Wilderness. Animals in urban fragments are pressed for space to begin with. Trail densities are high and overall use is high. One thing I didn't see addressed in this study was the overall traffic level (how many users passed in a given amount of time?). Are we to assume that the number of users who pass along a trail is the same between all roads and trails and that the number of users who pass along a trail has no impact on the wildlife, but the type of use DOES have an impact? I see no trail counter data in this study which should be an essential component of data collection for something like this. Big thumbs down on study design.

#4 shoots holes in your assertions, too. Quoted from the abstract:



> Hikers caused the most severe responses in desert bighorn sheep (animals fled in 61% of encounters), followed by vehicles (17% fled) and mountain bikers (6% fled), apparently because hikers were more likely to be in unpredictable locations and often directly approached sheep.


My search for the last one turned up only one hit...which was a dead link, anyway. So I can't comment on that source. But judging by the others I was able to find, your arguments are on shaky ground. Any reasonable person would see that it doesn't matter WHAT the use, there will be some animals that are bothered more than others. Some are bothered more by hikers, some more by bicycles, some more by horses, and some more by motos. I do not see total use numbers addressed anywhere, but maybe they should and I would hypothesize that total use numbers (regardless of user group) would have a higher impact than user type, and would probably support limiting TOTAL use by offering a limited number of use permits to an area with sensitive species and by limiting total trail density for an area.

You (as an economist) picked the wrong person to have a wildlife argument with (a biologist).


----------



## Boyonabyke (Sep 5, 2007)

NateHawk said:


> Your articles do not really demonstrate to me that you actually have read them and understand them. Take your first reference, BURGER, J. and M. GOCHFELD (1999). The FIRST SENTENCES from the abstract are as follows:
> 
> What does this have to do with bicycles? How many mountain bike trails do you suspect are on the Midway Atoll? How many Laysan albatrosses nest along current mountain bike trails elsewhere?
> 
> ...


I would think that any prey animal subject to predation would be more disturbed by anything emitting the sound of a footfall, be it hiker, horsemen, whatever, as they are genetically predisposed for survival purposes to run or flee when such sounds are heard. Those that flee and run have a higher survival rate and then reproductive rate than those that stick around to wonder what that noise was that may threaten their survival, killing and eating them.

The sound of a mountain bike on a trail is something that is not genetically programmed through thousands of years of survival, because the animals _may_ have only heard mountain bikes around for the last 20 years, do not recognize the sound, nor are they cognitive of it being a threat. It is not a daily threat or an hourly threat to life or otherwise, like a deer exposed to mountain lion predation. I know of 4 people I ride with that have startled deer and been hit or practically hit when the deer realizes how close it is to the bicyclist and flees, almost running into them or grazing them running across the fire road. This has always happened when the cyclist has been under full power pedaling rapidly down fireroads with a slight downhill grade of maybe 1%, with speeds in excess of 20 to 25 mph.

I would think that predator animals would be bothered by it, because it interferes with the potential spooking of their prey while hunting for a meal.

Do you feel we should allow mountain biking in wildlife refuges too?


----------



## PretendGentleman (May 24, 2011)

NateHawk said:


> You (as an economist) picked the wrong person to have a wildlife argument with (a biologist).


Its interesting to see how ruffled your feathers get by all of this. I would certainly agree that pedestrians are also particularly prone to spooking animals, so I'm not sure what you think "we" are arguing about. Its interesting to note that a number of studies find that people in moving vehicles are relatively less likely to disturb wildlife than pedestrians and bicycles.

But like I said in the previous post, my comments were intended to serve as a basis for understanding the quantification of the costs and benefits of recreation from an economic perspective. My point about the effects of bicycles on animals is intended to highlight that adding users on bicycles can be reasonably expected to result in more occasions of flight/disturbance to animals. Now if you can find studies showing or even speculating that the addition of cyclists to a user group that includes pedestrians results in fewer disturbances to wildlife and directly improves the fate of threatened and endangered species I am interested in seeing it.

I did not read those articles, but offered them as a starting point to view the literature discussing the effects of bicycles on wildlife. I did not intend the articles to be used as an argument that bicycles disturb more than pedestrians as you're suggesting I am; I do see that you're very interested in that argument. I appreciate your summaries and extracts, but I think you've gone overboard in thinking I'm defending the position that pedestrians disturb wildlife less than cyclists. I have, however, compared the two usergroups with respect to wear and tear on trails and suggested that evaluating the trade-offs with respect to animal welfare are complex...perhaps this comparison loaded the conversation.

I suppose its worth mentioning that I would generally assume that any wilderness allowing bicycle access also allows hiking access, but not necessarily the inverse. Its funny to imagine a hiker bringing a bike to walk beside just to satisfy a rule requiring all humans to have a bicycle with them. Alternatively its funny to imagine a rule forbidding one from walking a bike up a steep section of trail. Next time I clean a climbing section and see someone walking, I'll deride them as a pedestrian!


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

RandyBoy said:


> I would think that any prey animal subject to predation would be more disturbed by anything emitting the sound of a footfall, be it hiker, horsemen, whatever, as they are genetically predisposed for survival purposes to run or flee when such sounds are heard. Those that flee and run have a higher survival rate and then reproductive rate than those that stick around to wonder what that noise was that may threaten their survival, killing and eating them.
> 
> The sound of a mountain bike on a trail is something that is not genetically programmed through thousands of years of survival, because the animals _may_ have only heard mountain bikes around for the last 20 years, do not recognize the sound, nor are they cognitive of it being a threat. It is not a daily threat or an hourly threat to life or otherwise, like a deer exposed to mountain lion predation. I know of 4 people I ride with that have startled deer and been hit or practically hit when the deer realizes how close it is to the bicyclist and flees, almost running into them or grazing them running across the fire road. This has always happened when the cyclist has been under full power pedaling rapidly down fireroads with a slight downhill grade of maybe 1%, with speeds in excess of 20 to 25 mph.
> 
> ...


You start making sense until the last statement.

Did I say anywhere that we should allow mountain biking in wildlife refuges? No. I never said that. You're overreaching. Wildlife Refuges are managed by the USFWS, which has NO MANDATE to provide for recreation. Period. They can if they want, but their PRIMARY FUNCTION is for wildlife. And FWIW, I HAVE seen bikeable trails on a couple wildlife refuges, but they could hardly be called mountain bike trails. More like multiple-use paths or rail trails.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

RandyBoy said:


> I would think that any prey animal subject to predation would be more disturbed by anything emitting the sound of a footfall, be it hiker, horsemen, whatever, as they are genetically predisposed for survival purposes to run or flee when such sounds are heard. Those that flee and run have a higher survival rate and then reproductive rate than those that stick around to wonder what that noise was that may threaten their survival, killing and eating them.
> 
> The sound of a mountain bike on a trail is something that is not genetically programmed through thousands of years of survival, because the animals _may_ have only heard mountain bikes around for the last 20 years, do not recognize the sound, nor are they cognitive of it being a threat. It is not a daily threat or an hourly threat to life or otherwise, like a deer exposed to mountain lion predation. I know of 4 people I ride with that have startled deer and been hit or practically hit when the deer realizes how close it is to the bicyclist and flees, almost running into them or grazing them running across the fire road. This has always happened when the cyclist has been under full power pedaling rapidly down fireroads with a slight downhill grade of maybe 1%, with speeds in excess of 20 to 25 mph.
> 
> ...


You can "think" all you want, I know differently

Exhibit A 





Exhibit B





Exhibit C





Exhibit D





Exhibit E





seriously do you people even leave your house? Do you live in under a rock?


----------



## Boyonabyke (Sep 5, 2007)

Black Bart said:


> And? If we didn't allow mechanical fishing devices or fishing at all in these wilderness areas we wouldn't have to worry about "maintaining angling opportunities." I guess this means we should all ride our bikes in wilderness areas to determine their impact on the areas and ensure that we "maintain riding opportunities where biologically justifiable".


And is a bicycle considered a vehicle? Is it subject to the motor vehicle code? Does your state Department of Motor Vehicles require that bicyclist's share the road with motorists, not pedestrians, to use roads, not sidewalks? Do public roads in your state have bicycle specific lanes? Do you, as a bicyclist ,have to obey all rules of the road that any other motor vehicle does? Can you be cited for drunk driving while operating a vehicle while on a bike on a public road?

Do all state, county and local vehicle codes apply while operating any vehicle in designated (if any) roads in Wilderness areas, USFS lands or National Park lands?

If your state considers a bicycle a vehicle, they fall under the motor vehicle code, and vehicles are not allowed in Wilderness areas, except on designated paved roads. then the point of arguing about allowing them access trails or if they are mechanical conveyances is moot, for they fall under the motor vehicle code and Vehicles are not allowed in wilderness areas.

You can't have it both ways, share the road with vehicles, ride public roads to the trail head, be subject to the motor vehicle code, then not consider a bicycle a vehicle when in Wilderness areas. Arguing under the "mechanical" meaning motor vehicles not having access to wilderness areas, when bikes are held to the motor vehicle code is not going to get access for you to wilderness areas.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

PretendGentleman said:


> Its interesting to see how ruffled your feathers get by all of this. I would certainly agree that pedestrians are also particularly prone to spooking animals, so I'm not sure what you think "we" are arguing about. Its interesting to note that a number of studies find that people in moving vehicles are relatively less likely to disturb wildlife than pedestrians and bicycles.
> 
> But like I said in the previous post, my comments were intended to serve as a basis for understanding the quantification of the costs and benefits of recreation from an economic perspective. My point about the effects of bicycles on animals is intended to highlight that adding users on bicycles can be reasonably expected to result in more occasions of flight/disturbance to animals. Now if you can find studies showing or even speculating that the addition of cyclists to a user group that includes pedestrians results in fewer disturbances to wildlife and directly improves the fate of threatened and endangered species I am interested in seeing it.
> 
> ...


You are the one who brought it up to support your point.



> On the other hand, studies suggest that bicycles are *particularly* prone to spooking animals.


Bolding is mine, but your statement here singles out bicycles and their impact. The studies you linked (without reading...now that's funny), clearly show that bicycles do not PARTICULARLY upset animals. They upset some animals more than others, but they also upset some animals much less than others and that permitted uses within Wilderness (like hiking) also upset some species more than other user groups (which are prohibited from Wilderness with a blanket ban, I might add). So your entire point that bikes should not be permitted in Wilderness because they are PARTICULARLY prone to spooking animals is bunk.

You seem to think that by adding bicycles, it automatically means an overall increase in trail traffic? Considering that high traffic (of ANY TYPE) contributes to an increased need for maintenance due to wear & tear and that one of the core Wilderness values is leaving a very low overall impact, Wilderness managers would be keen to keep overall use on Wilderness trails (for ALL USERS) to a minimum.



> Its interesting to see how ruffled your feathers get by all of this.


My feathers are not ruffled (if I was a bird and had any feathers...as it is, not even my hair is disheveled today). However, I do take issue with a couple of things in general: people who take research out of context (without reading it? really?), and people who who think they are authorities about something they know little about.

I am no authority on Wilderness. I just have my opinions there, and I frame them as such. But when it comes to wildlife, I do know a few things.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

Bicycles aren't vehicles but they have the same road rights as vehicles, therefore must obey road laws. And no, the only laws that apply in Wilderness are the federal Wilderness Area laws, which don't recognize vehicles. The fact is that the Wilderness law prohibits mechanically powered transportation, not human powered transportation. Whether you agree or not is another thing, but much of your logic is flawed, my friend. You seem a bit obtuse, or possibly OCD. Go for a ride, drink a beer, beat off... do something to relieve that pressure bro. No one cares what you think at this point...


----------



## PretendGentleman (May 24, 2011)

NateHawk said:


> You are the one who brought it up to support your point.
> 
> Bolding is mine, but your statement here singles out bicycles and their impact. The studies you linked (without reading...now that's funny), clearly show that bicycles do not PARTICULARLY upset animals. They upset some animals more than others, but they also upset some animals much less than others and that permitted uses within Wilderness (like hiking) also upset some species more than other user groups (which are prohibited from Wilderness with a blanket ban, I might add). So your entire point that bikes should not be permitted in Wilderness because they are PARTICULARLY prone to spooking animals is bunk.
> 
> ...


I've enjoyed much of what you've said in this thread, and that isn't changed by your insistence that I'm supporting an argument I haven't made. While my use of the phrase "particularly prone" isn't quantitatively descriptive, it does focus on cyclists in contrast to everything else, and notably I am not contrasting cyclists with pedestrians.

I'm not all that interested in defending my use of a certain adverb, but I think its reasonable to say that in a discussion of hamburgers that also mentions hotdogs I can say hamburgers are particularly delicious without having to defend the assertion that hamburgers are more delicious than hotdogs.

and regarding the articles,
You state:


> I want to know what species are MORE upset by bicycles than by a person walking.


and I say,


> below I have listed some articles to begin with if you're interested in the peer review literature on the matter.


so if you suspend your belief that I am arguing a particular point about bicycles vs. pedestrians, you'll see that I've offered some articles that have some relevance to the conversation about recreation/human induced wildlife disturbance.

Have I asserted anything more than that these articles are place to begin to search for the knowledge you said you seek?

I believe I'm doing well in my attempt to remain fairly agnostic about the entire situation. I will reiterate my basic hypothesis: I expect that some wilderness locations would serve the public best with bicycles prohibited and I expect that some would serve the public better with bicycles allowed. I think its interesting to contemplate how we might judge the matter for a particular wilderness, and much of what we've discussed would factor into the judgement.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

PretendGentleman said:


> I will reiterate my basic hypothesis: I expect that some wilderness locations would serve the public best with bicycles prohibited and I expect that some would serve the public better with bicycles allowed. I think its interesting to contemplate how we might judge the matter for a particular wilderness, and much of what we've discussed would factor into the judgement.


Wouldn't it have been easier to have included your full hypothesis from the beginning?

I've always stated (though not necessarily in this thread...but others) that it should be the land manager's decision because that manager knows local conditions the best.


----------



## Boyonabyke (Sep 5, 2007)

NateHawk said:


> You start making sense until the last statement.
> 
> Did I say anywhere that we should allow mountain biking in wildlife refuges? No. I never said that. You're overreaching. Wildlife Refuges are managed by the USFWS, which has NO MANDATE to provide for recreation. Period. They can if they want, but their PRIMARY FUNCTION is for wildlife. And FWIW, I HAVE seen bikeable trails on a couple wildlife refuges, but they could hardly be called mountain bike trails. More like multiple-use paths or rail trails.


Nate, the last sentence was only posed as a question...

I ask because I see WILD in Wilderness Areas, and I see WILD in Wildlife Refuges too. So, it's just my perspective, that they both should be havens for wildlife first, recreation areas second, in terms of priority.

I see a Wilderness area as a much larger area or chunk of land for havens than I do a Refuge. A refuge is nothing more than an area to regroup, it's not a pemanent home for wildlife, more a migration stop. But a Wilderness area is a full time home. No one likes to be harassed repeatedly in their own home. When we go into wilderness, we are in some other animals homelands, we are the guests, we are invading their sanctuary.


----------



## SkaredShtles (May 13, 2007)

RandyBoy said:


> <snip> When we go into wilderness, we are in some other animals homelands, we are the guests, we are invading their sanctuary.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

Since I know people are to lazy to click on my links...............

















View attachment safari4.bmp


----------



## Frozenspokes (May 26, 2004)

zrm said:


> I'd suggest doing a better job of stewardship of the trails where mountain bikes are currently allowed before getting into fights to allow bikes where they currently are not.
> 
> A question to ask is how much time people who post so passionately on this issue have spent doing the decidedly unglamorous work of trail maintenance or working with various agencies doing the long tedious work it takes to get new trail built in the areas where bikes are by law allowed?


I promise you that there are plenty of MTBers who spend plenty of time building/maintaining trails. I have personally been involved in trail building and maintenance since I started riding. One of the questions often asked at trail work days in the three states that I have done this work is "Where are the hikers?"

So, in my rather limited sample size of one, mountain bikers do a much better job of stewardship than hikers do.

As always though, YMMV.


----------



## atkinson (Sep 1, 2003)

If the concept of Wilderness is to reserve it for native non-human species first and foremost, hiking and really any access at all should be prohibited. The ban or acceptance of human-defined activities in Wilderness is arbitrary. If Wilderness is meant to welcome human visitors too, then let's base policies on science, not human aesthetics.

Mechanical and vehicle are less invasive in some of the studies, recognized less by the animals than hikers are, yet we ban the activities. Skiers and snowshoers get a pass for some reason, despite obvious mechanical advantages and and much greater access potential in the most challenging season for animals. 

Few bikers camp deep in the woods, but this is a popular Wilderness hiking activity with significant site effects. Snowmobiling and logging have less affects on animals in some ways than many recreational activities, yet these uses are also prohibited.

Impacts have to be measured in infrastructure too. Building a road to accommodate cars or logging trucks is one thing, but bike and hike trails share major design features in common. 

Ask runners about their favorite trails. It's usually some flowy singletrack. Our local xc trails have average speeds of 3 to 8 miles an hour, and many people hike or jog in this range.

In Vermont, we have tons of hiking paths in the most fragile environments. Bikers have gained a lot more access to public lands in recent years, but we tend to stay in less fragile areas, much lower in elevation, farther from rivers and wetlands and have far fewer miles overall. 

Do bikes need to be everywhere? No, but it is not about bikes or boots. It is about people and our impacts. 

John

p.s. ZRM, the dirt is fresh under my fingernails and advocacy is a daily task. Deep in the flow, judge not.


----------



## Boyonabyke (Sep 5, 2007)

bsieb said:


> Bicycles aren't vehicles but they have the same road rights as vehicles, therefore must obey road laws. And no, the only laws that apply in Wilderness are the federal Wilderness Area laws, which don't recognize vehicles. The fact is that the Wilderness law prohibits mechanically powered transportation, not human powered transportation. Whether you agree or not is another thing, but much of your logic is flawed, my friend. You seem a bit obtuse, or possibly OCD. Go for a ride, drink a beer, beat off... do something to relieve that pressure bro. No one cares what you think at this point...


Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck... A bike is vehicle, just not a motor vehicle.

ve·hi·cle   [vee-i-kuhl or, sometimes, vee-hi-] Show IPA
noun
1. any means in or by which someone travels or something is carried or conveyed; a means of conveyance or transport: a motor vehicle; space vehicles.
2. a conveyance moving on wheels, runners, tracks, or the like, as a cart, sled, automobile, or tractor.

'A bicycle is a means of travel, and it moves on wheels, moves on single track... so... Is that definition of "vehicle" not valid in New Mexico? If so, kindly explain to me how it is exempt from the definition?

Put a Mechanical Engineer on the stand to testify as an Expert Witness, and I am sure, by definition, he will advise all in the room that a bicycle fits the requirements of a vehicle, and is indeed a vehicle.


----------



## MrEjeep (Mar 18, 2011)

so in actuality the feds are in violation of their own free access policy because wheelchairs fit that very literal interpretation


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

The Wilderness Act only prohibits "motorized" vehicles, it doesn't mention any other types of vehicles.


----------



## allenfstar (Jul 7, 2011)

MrEjeep said:


> so in actuality the feds are in violation of their own free access policy because wheelchairs fit that very literal interpretation


wheelchairs (ie disabled people) are covered under the americans with disabilities act and it would be a federal crime to prohibit them from the wilderness areas. that being said the wheel chair argument is kind of a moot point because most wilderness areas are not accessible via wheel chair if they were we probably wouldnt want to our bikes there because it would all but just wide flat hardpack


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

allenfstar said:


> wheelchairs (ie disabled people) are covered under the americans with disabilities act and it would be a federal crime to prohibit them from the wilderness areas. that being said the wheel chair argument is kind of a moot point because most wilderness areas are not accessible via wheel chair if they were we probably wouldnt want to our bikes there because it would all but just wide flat hardpack


The American Disablities act Prohibites discrimination based upon Disability. That puts the feds sin direct violation of their own law with Wilderness area's. I have stated all along that the land is OURS, not theirs, and the people deserve reasonable access to it. 
If it needs to be pushed via the ADA then so be it. But to sit and allow the Double standard via the government is Unacceptable. 
We are citizens, not subjects, stand up for your rights man.


----------



## PretendGentleman (May 24, 2011)

daves4mtb said:


> That brings us back to the simple arguments that 1) the Act never intended to ban cycling, and 2) if that is so, why are we all (meaning cyclists, governments, agencies) acting as if it did, and 3) perhaps the better approach is to have a study on the effects of mountain biking on the trails, wildlife, and wilderness experience of others.


I think the study would be a great place to start...of course funding it is problematic.

Another approach would be to poll people regarding their feelings of bike access. Basically, you attempt to determine what would be the outcome if there were actually a referendum, but by statistical sampling and interviewing rather than a true voting poll. Obviously this answers the question regarding access in a very different manner than a study of mtn bike impacts, but the idea of finding what people want in this manner has been upheld in the us court of appeals.

I'm not so sure cyclists are viewed too favorably in the eyes of the public.  The crackdown in NY and the mostly right-wing antipathy towards bike facilities in urban settings in general is an indication that a referendum might actually lead to reduced cyclist rights. But this is just speculation, and a few loud voices can distort one's assessment of public opinion tremendously.

Ultimately, without proof that bicycles are unambiguously worse than hikers, it would seem reasonable to allow access where hikers have access. As Natehawk has suggested, limiting the numbers of people with access more directly addresses concerns of congestion and over-use.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

daves4mtb said:


> Good thoughts, man, and I agree with your sentiments. However, the argument sort of comes full circle at this point. Unfortunately, cyclists aren't protected by an "Americans With Bicycles Act" to the same degree that disabled persons (who are deemed a "protected class" under current U.S. Supreme Court equal protection jurisprudence) are protected by the ADA. So, the double standard created by that act will, as a practical matter, be difficult to stop.
> 
> Like it or not, the "protected class" methodology often creates double standards in our lives and as the Supreme Court has a multi-decade history of enforcing that approach to our laws and our Constitution, in all kinds of areas, it isn't just going to stop anytime soon, and especially not over the issue of whether mountain bikes get to go into federal wilderness territories. Quite frankly, I don't see such a jurisprudential scheme stopping in our lifetime unless the entire Constitution gets overhauled.
> 
> That brings us back to the simple arguments that 1) the Act never intended to ban cycling, and 2) if that is so, why are we all (meaning cyclists, governments, agencies) acting as if it did, and 3) perhaps the better approach is to have a study on the effects of mountain biking on the trails, wildlife, and wilderness experience of others.


Well said, this quibbling over terms completely misses the point.


----------



## Fischman (Jul 17, 2004)

*When wording is ambiguous, we need to look at context and intent*

And, yes, "mechanical" is ambiguous as it carries numerous definitions.

So what is the context and intent:
1. Context
The congressional record of discussion clearly shows the concern was to preserve wild places
a. free of infrastructure that detracts from the wildness (bikes requrie no infrastructure like autos)
b. make people get up off their duffs if they want to enjoy it (bikes encourage people to get off thier duffs)
2. Intent
Even the USFS agreed the use of the phrase " . . . no other form of mechanical transport . . . " in the Wilderness Act of 1964 was vague, which is why they defined it in 1966
Is clearly stated in the definition of "mechanical" as defined by the USFS in 1966 as "mechanical transport&#8230;shall include any contrivance which&#8230; is propelled by a nonliving power source contained or carried on or within the device." Clearly, the intent was only to prohibit motorized recreation, not everything that employs some sort of mechanical device.

In 1980, 16 years after the original Wilderness Act, Congress specifically addressed the issue. In the Rattlesnake National Recreation Area and Wilderness Act of 1980, Congress further clarified the intent: 
"This national forest area has long been used as a wilderness . . . as a source of solitude . . . and primitive recreation, to include such activities as hiking, camping, backpacking, hunting, fishing, horse riding, and bicycling. . . ."
They equated bicycling with "primitive recreation!" Imagine that! Furthermore they made it clear that this 1980 act was in keeping with the original act by adding that this act was to "further the purposes of the Wilderness Act of 1964. . . ."

So, this constant harping by the anti-bike forces on the word "mechanical" is disingenuous at best, self-serving revisionism ane elitist BS at worst.

Add to that the fact that many other mechanical devices are allowed in Wilderness areas and it becomes clear that the "mechanical" argument is indefensible on any grounds.

It looks like The BLM got it right:


----------



## Fischman (Jul 17, 2004)

*There's already plenty of studies out there*

For impacts on the land, the vast majority of them conclude that the impact of bikers is comparable to that of hikers and far less than that of equistrians.

Every study I have seen shows wildlife to be more easily spooked by people on foot than those on bikes.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

Fischman said:


> For impacts on the land, the vast majority of them conclude that the impact of bikers is comparable to that of hikers and far less than that of equistrians.
> 
> Every study I have seen shows wildlife to be more easily spooked by people on foot than those on bikes.


Too bad that opponents are immune to facts.


----------



## Fischman (Jul 17, 2004)

*Too bad indeed . . .*



Axe said:


> Too bad that opponents are immune to facts.


 . . . as are the supposedly unbiased administrators who develop and enforce policy.


----------



## GregB406 (Dec 19, 2005)

To answer the question from the first post, it probably is possible. Is it desireable? In some areas no, in others, yes.

Let's look at it another way. The Act does not prohibit bicycles, an arbitrary administrative decision does. So the bicycle prohibition is just a whim, and could be reversed just as whimsically. One must ask very seriously, what are the downsides and benefits of such a reversal? There is no easy or clearcut answer. One must also ask, why isn't the FS prohibition made into a permanent irreversable rule? Tough question with hundreds of answers.

Why wouldn't all the conservation groups address this to either lobby the FS for permanance or actually try to change the Act itself to permanantly ban bikes? The more one thinks about the risk of trying to try something as audacious as modifying the Act, one realizes that the present bike ban is on very shaky footing and could be subject to change. Which way will it change?

http://http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/7165553/wilderness-machine-does-conservation-alliance


----------



## Boyonabyke (Sep 5, 2007)

Fischman said:


> And, yes, "mechanical" is ambiguous as it carries numerous definitions.
> 
> So what is the context and intent:
> 1. Context
> ...


And it appears they redefined it again in 1986, reverting to original status and removed bicycles from the list as approved in Wilderness areas. Perhaps they realized their error?


----------



## sunset1123 (Apr 28, 2009)

Ok... more harping on covered ground here, but an instance that hasn't been covered and I am actually unsure of the particulars myself:

What about climbing? I mean, can you rock climb in wilderness? You don't have to attach permanent pro, as that would violate the "leave no trace" principle, but using cams, tying webbed anchors, using belay devices, ascenders, rappelling gear, etc... those seem to all use the exact same mechanical means as a bicycle: pulleys and line (read: sprockets and chain) for the purpose of self powered propulsion. Anyone got any beta on the status of climbing/canyoneering in wilderness? I'm interested in the answer b/c I'd love to know the rationale one way or the other.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

RandyBoy said:


> And it appears they redefined it again in 1986, reverting to original status and removed bicycles from the list as approved in Wilderness areas. Perhaps they realized their error?


I doubt if they realized their error, more than likely it was a political move prompted by some form of exclusivism. Perhaps the error occurred in 1986, and is now being realized. Mountain biking was still in it's infancy at that point in time, so bicycles were eliminated from participation in Wilderness Areas just as they appeared on the scene. Since there is no evidence based on any real effects, the 1986 decision was apparently based on speculation. Now that mountain biking is a mainstream activity with an industry surrounding on it and a (small) lobby in Washington, it may be time to reconsider that speculative decision. The real teeth of the Wilderness Act is the prohibition against development of infrastructure of any kind. I don't think you will find the kinds of bicyclists you like to characterize (  ) in a wilderness environment because of the lack of developed trail systems for them to ride on. I see little difference between a horse rider with a pack animal and a mountain biker with light gear in frame packs other than the magnitude of the difference in real effect on that environment. The horse brings in non-native species of plants and who knows what other life forms, competes with local wildlife for their precious food and water resources, and destroys stream banks and sensitive riparian habitat with impunity. The mountain bike avoids all these issues by definition.

What's up with this Chicken-little-ism you present as evidence?


----------



## Fischman (Jul 17, 2004)

*Try again RandyBoy*



RandyBoy said:


> And it appears they redefined it again in 1986, reverting to original status and removed bicycles from the list as approved in Wilderness areas. Perhaps they realized their error?


They didn't "redefine" anything. They just said no bikes or hang gliders. The original definitions stayed put. So the bike prohibition remains in violation of the original intent.


----------



## Haus Boss (Jun 4, 2010)

RandyBoy said:


> And it appears they redefined it again in 1986, reverting to original status and removed bicycles from the list as approved in Wilderness areas. Perhaps they realized their error?


Randyboy, I highly recommend you at least skim Stroll's legal analysis. There's a lot of good info in there even if you disagree with his argument.

Two of Stroll's major points include:

1. The purpose of establishing Wilderness lands
2. The purpose behind banning "mechanical" transport- it has nothing to do with bicycles or human powered vehicles for recreation purposes, quite the contrary.


----------



## mattnmtns (Sep 16, 2010)

How many of you have actually read the wilderness act, or for that matter even frequent a designated wilderness area. With the population growing, and people visiting and using wilderness areas more than ever it is really not hard to see the need of such places. There should be places that that are as free from man's mechanization. I am sorry if you can't see or understand that you are simply selfish and I suspect have little to no respect for some of the worlds true wonders. I personally feel that horses should be excluded in most of them as well. If you want to get there and experience a wilderness area you should have to work for it and pack it in and out.

Additionally it is a very slippery slope to allow any one mechanized device. It set precedent and the flood gate will open. 


> In order to assure that an increasing population, accompanied by expanding settlement and growing mechanization, does not occupy and modify all areas within the United States and its possessions, leaving no lands designated for preservation and protection in their natural condition, it is hereby declared to be the policy of the Congress to secure for the American people of present and future generations the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness. For this purpose there is hereby established a National Wilderness Preservation System to be composed of federally owned areas designated by Congress as "wilderness areas", and these shall be administered for the use and enjoyment of the American people in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use as wilderness, and so as to provide for the protection of these areas, the preservation of their wilderness character, and for the gathering and dissemination of information regarding their use and enjoyment as wilderness; and no Federal lands shall be designated as "wilderness areas" except as provided for in this Act or by a subsequent Act.


Seriously is this something that some of you can't get behind?


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

mattnmtns said:


> Additionally it is a very slippery slope to allow any one mechanized device. It set precedent and the flood gate will open.
> 
> Seriously is this something that some of you can't get behind?


"Slippery slope" is a logical fallacy. It is an utterly bogus argument here.

We are wholeheartedly behind the spirit of preserving and enjoying wilderness. Cycling in no way, shape or form is incompatible with that goal.

Riding a bicycle over a wild trail is not more "mechanized" then walking it in rubber boots or on top of a slave animal in iron shoes. It is perfectly compatible with the goals of the wilderness.

It is sad that people like you are so blind in your exclusionary zeal that you do not realize that.


----------



## mattnmtns (Sep 16, 2010)

Axe said:


> "Slippery slope" is a logical fallacy. It is an utterly bogus argument here.
> 
> We are wholeheartedly behind the spirit of preserving and enjoying wilderness. Cycling in no way, shape or form is incompatible with that goal.
> 
> ...


Really? I ride trails all the time that have a negative impact by both me and other mountain bikers. I also said I would support no horses in wilderness areas. I am all about fair use, but what you fail to understand is that other people and their recreational choices understand fair use as well. There have already been challenges by OVR associations on the principals of fair use in wilderness areas based on kayaking and equestrians. You really think that allowing a mechanized device such as a bicycle wouldn't set a precedent? I promise you that OVR users, snowmobillers, and other recreational users of mechanized devices would try to use it as leverage.

Sorry I just feel that there are some areas that should be left in as much of a natural state as possible. I frequent several wilderness areas near my home and I shutter to think what would happen to them if you provided easier access by mechanical means. Luckfully horses are not allowed on the majority of the trails either.

sol·i·tude   
[sol-i-tood, -tyood] Show IPA
-noun
1.
the state of being or living alone; seclusion: to enjoy one's solitude.
2.
*remoteness from habitations, as of a place; absence of human activity: the solitude of the mountains.*
3.
*a lonely, unfrequented place: a solitude in the mountains.*

If you want solitude on your bike, trust me there are places outside of wilderness areas. I rode from about 10 this morning until about 7:30 this evening and didn't see a single other biker on the trail other than the friend I went with.

Like I said, I just don't think you get it.

The only place you may get me to agree on is that the designation of some areas could be questionable. Even then I tend to err on the side of conservation of our natural resources.

Good luck with your fight, you know where I stand.
Cheers


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

sunset1123 said:


> What about climbing? I mean, can you rock climb in wilderness? You don't have to attach permanent pro, as that would violate the "leave no trace" principle, but using cams, tying webbed anchors, using belay devices, ascenders, rappelling gear, etc...


Plenty of modern fixed anchors for belay stations in the wilderness - for example in Yosemite - and they are being replaced on a regular basis. Apparently, even the zealots realize that a speck of steel in a rock half a mile above the trails that you can hardly see from a a few feet from it is hardly worth killing people over.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

mattnmtns said:


> Really? I ride trails all the time that have a negative impact by both me and other mountain bikers.


Really.

And you should try to learn how to ride without leaving permanent negative impact. It is easy. Start from building proper trails.



mattnmtns said:


> Sorry I just feel that there are some areas that should be left in as much of a natural state as possible.


Buy your own land and do whatever you want with it. Lands that I pay taxes for - you have to share equitably.



mattnmtns said:


> Like I said, I just don't think you get it.


Rest assured I do "get it" much better then you do. You want to usurp public lands to further your extremists agenda. I want to preserve and enjoy them.


----------



## PretendGentleman (May 24, 2011)

Axe said:


> "Slippery slope" is a logical fallacy. It is an utterly bogus argument here.


I don't get it, how is slippery slope a logical fallacy? I don't say this to take sides in the argument, but because I've seen some instances where the metaphor of a "slippery slope" is quite apt. For example, I won't try intravenous heroin(or any other delivery method) because I am worried about becoming an addict; here I think the metaphor of falling down a slippery slope is easy to see.

Now, we might say that allowing mechanical vehicles into a protected piece of land presents a risk of getting into a "slippery slope" scenario, when the addition of one user class leads to opening access to a wider range of user classes. Somewhat more formally, If we imagine that modes of transportation are on a continuous spectrum, and little logic can be used to draw a clear line dividing the spectrum into two, then if we start at one end of the spectrum, what do we do to prevent the same rule that is reasonable to apply to one part of the spectrum from migrating to apply to all of the spectrum?

In other words suppose a pedestrian is a 0.01, a bicycle is a 0.012, a car is a 0.1, a dumptruck 0.2, a space shuttle launch platform 0.9, etc. and a vehicular contraption can be imagined anywhere along the spectrum from zero to one. How would we decide that the cut-off is a particular point along the line? Clearly we shouldn't allow anybody in.

ultimately, its an empirical question, but waving one's hands and simply declaring that a "slippery slope" argument is a logical fallacy seems like malarkey to me. However, declaring that a particular application of a slippery slope argument is falacious could be quite reasonable if intelligently supported.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

mattnmtns said:


> Really? I ride trails all the time that have a negative impact by both me and other mountain bikers. I also said I would support no horses in wilderness areas. I am all about fair use, but what you fail to understand is that other people and their recreational choices understand fair use as well. There have already been challenges by OVR associations on the principals of fair use in wilderness areas based on kayaking and equestrians.


 Fair use is not limiting something to a very specialized set of people such as hikers only. kayaking is a mechanized form of travel as is horseback riders ( riding is next to impossible without the mechanical assistance such as a bridal and saddle which are attached via mechanical buckles). 


> You really think that allowing a mechanized device such as a bicycle wouldn't set a precedent? I promise you that OVR users, snowmobillers, and other recreational users of mechanized devices would try to use it as leverage.


 As for OHV, they have every right to that land as the rest of us, again, it is the PEOPLES LAND, not the kings.



> Sorry I just feel that there are some areas that should be left in as much of a natural state as possible. I frequent several wilderness areas near my home and I shutter to think what would happen to them if you provided easier access by mechanical means. Luckfully horses are not allowed on the majority of the trails either.


 as posted above, take you and your bunny hugging friends save up, by some land, and build a giant vagina on it for all I care, when iti s PRIVATE and not Public you may do as you please.



> sol·i·tude
> [sol-i-tood, -tyood] Show IPA
> -noun
> 1.
> ...


 Imagine if definitions were only available to a select group of people.



> If you want solitude on your bike, trust me there are places outside of wilderness areas. I rode from about 10 this morning until about 7:30 this evening and didn't see a single other biker on the trail other than the friend I went with.


 yet another perfect example of why wilderness area's are unneeded, as you correctly point out, most area's you will have very minimal contact with other people anyhow, thus allowing solitude.



> Good luck with your fight, you know where I stand.
> Cheers


Evidently not in reality.


----------



## Boyonabyke (Sep 5, 2007)

Fischman said:


> They didn't "redefine" anything. They just said no bikes or hang gliders. The original definitions stayed put. So the bike prohibition remains in violation of the original intent.


Define "mechanized".

Then define "transportation"

A bicycle, to my mind, fits both definitions. That little chain and gears makes it so, as do brakes. In it's day, I'm certain a bicycle was seen as a Rube Goldberg contraption. Sorry I can't see it your way, so lets just agree to disagree.


----------



## huntermos (Mar 7, 2011)

I quit a job working for an environmental organization primarily because I was being asked to work on Colorado's Hidden Gems campaign to have lands -with awesome trails used frequently by mountain bikes- be designated as Wilderness. I agree that some lands need to be protected, mainly against the threats posed by extractive industries, but we lack an adequate designation to do so without excluding "mechanical" conveyances and that is the problem. In my years of hiking, biking, climbing, kayaking and riding horses throughout the West, I can only think a few wilderness areas that I'd like to ride my bike through and my life isn't any worse because I can't. Instead of fighting to open existing wilderness to bikes, the mountain biking community should be spending its energy to keep from being barred in areas that we can currently ride.

For those of you with this belief:



Blurr said:


> As for OHV, they have every right to that land as the rest of us, again, it is the PEOPLES LAND, not the kings.


Are there no limits to what people can do on public lands? So every trail, every valley, every mountain-top should be accessible to the motorized crowd, anywhere, anytime? 
The "KINGS" (who are they?) aren't telling you that you can't go into wilderness and they aren't telling motorized riders that they can't either, they are just telling you how you can access these lands and setting limits so that human impacts are minimized to protect water quality, wildlife, solitude, etc, etc. Do you really believe that anarchy, in the guise of freedom of choice, is the answer when we have 310 million people in this country and 7 billion+ on the planet?


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

huntermos said:


> I quit a job working for an environmental organization primarily because I was being asked to work on Colorado's Hidden Gems campaign to have lands -with awesome trails used frequently by mountain bikes- be designated as Wilderness.


Kudos and good karma your way.



huntermos said:


> Are there no limits to what people can do on public lands? So every trail, every valley, every mountain-top should be accessible to the motorized crowd, anywhere, anytime?
> The "KINGS" (who are they?) aren't telling you that you can't go into wilderness and they aren't telling motorized riders that they can't either, they are just telling you how you can access these lands and setting limits so that human impacts are minimized to protect water quality, wildlife, solitude, etc, etc. Do you really believe that anarchy, in the guise of freedom of choice, is the answer when we have 310 million people in this country and 7 billion+ on the planet?


The answer is management, not prohibition. Any activities can be properly managed in accordance with their impact. Proper trails, quota systems, user fees. It is only natural that if you use up more of public resources - such as quite and solitary environment being disturbed by loud engine noise - that you will pay up more.

Cycling does not create erosion and noise impact any more then hiking, especially on properly managed and maintained trails. It is only natural that it should be regulated less strictly then for example horseback riding.

Creating blanket prohibitions based on special user group interests and supported by bogus arguments that do not stand up for scientific scrutiny is an inequitable management of public resources.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

huntermos said:


> I quit a job working for an environmental organization primarily because I was being asked to work on Colorado's Hidden Gems campaign to have lands -with awesome trails used frequently by mountain bikes- be designated as Wilderness. I agree that some lands need to be protected, mainly against the threats posed by extractive industries, but we lack an adequate designation to do so without excluding "mechanical" conveyances and that is the problem. In my years of hiking, biking, climbing, kayaking and riding horses throughout the West, I can only think a few wilderness areas that I'd like to ride my bike through and my life isn't any worse because I can't. Instead of fighting to open existing wilderness to bikes, the mountain biking community should be spending its energy to keep from being barred in areas that we can currently ride.
> 
> For those of you with this belief:


 its not a belief, it is a RIGHT!



> Are there no limits to what people can do on public lands? So every trail, every valley, every mountain-top should be accessible to the motorized crowd, anywhere, anytime?
> The "KINGS" (who are they?) aren't telling you that you can't go into wilderness and they aren't telling motorized riders that they can't either, they are just telling you how you can access these lands and setting limits so that human impacts are minimized to protect water quality, wildlife, solitude, etc, etc. Do you really believe that anarchy, in the guise of freedom of choice, is the answer when we have 310 million people in this country and 7 billion+ on the planet?


Yes the absured extreme end of the argument, OMG he said OHV use, Immediatly visions of trails, roads, and impending destruction comes forth. God that is friggin irritating and over used by the Snob " my activity is more important than you" crowd. 
One last time, They have given Unrealistic limits to the access of said land which only allows that land to be accessed by a very, very tiny portion of TAX PAYERS within America, Not to Hard to understand for those of us who understand basic freedom. 
NEXT you must also understand that it is PUBLIC LAND!! not the kings.
For the government knows best because you cannot care for your own life crowd, it is difficult to comprehend apparently.
And again, maybe you and the majority of America aught to go back and re read the constituion, and read the papers as to why it was founded and what it Means to have a limited Government. That would be nice, but I realize despite your huge Cycling Ego you have obviously been to busy so far in life to understand something so Important.


----------



## huntermos (Mar 7, 2011)

Blurr said:


> its not a belief, it is a RIGHT!


Hah! Please show us all where this "right" to do anything you want anywhere and anytime you want is enshrined. You, and anyone else, can visit wilderness anytime you want.



Blurr said:


> Yes the absured extreme end of the argument, OMG he said OHV use, Immediatly visions of trails, roads, and impending destruction comes forth. Quit simply, shut the hell up god that is friggin irritating and over used by the Snob " my activity is more important than you" crowd.


Nice emotional outburst here Blurr. I guess I should try to "quit" as simply as I can (although I don't know exactly how to "quit" something complicatedly either). In case you don't get it, I'm mocking you and being sarcastic, which I assume does make me a "Snob" (thanks for capitalizing it, it makes us "Snobs" much more important) because I can spell, use punctuation correctly and formulate a reasonable and cognizant argument. I'm always curious how people read things that aren't there. Where did I mention "trails, roads and impending destruction (but now that you mention it, OHV use does cause magnitudes more damage than bikes, horses or feet)" or that I have an "activity that is more important than you?" Nowhere. So why are you yelling at me to "shut the hell up?" Oh, is it because I'm challenging your belief that you should be allowed to do what ever you want on "your" lands?



Blurr said:


> One last time, They have given Unrealistic limits to the access of said land which only allows that land to be accessed by a very, very tiny portion of TAX PAYERS within America, Not to Hard to understand for those of us who understand basic freedom.


So am I to assume that most Americans don't have legs and thus can't access wilderness? I guess in your view, freedom means that you can do anything you want, irregardless of the negative impacts on others.

Let's take a look at your version of freedom in a similar context: Most ski areas in the West are on public lands, which I guess makes them "yours." The U.S. Forest Service, which administers most of these lands, bars the public from using these lands in winter for anything but skiing, and snowboarding. "How dare they!" rages Blurr, "I want to ride my snowmobile there but those d*mn "kings" (the Feds and the ski area owners) are telling me I can't!" Blurr, arguing that most tax-paying Americans don't ski and thus are being denied their freedom to utilize "their" lands, successfully overturns the rules set up by the "kings" and now he, and his snowmobiling buddies get to race their sleds up and down the ski runs among those few skiing and snowboarding "Snobs" that dare to risk being run down and don't mind the constant scream of engines and smell of exhaust (yes Blurr, that is more sarcasm). Not the same you say? In this scenario, we've public lands, with restrictions set by the government, only accessible to less then 20% of the US population (skier/snowboarders total about 12 million in any given year). So, do you think that public lands designated as ski areas should be open to any activity you can dream up?



Blurr said:


> NEXT you must also understand that it is PUBLIC LAND!! not the kings.


There are no "kings" in the US.



Blurr said:


> For the government knows best because you cannot care for your own life crowd, it is difficult to comprehend apparently.


I don't even know what you are trying to say here. You can do anything you want to do in this country, within reason. When you start doing things that have negative impacts on others, it is no longer just your business, it is everyone's business. Some of the "nanny-state" things that government does are ridiculous, but most have solid reasons that improve everyone's quality of life but sometimes impact your individual freedoms. That is the price to pay to live in a "civilized" society. Your apparent utopian world would be closer to anarchy and all but the "kings" would be much worse off.

To get this back on track, there are far more important issues to deal with than whether or not you can ride you bike into a wilderness area. As members of the mountain bike community, keeping access to lands we ride now, and increasing riding opportunities outside of wilderness, is far more important than trying to access lands that most of us wouldn't ride and often aren't rideable.


----------



## PretendGentleman (May 24, 2011)

huntermos said:


> There are no "kings" in the US.


While I totally agree with the frustration in your post....

come on, you know he's just confused about gender. He means queens, and no doubt, we've got a few queens here in 'merica, not that there's anything wrong with that.

btw only Snobs use the 'a' when pronouncing or writing the name of my land, duh.


----------



## pureslop (Jul 28, 2008)

The slippery slope argument is valid in my view. I wonder if Blurr, Axe, and a few others in this thread are shills for the OHV lobby? Blurr wrote:

" As for OHV, they have every right to that land as the rest of us, again, it is the PEOPLES LAND, not the kings."


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

pureslop said:


> The slippery slope argument is valid in my view. I wonder if Blurr, Axe, and a few others in this thread are shills for the OHV lobby? Blurr wrote:
> 
> " As for OHV, they have every right to that land as the rest of us, again, it is the PEOPLES LAND, not the kings."


Negative, Earthman...it is not a valid argument. OHV usage is already limited in other State and Federal lands, for easily demonstrable reasons.

PS. Why do people try to use logic when arguing with a Libertarian?


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

huntermos said:


> Hah! Please show us all where this "right" to do anything you want anywhere and anytime you want is enshrined. You, and anyone else, can visit wilderness anytime you want.


 Actually you have it backwards, in America it is the government which is to be limited and controlled, not the people, will their be some minor restrictions? Of course, however our forfathers revolted over very minor things compared with what is now a daily practice in America
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness



> Nice emotional outburst here Blurr. I guess I should try to "quit" as simply as I can (although I don't know exactly how to "quit" something complicatedly either). In case you don't get it, I'm mocking you and being sarcastic, which I assume does make me a "Snob" (thanks for capitalizing it, it makes us "Snobs" much more important) because I can spell, use punctuation correctly and formulate a reasonable and cognizant argument. I'm always curious how people read things that aren't there. Where did I mention "trails, roads and impending destruction (but now that you mention it, OHV use does cause magnitudes more damage than bikes, horses or feet)" or that I have an "activity that is more important than you?" Nowhere. So why are you yelling at me to "shut the hell up?" Oh, is it because I'm challenging your belief that you should be allowed to do what ever you want on "your" lands?


 ha ha I type over 90wpm and honestly do not care at all about my Grammar on a friggin forum, but people who generally lack an argument always revert to the grammar insults, funny and cute. 
You insinuated the destruction caused by OHVs, at least have the gonads to take a stand by your argument rather than to cower, it is the internet and you are safe on your computer.



> So am I to assume that most Americans don't have legs and thus can't access wilderness? I guess in your view, freedom means that you can do anything you want, irregardless of the negative impacts on others.


 The negative impact is that it restricts the majority of people from accessing it. Many people are disabled, my Father whom was an avid equestrian since childhood railed for wilderness area's and against OHVs, and I was always against wilderness area's as if I forsaw the future when he would become disabled and unable to enjoy area's which were being limited to a handful of roads, how ridiculous, it took him to that point to understand, as with so many others. Thus the importance in allowing access for all people whatever may be their choice. Many people who are healthy are unable to stay in a constant state of fitness to be able to access all but trailheads of a wilderness area, nor do they have the time.



> Let's take a look at your version of freedom in a similar context: Most ski areas in the West are on public lands, which I guess makes them "yours."


 Nope those are private I recognize the difference, shame you do not. 


> The U.S. Forest Service, which administers most of these lands, bars the public from using these lands in winter for anything but skiing, and snowboarding. "How dare they!" rages Blurr, "I want to ride my snowmobile there but those d*mn "kings" (the Feds and the ski area owners) are telling me I can't!" Blurr, arguing that most tax-paying Americans don't ski and thus are being denied their freedom to utilize "their" lands, successfully overturns the rules set up by the "kings" and now he, and his snowmobiling buddies get to race their sleds up and down the ski runs among those few skiing and snowboarding "Snobs" that dare to risk being run down and don't mind the constant scream of engines and smell of exhaust (yes Blurr, that is more sarcasm). Not the same you say? In this scenario, we've public lands, with restrictions set by the government, only accessible to less then 20% of the US population (skier/snowboarders total about 12 million in any given year). So, do you think that public lands designated as ski areas should be open to any activity you can dream up?


 The government should have little to no oversight on any public land, it is simply none of their business. As to public lands yes you should be able to snowmobile, ski, snowshoe, or whatever is your taste. I have enjoyed it all, and personally I prefer to snowshoe over the past decade. 
Maybe because I have enjoyed the great outdoors in all its great forms I am able to appreciate others who choose to now. For get this moron, WE ARE ALL DIFFERENT AND ALL CHOOSE TO ENJOY LIFE IN A DIFFERENT WAY. 
I love the rush of an engine, and I also life the quiet of a hike.



> There are no "kings" in the US.
> 
> I don't even know what you are trying to say here. You can do anything you want to do in this country, within reason. When you start doing things that have negative impacts on others, it is no longer just your business, it is everyone's business. Some of the "nanny-state" things that government does are ridiculous, but most have solid reasons that improve everyone's quality of life but sometimes impact your individual freedoms. That is the price to pay to live in a "civilized" society. Your apparent utopian world would be closer to anarchy and all but the "kings" would be much worse off.
> 
> To get this back on track, there are far more important issues to deal with than whether or not you can ride you bike into a wilderness area. As members of the mountain bike community, keeping access to lands we ride now, and increasing riding opportunities outside of wilderness, is far more important than trying to access lands that most of us wouldn't ride and often aren't rideable.


 BTW, prolly should have a better grasp of grammar yourself before you cast stones, back to the subject at hand...........
You live in a Totalitarian Nation, you really have little to no rights but you are not smart enough to understand that, instead you merely sit around and justify laws and the limits to your pathetic existence. but hey, at least you are still for the time being allowed limited access to the internet, how important and blessed are you for that:thumbsup:
Out snowshoeing in zero degree weather on a snowmobile trail. In a decade of snowshoeing care to guess how many times I have had to move off the trail for snowmobilers? In 15 years of snowmobiling before that care to guess how many people snowshoeing or cross country skiing I had to move over for? How many other snowmobilers? Answer, maybe one or two a year. In wilderness area's I have ran into other hikers/equestrians in my lifetime maybe 4 seperate times. how pathetic yet lets keep everyone bottlenecked up in a handful of area's.
Second photo is also another area frequented by snowmobilers, notice the massive destruction and terrified wildlife. Oh wait, no deer, nor elk, the snow is six feet deep, hmmm


----------



## huntermos (Mar 7, 2011)

richde said:


> PS. Why do people try to use logic when arguing with a Libertarian?


Probably because those of us not afflicted with self-centered, ego-centric world views still have some optimism and hope. Unfortunately, that makes almost, but not quite, as mentally damaged as the Libertarian/Tea Party types...


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

Why are people who believe in the constitution & limited government put down?


----------



## Guest (Jul 18, 2011)

> There are no "kings" in the US.


Burger King, there's thousands of them.


----------



## huntermos (Mar 7, 2011)

ronbo613 said:


> Burger King, there's thousands of them.


True, I'll concede the point!


----------



## Guest (Jul 19, 2011)

> True, I'll concede the point!


Just trying to lighten things up.

I live in a part of the country where a large expanse of public land was recently designated wilderness. Of course, that closed it for recreational use for many people, but a point that hasn't been addressed here is that local farmers and fruit growers use snowmelt water that runs down through the wilderness area to irrigate the agricultural land below the new wilderness area. Now, they are not allowed to have any pipelines, reservoirs, ponds or any man made means to collect the water, which means no water at all. Now these farmers are long time area residents and have no interest in destroying or harming the natural resources that provides them with what they need to produce food for all of us. Most of the water collection is with simple pipelines and small irrigation canals below(and not in) the wilderness area and are pretty much all gravity fed systems. Really no more environmental impact than a logging or forest service road. By collecting runoff, they are most likely preventing flooding and erosion.
This is an another one of those arguments that have polarized the community. What's the answer? Nobody use the land, certain people use or land, or intelligent management that allows as many people to use the land as possible while preserving the environment?


----------



## SilkMoneyLove (Nov 1, 2010)

Can you fight it? Yes.
Will you win? No.
The golden rule: He who has the gold rules. No one has more money than the US Government.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

Ronbo where R you and Could you post up some reading material please?


----------



## SilkMoneyLove (Nov 1, 2010)

Blurr - Great pics. What snowshoes do you have?


----------



## chuck80442 (Oct 4, 2009)

Blurr's tea party attitudes toward land management will ensure that bikes will NEVER be allowed in wilderness areas. His belief that any American in any vehicle should be allowed anywhere they want is the very reason wilderness areas exist, and prove that the "slippery slope" argument against allowing bikes in wilderness areas is actually a very good one. 

Wilderness areas are open to anyone willing to get off their fat asses and walk. Nothing exclusive about that.


----------



## huntermos (Mar 7, 2011)

Wow, not more than a little paranoid and overdramatic. I'm guessing that you think that we are all being gassed by "chemtrails" as well...

Blurr, if I'm an idiot, that makes you what? I know our history well, including the many taxes, tariffs and laws restricting, in some way or another, your personal freedoms that were passed and supported by the vaunted founding fathers, one of whom I am descended from. Your grasp of American history is along the lines of Palin and Bachmann, the later whom mistook John Quincy Adams as his father John Adams, an actual founding father, and refused to admit she was wrong and whose supporters tried to re-write history.

I guess in your world, your "pursuit of happiness" takes precedence over all others. What, I wonder, gave you such a chip on your shoulder? the Big Bad Gove'ment deny you some cool get rich scheme on public lands?



Blurr said:


> ha ha I type over 90wpm and honestly do not care at all about my Grammar on a friggin forum, but people who generally lack an argument always revert to the grammar insults, funny and cute.


Oh, your fast, that's a great excuse for being sloppy. I bet the ladies love your style.



Blurr said:


> You insinuated the destruction caused by OHVs, at least have the gonads to take a stand by your argument rather than to cower, it is the internet and you are safe on your computer.


No I did not, you made the assumption, incorrectly. I asked you a question, which you choose to ignore, about whether or not OHV's should be allowed to go anywhere they want to go. The question inferred that I don't think that they should go anywhere they want.



Blurr said:


> The negative impact is that it restricts the majority of people from accessing it. Many people are disabled, my Father whom was an avid equestrian since childhood railed for wilderness area's and against OHVs, and I was always against wilderness area's as if I forsaw the future when he would become disabled and unable to enjoy area's which were being limited to a handful of roads, how ridiculous, it took him to that point to understand, as with so many others. Thus the importance in allowing access for all people whatever may be their choice. Many people who are healthy are unable to stay in a constant state of fitness to be able to access all but trailheads of a wilderness area, nor do they have the time.


I'm disabled. I've a brand new titanium hip and messed up feet that preclude me from walking more than 3 or 4 miles. I can still ride a bike alright, but my days of long backpacking and climbing trips are long gone. As such, I can't access the wilderness I used to enjoy, unless I'm willing to ride a horse or ski in in the winter. That's fine with me, I have plenty of other places I can go that don't require so much walking and I'm happy to know that there are places without noisy, polluting and sometimes destructive machines, so don't use those of us that can't access every square inch of public lands as an excuse!
Maybe we should pave everything so that we can access everything on our hoverounds when we are too old to walk. It is ironic that you despise government so much for protecting you from toxins, drunk drivers, mad cow disease and all manner of other hazards and yet you think public lands and property should be a free for all where anything goes. From your comment about a "handful of roads" I will infer that you believe that most of the public land in the US is wilderness. In fact less than 5% of the entire landmass that makes up this nation is wilderness, and only 2.7% of that is in the lower 48 states. About 650 million acres, or 30% of the United States, is public land. There is about 109.5 million acres of wilderness in the US, with alaska accounting for 57% of that total, so just less than 17% of public lands is wilderness. Excluding Alaska, wilderness only makes up about 8% of public lands. Are you saying that people can't find a place to go that doesn't require walking?



Blurr said:


> Nope those are private I recognize the difference, shame you do not. The government should have little to no oversight on any public land, it is simply none of their business.


Let's see; I've worked in the ski industry for 20+ years. In fact, I work in it now. I even produced a film about it, but still, shame on me??? The vast majority of ski areas in the West are on public lands, mostly USFS but some on BLM. There are also some that operate on state or other public lands and many have bits of private land, mostly at the base and now covered in condos. In most cases. the infrastructure is owned by a corporation or an individual, but the land is leased from the government agency that oversees that area. Ski areas, and any commercial entity doing business on public lands for that matter, are required to apply for and receive a special use permit to do business on said public lands.

Maybe you should do some research on the "Tragedy of the Commons." You'll learn that your philosophy towards public lands has been used before, in fact it's been used for the entire span of human history and has, almost without exception, resulted in ecological, economic and social disaster. Sorry to see that the "me first and foremost" mentality that champions these attitudes hasn't faded into the dustbin of history yet.



Blurr said:


> As to public lands yes you should be able to snowmobile, ski, snowshoe, or whatever is your taste. I have enjoyed it all, and personally I prefer to snowshoe over the past decade.
> Maybe because I have enjoyed the great outdoors in all its great forms I am able to appreciate others who choose to now. For get this moron, WE ARE ALL DIFFERENT AND ALL CHOOSE TO ENJOY LIFE IN A DIFFERENT WAY.


I love the name calling, the last refuge of those that can't articulate their arguments. Guess what, you're not alone in enjoying public lands, but you can't just go out and enjoy them as you see fit. It's a noble sentiment, but unless you are living on your own little island, you will have some impacts on others around you and some of these will be more than mere nuisances. I'll make an assumption that you feel they same way about private lands. If that's the case, if I lived next door and decided to turn my property into a 24 hour open pit gravel mine that would be ok with you? Of course open pit mines create a lot of noise, and dust, they alter the water table and they require the use of lots of heavy trucks on your road. So, you now you live with the din of machines and trucks, your well dries up or is contaminated, everything in your house in covered in dust, your kids are constantly in danger of getting run down by gravel trucks, the road is destroyed by these same trucks (and you have to pay more to your private road owners association, since of course, the government shouldn't own your road) and the re-sale value of your home has been halved, but hey, who are you to tell someone what to do with their land? Still don't get it? You want anarchy in the guise of Libertarianism (or whatever your "ism" is) and the results will be bad for everyone but the wealthiest; those awful "kings" you keep mentioning...



Blurr said:


> BTW, prolly should have a better grasp of grammar yourself before you cast stones, back to the subject at hand...........
> You live in a Totalitarian Nation, you really have little to no rights but you are not smart enough to understand that, instead you merely sit around and justify laws and the limits to your pathetic existence. but hey, at least you are still for the time being allowed limited access to the internet, how important and blessed are you for that:thumbsup:
> Out snowshoeing in zero degree weather on a snowmobile trail. In a decade of snowshoeing care to guess how many times I have had to move off the trail for snowmobilers? In 15 years of snowmobiling before that care to guess how many people snowshoeing or cross country skiing I had to move over for? How many other snowmobilers? Answer, maybe one or two a year. In wilderness area's I have ran into other hikers/equestrians in my lifetime maybe 4 seperate times. how pathetic yet lets keep everyone bottlenecked up in a handful of area's.
> Second photo is also another area frequented by snowmobilers, notice the massive destruction and terrified wildlife. Oh wait, no deer, nor elk, the snow is six feet deep, hmmm


I guess you can find some areas to get into after all. You said before that all these people, your dad included, can't get into places like this. If you can find these places, than how come no one else can? How are people "bottled up" when wilderness is less than 10% of public lands and you find places like this all time? Maybe you don't spend much time up there though, since you would know that large ungulates move to winter habitat with lighter snowpacks. I guess you are not aware that other species live in these areas too, and that heavy compaction from sleds, skiers, and snowshoes can alter feeding, movement and mating patterns. No, I'd guess you don't since if you don't see it, is didn't happen, right?

And if this is a totalitarian nation, what is North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia? Hyperbole at its finest, the hallmark of conspiracy theorists and the Tea Party faithful.



Blurr said:


> at least have the gonads to take a stand by your argument rather than to cower, it is the internet and you are safe on your computer.


You could find out exactly who I am within 10 minutes of looking at my posts. My real name is even in screen name, but in defense of my balls (which I'm fond of), my name is Hunter Sykes and you can find out plenty about me with good 'ole Google. Step up there Blurr, stop hiding behind anonymity of the interwebs. Show us your life.

BTW, whose life is more pathetic anyway? I took an oath to defend the Constitution and enlisted right out of high school; I do my best to insure that future generations have access to as much or more clean water, air, food and leisure opportunities then we do today, I give my time and sometimes my money to help others, I've spent most of my life teaching others about the world around them and how we are all interconnected and I've have some amazing experiences all over the world to shape who I am. I'm willing to bet that most of the MTBR community is just as, if not more, giving and empathetic to others than I am. I'd hope you are as well and not, like some others I've met over the years, enjoying the benefits of society while simultaneously spewing hatred and vitriol at those of us that work for a better world. There are almost 7 billion people on this planet, which is about 5 billion more than there was 100 years ago. The days of the empty wild-west of popular imagination is long over. Maybe it's time you realized that.

As I'm off to ride in Italy for the next week, I hope this ends this thread hijack.


----------



## chuck80442 (Oct 4, 2009)

Blurr said:


> Why are people who believe in the constitution & limited government put down?


It's because your beliefs are overly simplistic, and leave no room for nuance or even reality. It reminds me of my three year old daughter, who can only see things from her perspective. You see land management as evil, therefore you are incapable of rational discussion, end of story.

And as far as OHV's go, leave your lightly populated state and come on down to New Mexico, Utah, or Arizona and see what kind of damage they can do. Every mountain biker around here hates them because they turn buff single track into a rutted out disaster, not to mention the damage they do to streams, wetlands, and fragile desert soils. Your argument that anyone should be allowed anywhere they feel like, anytime they want, on any vehicle, is pathetically childlike, and won't win us a single mile of wilderness single track.


----------



## huntermos (Mar 7, 2011)

ronbo613 said:


> Just trying to lighten things up.
> 
> I live in a part of the country where a large expanse of public land was recently designated wilderness. Of course, that closed it for recreational use for many people, but a point that hasn't been addressed here is that local farmers and fruit growers use snowmelt water that runs down through the wilderness area to irrigate the agricultural land below the new wilderness area. Now, they are not allowed to have any pipelines, reservoirs, ponds or any man made means to collect the water, which means no water at all. Now these farmers are long time area residents and have no interest in destroying or harming the natural resources that provides them with what they need to produce food for all of us. Most of the water collection is with simple pipelines and small irrigation canals below(and not in) the wilderness area and are pretty much all gravity fed systems. Really no more environmental impact than a logging or forest service road. By collecting runoff, they are most likely preventing flooding and erosion.
> This is an another one of those arguments that have polarized the community. What's the answer? Nobody use the land, certain people use or land, or intelligent management that allows as many people to use the land as possible while preserving the environment?


This is exactly why we need to find a better administrative method to protect wild lands from from being designated as wilderness. This is an issue not just for water, but for fire safety, recreation (bikes being but one) and light economic activities. Some areas may be deserving of wilderness designation, but most of the areas that truly have wilderness character, at least outside of Alaska, have already been so designated. The focus should be on keeping bike-accessible areas accessible and creating a new designation that protects these lands from development and extractive industry, but allows some uses banned by the Wilderness Act. On thing to keep in mind on this particular case is that wilderness areas are often areas that serve as catchment basins for water. You build roads, you silt up the streams -a leading cause for much flood damage to property- and fragment habitat. You cut trees you increase siltation and reduce the capacity of the soil to retain water. Flooding is really rare in most unaltered montane forests -with the exception of thunderstorm flash floods which are statistically very rare in any one place- and flooding actually is much more likely the more one alters the catchment basin. Finding that optimum point of benefits for all is the challenge.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

:thumbsup:


huntermos said:


> Wow, not more than a little paranoid and overdramatic. I'm guessing that you think that we are all being gassed by "chemtrails" as well...


Should I start with the Most famous and well documented and the experiments done on the Tuskeegee servicemen in 1932? Pellegra Incident?
How about the Plutonium Experiments on car accident Victims ?
the 1953 Gassing of New york and san fracisco with Serratia marcescens and Bacillus glogigii?

Project MK Ultra? How about we merely fast forward to Gulf War Syndrom? The Current Arms dealings to Mexican drug Cartels?

As an educated individual I am fully aware of what the government has done in the past as well as suspected in the present, of course we will not know currently what is being done to us until decades down the road. 


> Blurr, if I'm an idiot, that makes you what? I know our history well, including the many taxes, tariffs and laws restricting, in some way or another, your personal freedoms that were passed and supported by the vaunted founding fathers, one of whom I am descended from. Your grasp of American history is along the lines of Palin and Bachmann, the later whom mistook John Quincy Adams as his father John Adams, an actual founding father, and refused to admit she was wrong and whose supporters tried to re-write history.


 Meanwhile you voted for a president who thought we had what 58 states? Carbon Credits ? BWAA haaa polute all you want as long as you pay off someone, god you have to love it. Hey long as we are at it, didnt someone bring up farm subsidies earlier and the tea party? Interesting that the biggest reciepient of subsidies would be those producint ethenol. which incidently also helped cause a drought, you do know why dont you? I mean, being so smart and all?



> I guess in your world, your "pursuit of happiness" takes precedence over all others. What, I wonder, gave you such a chip on your shoulder? the Big Bad Gove'ment deny you some cool get rich scheme on public lands?


 Understanding history, visiting eastern Europe and Russia and seeing first hand the result of communism. Visiting various area's where attrocoties were perpetuated against the Native Americans, Being a buisnessman for nearly two decades and dealing with ignorant laws which serve to do nothing but fill coffers and infringe development, but hey, IM sure you will come back with the evil businessman argument, the ridiculous left loves that one.



> Oh, your fast, that's a great excuse for being sloppy. I bet the ladies love your style.


 Your boyfriend did, so did your wife before.



> No I did not, you made the assumption, incorrectly. I asked you a question, which you choose to ignore, about whether or not OHV's should be allowed to go anywhere they want to go. The question inferred that I don't think that they should go anywhere they want.


 Having access and going anywhere are two different things, you aught to learn the difference between the two.



> I'm disabled. I've a brand new titanium hip and messed up feet that preclude me from walking more than 3 or 4 miles. I can still ride a bike alright, but my days of long backpacking and climbing trips are long gone. As such, I can't access the wilderness I used to enjoy, unless I'm willing to ride a horse or ski in in the winter.


 lol thats disabled? BWAA HAAAAAAA get a fat check from uncle sammy to do ya?



> That's fine with me, I have plenty of other places I can go that don't require so much walking and I'm happy to know that there are places without noisy, polluting and sometimes destructive machines, so don't use those of us that can't access every square inch of public lands as an excuse!


 Nah again, you just fail to understand the meaning of Public Land, you are a subject, I am a citizen.



> Maybe we should pave everything so that we can access everything on our hoverounds when we are too old to walk. It is ironic that you despise government so much for protecting you from toxins, drunk drivers, mad cow disease and all manner of other hazards and yet you think public lands and property should be a free for all where anything goes.


 You mean where the government protects us from a borderline crazy out of control medical enterprise which is responsible for hte deaths of 180,000 people in America alone each year? Care to guess the results of pestisides on citizens? Hey btw, my bro in law died from exposure working for the Government, as well as other family members sickened, yea, the govenrment saves all, and you wonder why I think your so damn well, I dont need to say, you already know 



> From your comment about a "handful of roads" I will infer that you believe that most of the public land in the US is wilderness. In fact less than 5% of the entire landmass that makes up this nation is wilderness, and only 2.7% of that is in the lower 48 states. About 650 million acres, or 30% of the United States, is public land. There is about 109.5 million acres of wilderness in the US, with alaska accounting for 57% of that total, so just less than 17% of public lands is wilderness. Excluding Alaska, wilderness only makes up about 8% of public lands. Are you saying that people can't find a place to go that doesn't require walking?


 Yes I am considering as a contractor I have worked on many of those "handful" of roads within Montana, including wasting your tax dollars building and repairing roads only to destroy them when I am finished, tax dollars at work doncha know.



> Let's see; I've worked in the ski industry for 20+ years. In fact, I work in it now. I even produced a film about it, but still, shame on me??? The vast majority of ski areas in the West are on public lands, mostly USFS but some on BLM. There are also some that operate on state or other public lands and many have bits of private land, mostly at the base and now covered in condos. In most cases. the infrastructure is owned by a corporation or an individual, but the land is leased from the government agency that oversees that area. Ski areas, and any commercial entity doing business on public lands for that matter, are required to apply for and receive a special use permit to do business on said public lands.


 I dont care if yo uare a gay pornstar you still have zero understanding of the concept wich is The United States of America.



> Maybe you should do some research on the "Tragedy of the Commons." You'll learn that your philosophy towards public lands has been used before, in fact it's been used for the entire span of human history and has, almost without exception, resulted in ecological, economic and social disaster. Sorry to see that the "me first and foremost" mentality that champions these attitudes hasn't faded into the dustbin of history yet.


 False you failed miserably again at your own argument by going straight to the "TOTAL DESTRUCTION OF EVERYTHING" rather than understanding user access. jesus son, did you really graduate high school? Probably, most people can repeat mindless blither, few can comprehend it though.



> I love the name calling, the last refuge of those that can't articulate their arguments.


 lol you run freely with insults, but hey, first amendment, I know your offended, and I sincerely hope you are, I am offended that you would try to take away land from the people of America.


> Guess what, you're not alone in enjoying public lands, but you can't just go out and enjoy them as you see fit. It's a noble sentiment, but unless you are living on your own little island, you will have some impacts on others around you and some of these will be more than mere nuisances. I'll make an assumption that you feel they same way about private lands.


 Fail on your part again, woudl you like me to go over why again or is it fruitless at this point?



> If that's the case, if I lived next door and decided to turn my property into a 24 hour open pit gravel mine that would be ok with you? Of course open pit mines create a lot of noise, and dust, they alter the water table and they require the use of lots of heavy trucks on your road. So, you now you live with the din of machines and trucks, your well dries up or is contaminated, everything in your house in covered in dust, your kids are constantly in danger of getting run down by gravel trucks, the road is destroyed by these same trucks (and you have to pay more to your private road owners association, since of course, the government shouldn't own your road) and the re-sale value of your home has been halved, but hey, who are you to tell someone what to do with their land? Still don't get it? You want anarchy in the guise of Libertarianism (or whatever your "ism" is) and the results will be bad for everyone but the wealthiest; those awful "kings" you keep mentioning...


 oh ****ing brother this is where there is zoning, however I am fully in support of individual property rights, again, build a big pecker as your house to symbolize your love of other men for all I care, cause really I do not. Now if you start dumping your aids infected **** over the fence then we have a problem, not to hard to understand is it mr dramatic?



> I guess you can find some areas to get into after all. You said before that all these people, your dad included, can't get into places like this. If you can find these places, than how come no one else can? How are people "bottled up" when wilderness is less than 10% of public lands and you find places like this all time? Maybe you don't spend much time up there though, since you would know that large ungulates move to winter habitat with lighter snowpacks. I guess you are not aware that other species live in these areas too, and that heavy compaction from sleds, skiers, and snowshoes can alter feeding, movement and mating patterns. No, I'd guess you don't since if you don't see it, is didn't happen, right?


 NO I no longer spend much time in the wilderness area which is less than four miles from my home as I am not interested in Riding horses any longer, and have not been for 20 years now. I no longer care to backpack as I enjoy effecient modes of transportation, cycling is far, far more effecient than hiking, so on and so forth. But again, after spending years and years in the back country, I have seen the true result of the wilderness area's, little to no good on any level, again, I posted up why with animals and fires and all feel free to review my posts and actually educate yourself, Im not holding my breath but hoping.



> And if this is a totalitarian nation, what is North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia? Hyperbole at its finest, the hallmark of conspiracy theorists and the Tea Party faithful.


 yes when every keystroke of your keyboard is monitored by uncle sammy, when you are not allowed to 'question authority" when you are so restricted you litterally are guilty of a crime every day you are not living in freedom in any way shape or form, it is called education, reality, and being aware of what is going on, feel free to give it a shot. you wont, why? cause you like it, because you do not understand personal responsiblity on any level. In your mind, the govenrment is needed to save you from invisible Evils.



> You could find out exactly who I am within 10 minutes of looking at my posts. My real name is even in screen name, but in defense of my balls (which I'm fond of), my name is Hunter Sykes and you can find out plenty about me with good 'ole Google. Step up there Blurr, stop hiding behind anonymity of the interwebs. Show us your life.


 I dont care of you were Obama, Dick Cheney, or Chesty, your name, who you are, and what importance you seem to think you ahve in the world is meaningless to me :thumbsup:



> BTW, whose life is more pathetic anyway? I took an oath to defend the Constitution and enlisted right out of high school;


 Good since you swore an oath to something then ya aught to read it first, have at it.[/quote]http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html



> I do my best to insure that future generations have access to as much or more clean water, air, food and leisure opportunities then we do today, I give my time and sometimes my money to help others, I've spent most of my life teaching others about the world around them and how we are all interconnected and I've have some amazing experiences all over the world to shape who I am. I'm willing to bet that most of the MTBR community is just as, if not more, giving and empathetic to others than I am. I'd hope you are as well and not, like some others I've met over the years, enjoying the benefits of society while simultaneously spewing hatred and vitriol at those of us that work for a better world. There are almost 7 billion people on this planet, which is about 5 billion more than there was 100 years ago. The days of the empty wild-west of popular imagination is long over. Maybe it's time you realized that.


 again, service is meaningless, I truly hope you do care about people but I doubt it as I feel it is probably very misguided. 
as to the wild west its where I live and it never was how hollywood put forth.



> As I'm off to ride in Italy for the next week, I hope this ends this thread hijack.


Have fun, would this be on our tax dollars by chance?


----------



## BumpityBump (Mar 9, 2008)

ronbo613 said:


> Just trying to lighten things up.
> 
> I live in a part of the country where a large expanse of public land was recently designated wilderness. Of course, that closed it for recreational use for many people, but a point that hasn't been addressed here is that local farmers and fruit growers use snowmelt water that runs down through the wilderness area to irrigate the agricultural land below the new wilderness area. Now, they are not allowed to have any pipelines, reservoirs, ponds or any man made means to collect the water, which means no water at all. Now these farmers are long time area residents and have no interest in destroying or harming the natural resources that provides them with what they need to produce food for all of us. Most of the water collection is with simple pipelines and small irrigation canals below(and not in) the wilderness area and are pretty much all gravity fed systems. Really no more environmental impact than a logging or forest service road. By collecting runoff, they are most likely preventing flooding and erosion.
> This is an another one of those arguments that have polarized the community. What's the answer? Nobody use the land, certain people use or land, or intelligent management that allows as many people to use the land as possible while preserving the environment?


What is the regulatory driver dictating they cannot collect runoff from wilderness? Something doesn't sound right here and I am curious. Are these existing water conveyance and storage features or are they talking about new structures?


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

SilkMoneyLove said:


> Can you fight it? Yes.
> Will you win? No.
> The golden rule: He who has the gold rules. No one has more money than the US Government.


Wrong.

Wilderness laws were created to keep some parts of our country wild. Go visit Europe and then you'll see how important and unique (among developed countries) our vast undeveloped areas truly are. There's a reason why so many foreign visitors come to our national parks, it's because there's nothing like it where they live.

The Government is us. Just because you (or a relatively small group) feel a certain way, it doesn't mean that the other 300+ million people have to agree or that we live in a totalitarian regime because you don't get your way. It means that you have to act like an adult and play by the same rules that everybody else plays by, that's how societies survive.

The problem lies in that mountain bikers are a smaller, less vocal and less organized group than "the hikers." Nothing more, nothing less. If the situation were reversed, revising the Wilderness Act would be possible. Acting childish is not the way to convince adults that you're right. Until we do a combination of not collectively acting like assclowns and actually organizing, nothing will happen.

It's not "your" land, nor is it "their" land, it's "our" land. It's a shared resource that has rules governing it's usage to preserve it.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

richde said:


> Wrong.
> 
> Wilderness laws were created to keep some parts of our country wild. Go visit Europe and then you'll see how important and unique (among developed countries) our vast undeveloped areas truly are. There's a reason why so many foreign visitors come to our national parks, it's because there's nothing like it where they live.
> 
> ...


Again, nobody is talking about destroying the land, they are talking about using the land which is not being allowed, I strongly suggest you people actually visit a wilderness area and see how trashy it is do to little to no human influence, which btw, is not Natural, tree huggers hate that, but fact is, humans are part of the eco system.

A picture from Warren Peak in the Pintler Wilderness area since I know most of ya have never spent a single day in em.


----------



## robinlikethebird (Sep 16, 2009)

I vote for us to stay out of the wilderness! there are plenty of trails out there for use to enjoy. And i am pretty sure that there has not even been that much wilderness made in the last ten plus years any way. 

I wonder what would happen if we put all this energy towards, not letting new strip malls and PAvement from being put down. Lets put our trails in those areas instead and leave the wild for the wolf, cougars and bears. Instead of fighting wilderness we should be fighting walmart, target, safeway, car dealerships and all that ********. then we will be able to ride right from our god dam tiny boxes to our fav. trails.
just my two cents. 

**** if you want to ride wilderness move to Mongolia!


----------



## robinlikethebird (Sep 16, 2009)

*an echo of Ed and Aldo*

I vote for us to stay out of the wilderness! there are plenty of trails out there for use to enjoy. And i am pretty sure that there has not even been that much wilderness made in the last ten plus years any way.

I wonder what would happen if we put all this energy towards, not letting new strip malls and PAvement from being put down. Lets put our trails in those areas instead and leave the wild for the wolf, cougars and bears. Instead of fighting wilderness we should be fighting walmart, target, safeway, car dealerships and all that ********. then we will be able to ride right from our god dam tiny boxes to our fav. trails.
just my two cents.

**** if you want to ride wilderness move to Mongolia!


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

robinlikethebird said:


> Lets put our trails in those areas instead and leave the wild for the wolf, cougars and bears.


Why? What is so much better and more important about cougars and bears that we should not come there for a visit?

Local mountain lions do not seem to care about a few cyclists rolling by. It is insane to give up the best areas of this planet that we can enjoy visiting for no good reason whatsoever. People belong to this planet, no matter what anti-human extremists tell you. We sure can enjoy it responsibly, if we try.

As far as other things to fight about - sure, there are plenty of more important things in this life. Does not mean we should forget about everything else.


----------



## robinlikethebird (Sep 16, 2009)

*the importance of cougars*

The cougs and bears are what make the wild!! I urge any one who is reading this to read Aldo Leapolds short " thinking like a mountain" and while you are at it read the whole book A sand county almanac

It is not that there are other things for us to fight about, it is there would be more places for us to ride, and more wild for the bears, and wolfs if we did not have our sprawl (Walmart, stipmall, Etc... and yes we do belong to this planet, but that does not mean that every thing we do is good for this planet..


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

robinlikethebird said:


> The cougs and bears are what make the wild!!


Right. So are rocks, grass, worms and me rolling on my bike. All existing in peaceful harmony, just how the nature intended.

We have no idea what is "good" for the planet as a whole. Planet got flooded over and froze over many times over its history. It will swallow us whole and spit us out without as much as a burp. Putting a speck of a bike trail in the same sentence with the fate of the planet is mildly inane - many, many orders of magnitude difference. Yes, we are better off without polluting and paving over our land - but the key here it is *us* who are better off from keeping *our* house in good order. Not some mysterious forces of nature.


----------



## huntermos (Mar 7, 2011)

Blurr, you have nothing positive to add to the human race or the United States. Being that we live in a free country, despite your belief that we live in a "totalitarian state," you are entitled to be a waste of breath that does nothing but make life more miserable for those around you with your disdain and venom. Your America is one of hate, violence and exclusion with you as a "king'' doing what you want without regard to others, none of which is what the Founding Fathers had in mind 235 years ago. Your numerous insults to me are ridiculous and laughable, but as for your sneering, boastful comment about my wife, those are fighting words. You owe her an apology if you dare to make yourself known, but you've already declined to do so, so I won't hold my breath. You don't know her and she has nothing to do with this subject or thread and your comment just goes to show what a poor excuse of a man you are.

You love sweeping generalizations without merit, evidence or foundation so you should appreciate my final words to you: I'll leave you to your bunker to count your ammo, spewing hatred from behind the cloak of the internet (against the "Lefty's," "Libs," "gays" and anyone else that doesn't share your narrow, intolerant views) while hatching ever more outlandish conspiracy theories, fretting about the evil government that's out to get you, keeping an eye out for the black helicopters of the NWO and preparing for your own personal Ruby Ridge all the while taking government money to build, and destroy, roads on public lands (you've probably earned far more than I ever did from the public teat). Don't forget to wear your tin hat, you don't want the "kings" to brain-wash you!

You'll be easy to ignore.


----------



## abegold (Jan 30, 2004)

Only 2 ways we'll ever get to ride in a wilderness legally. 1: a ton of US run for congress. 2: Go to Canada where bikes can ride in many National parks and wilderness areas.
I do support public lands being designated NOT wilderness, the only fight we can presently win.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

robinlikethebird said:


> The cougs and bears are what make the wild!! I urge any one who is reading this to read Aldo Leapolds short " thinking like a mountain" and while you are at it read the whole book A sand county almanac
> 
> It is not that there are other things for us to fight about, it is there would be more places for us to ride, and more wild for the bears, and wolfs if we did not have our sprawl (Walmart, stipmall, Etc... and yes we do belong to this planet, but that does not mean that every thing we do is good for this planet..


You obviously don't live in a place that is overun with bears and cougars like it is here, nowhere near any wilderness area I might add. Looks like wolves may be moving in too due to recent wildfire activity. Like others who reply here, you are making assumptions that don't match reality. Cougars and bears are doing just fine poaching your urban sprawl. Watch out, one might get you... or more likely your pet.


----------



## SilkMoneyLove (Nov 1, 2010)

*Not wrong...*



> Wrong.


Richde - I agree with some of what you stated (for change to take place there must be an organized movement large enough to support that change), however, nothing you stated proved my statements wrong. I think you are confusing me with someone else.

Right now, MTN biking is not large enough to make that change, so my statements remain true. Yes you can fight, but No, you won't win. The government has endless resources, the MTN bike community that wants to make this change does not.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

huntermos said:


> Blurr, you have nothing positive to add to the human race or the United States. Being that we live in a free country, despite your belief that we live in a "totalitarian state," you are entitled to be a waste of breath that does nothing but make life more miserable for those around you with your disdain and venom.


 Really so what is freedom, the ability to vote for two people one from eather party? Which incidently is the least amount of Candidates in any other western country. The same two who are controlled by big money, is that freedom?


> Your America is one of hate, violence and exclusion with you as a "king'' doing what you want without regard to others, none of which is what the Founding Fathers had in mind 235 years ago.


 Do you realize that the majority of founding fathers all died within a year of signing the constitution?


> Your numerous insults to me are ridiculous and laughable, but as for your sneering, boastful comment about my wife, those are fighting words. You owe her an apology if you dare to make yourself known, but you've already declined to do so, so I won't hold my breath. You don't know her and she has nothing to do with this subject or thread and your comment just goes to show what a poor excuse of a man you are.


 lol yer all upset over the interweb? But since your massive keyboard power is so incredible I will keep insults of your wife out, (that I didnt know you actually had) even though you started on the insulting :nono:



> You love sweeping generalizations without merit, evidence or foundation so you should appreciate my final words to you: I'll leave you to your bunker to count your ammo, spewing hatred from behind the cloak of the internet (against the "Lefty's," "Libs," "gays" and anyone else that doesn't share your narrow, intolerant views) while hatching ever more outlandish conspiracy theories, fretting about the evil government that's out to get you, keeping an eye out for the black helicopters of the NWO and preparing for your own personal Ruby Ridge all the while taking government money to build, and destroy, roads on public lands (you've probably earned far more than I ever did from the public teat). Don't forget to wear your tin hat, you don't want the "kings" to brain-wash you!
> 
> You'll be easy to ignore.


Cool, if facts bother you then yes, I should be on ignore.


----------



## allenfstar (Jul 7, 2011)

im sure this has been stated in the other 84 pages of this thread but the OP simply wanted to know if they should try to fight their citation. to the OP i say go for it. what do you have to lose? to everyone else stop complaining and start riding


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

chuck80442 said:


> It's because your beliefs are overly simplistic, and leave no room for nuance or even reality. It reminds me of my three year old daughter, who can only see things from her perspective. You see land management as evil, therefore you are incapable of rational discussion, end of story.


 Overly simplistic views? You mean following the constitution? yea, very simple guideline we aught to be able to follow, the horror of giving people in America actual rights and limiting government b We really are not arguing over access to public land, your rights really are not violated going through airport security? Get a clue pal.



> And as far as OHV's go, leave your lightly populated state and come on down to New Mexico, Utah, or Arizona and see what kind of damage they can do. Every mountain biker around here hates them because they turn buff single track into a rutted out disaster, not to mention the damage they do to streams, wetlands, and fragile desert soils. Your argument that anyone should be allowed anywhere they feel like, anytime they want, on any vehicle, is pathetically childlike, and won't win us a single mile of wilderness single track.


Gee this born and raised Montanan has lived in Europe and most of the West Coast, there will always be small area's where riders have destroyed area's, but over all its minuscule to the over all picture and again, nobody is saying people can ride anywhere off trails they want, we are merely saying people deserve access to land, give them access and more realistic area's to play, and you will have less problems. As it is, and as is apparent even mtn biking, people like to test themselves, and that cannot be done on a simple well groomed trail. BTW, out many sports I have participated in, Cyclists are about as snobby and self important as they get, tied with cross country skiers, IM not surprised to hear about belly aching in your area at all.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

robinlikethebird said:


> The cougs and bears are what make the wild!! I urge any one who is reading this to read Aldo Leapolds short " thinking like a mountain" and while you are at it read the whole book A sand county almanac
> 
> It is not that there are other things for us to fight about, it is there would be more places for us to ride, and more wild for the bears, and wolfs if we did not have our sprawl (Walmart, stipmall, Etc... and yes we do belong to this planet, but that does not mean that every thing we do is good for this planet..


Bears and cougars are hunted in order to let your little rover run freely in the yard, as well as your daughter to frolic out and about. Without managing nature you again become the prey. 
Now with that said with properly managed populations and the fear of man you are able to ride your bike freely with almost no chance of being attacked and being a dinner Bell.


----------



## allenfstar (Jul 7, 2011)

Blurr said:


> BTW, out many sports I have participated in, Cyclists are about as snobby and self important as they get, tied with cross country skiers, IM not surprised to hear about belly aching in your area at all.


if that isnt the pot calling the kettle black


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

allenfstar said:


> if that isnt the pot calling the kettle black


Im not snobby, a jerk yes, snobby no


----------



## allenfstar (Jul 7, 2011)

Blurr said:


> Im not snobby, a jerk yes, snobby no


you sit here bashing and bad mouthing everyone who is not you or does not agree with you by definition you are an elitist snob

with that said there is 25 miles of posted single track calling my name :devil:


----------



## playpunk (Apr 1, 2005)

Blurr said:


> Im not snobby, a jerk yes, snobby no


You're waaaaay to stupid to be snobby. If you were a snob, or capable of sophisticated thinking, you could appreciate the arguments that hunter makes. Or rebut those arguments. Or argue, at all, instead of setting up straw men and throwing out non-sequitors. You aren't capable of anything other than assertions.

If I were to sum up your posts it would be as follows: "ON NOESSSSS. THE GOVERMNNEMTNS IS SOOOO BADDDSSSS. THEY ARE THE BAD ONES LET ME DO WHAT I WANT I WANT TO DO WHAT I WANT WHEREVER I WANT TO DO IT BLAH BLAH BLAH."

This thread was useful until it got all Blurr'ed. Now it's a big pile of glenn beck poop.


----------



## allenfstar (Jul 7, 2011)

well put


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

> you sit here bashing and bad mouthing everyone who is not you or does not agree with you by definition you are an elitist snob
> 
> with that said there is 25 miles of posted single track calling my name


Yea IM a snob when I am sitting here railing for the rights of thsoe I do not even know, in acitvities I no longer participate in, what an Evil person I am.

Have fun on your ride, just got back from a quick morning loop myself, felt better, and makes it a little easier to deal with the bunny huggers.



playpunk said:


> You're waaaaay to stupid to be snobby. If you were a snob, or capable of sophisticated thinking, you could appreciate the arguments that hunter makes. Or rebut those arguments. Or argue, at all, instead of setting up straw men and throwing out non-sequitors. You aren't capable of anything other than assertions.
> 
> If I were to sum up your posts it would be as follows: "ON NOESSSSS. THE GOVERMNNEMTNS IS SOOOO BADDDSSSS. THEY ARE THE BAD ONES LET ME DO WHAT I WANT I WANT TO DO WHAT I WANT WHEREVER I WANT TO DO IT BLAH BLAH BLAH."
> 
> This thread was useful until it got all Blurr'ed. Now it's a big pile of glenn beck poop.


So we really are not arguing about if we can access our own land in a reasonable fashion or not, Amazing I must be dreaming in this land of the free.

Oh btw, I expect little from Democrats in the form of rational thinking, and thus far, that is about what I have recieved in this discussion, nothing.

Edit: actually I have gotten the usual from democrats "man is incapable of any kind of thought or direction on his own unless the government is there to make the decisions for him"

But, isnt the government made up of people?


----------



## allenfstar (Jul 7, 2011)

blurr said:


> yea im a snob when i am sitting here railing for the rights of thsoe i do not even know, in acitvities i no longer participate in, what an evil person i am.
> 
> Have fun on your ride, just got back from a quick morning loop myself, felt better, and makes it a little easier to deal with the bunny huggers.
> 
> ...


ARE YOU HIGH!?!?!?!?!?!
there has been plenty of rational thinking and discussion! its just not coming from you


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

allenfstar said:


> ARE YOU HIGH!?!?!?!?!?!
> there has been plenty of rational thinking and discussion! its just not coming from you


No but I fully support your right to get high. So do you actually have something to contribute or are you simply going to act as a child with snyde comments?

Fact, there is no rational discussion against allowing bicycles and reasonable access into wilderness area's. The argument against is IF WE ALLOW TRAFFIC THE LAND WILL BE DESTROYED!!!!! We know that simply is not true on any level, yet the left continues to perpetuate this absured myth bucking reality. And the really crazy part is it is continually perpetuated by people who have yet to actually set foot or spend any significant amount of time in a wilderness area, go figure.


----------



## allenfstar (Jul 7, 2011)

Blurr said:


> No but I fully support your right to get high. So do you actually have something to contribute or are you simply going to act as a child with snyde comments?


go back and re-read my previous post in this thread im only sticking my nose back into this because people that think everyone who does not share their *OPINION* is wrong irritate me to no end as i see it both sides of the most recent post in this thread are wrong and until a balance can be struck which will not harm our forests, hills, fields, wherever it is you like spending your time this whole thing is equivalent to :madman:

so i say you wanna ride wilderness areas GO FOR IT! you risk a $100 fine. BIG DEAL! thats like paying for two days of lift access

its just another risk you can associate with riding, plan your budget accordingly


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

Oh yea, and yes I do actually support making truly handicap accessable trails into 'wilderness area's for disabled people, if that means paving a trail for a hoverround, then so be it, those that have worked and paid taxes their entire lives should NOT be eliminated from enjoying the land they have paid for.


----------



## allenfstar (Jul 7, 2011)

Blurr said:


> Fact, there is no rational discussion against allowing bicycles and reasonable access into wilderness area's. The argument against is IF WE ALLOW TRAFFIC THE LAND WILL BE DESTROYED!!!!! We know that simply is not true on any level, yet the left continues to perpetuate this absured myth bucking reality. And the really crazy part is it is continually perpetuated by people who have yet to actually set foot or spend any significant amount of time in a wilderness area, go figure.


SERIOUSLY! i would love to see you build a road with out first destroying the land your building on


----------



## allenfstar (Jul 7, 2011)

Blurr said:


> Oh yea, and yes I do actually support making truly handicap accessable trails into 'wilderness area's for disabled people, if that means paving a trail for a hoverround, then so be it, those that have worked and paid taxes their entire lives should NOT be eliminated from enjoying the land they have paid for.


WE DONT OWN THE LAND @$$ HOLE it was here long before us and will be here long after and i'd like my grand children and great grand children to be able to see and enjoy the beauty that we get to see and enjoy


----------



## PretendGentleman (May 24, 2011)

Blurr said:


> So we really are not arguing about if we can access our own land in a reasonable fashion or not, Amazing I must be dreaming in this land of the free.
> 
> Oh btw, I expect little from Democrats in the form of rational thinking, and thus far, that is about what I have recieved in this discussion, nothing.
> 
> ...


I tend to vote democrat, as I think environmental issues trump of all of the contemporary concerns such as abortion, gun control, tax rates, health care, etc; and while democrats fall short of my expectations regarding environmental protection, republicans do much worse. My understanding is that many more people in the future are affected by what we do to the world's ecosystems than what we do or don't do for people alive today.

I think that one idea missing from this conversation and which is able to address some of the disagreement over private, individual decision making and public, collective decision making is market failure.

markets fail for a variety of reasons, and the general effect of these failures is to reduce efficiency, resulting in a loss of welfare for the population.

Benefits that people derive from the environment are often prone to inefficient provisioning due to market failure. An example is the effects of congestion. when an individual chooses to recreate somewhere, that individual will tend to only consider her own well-being. If by entering an area that individual reduces the enjoyment of the area by the people already there, then an external effect exists, as there exists no private mechanism to inform the latest entrant of the negative effect on people already there. Consequently, private decision making results in excessive congestion. If you charge the correct entry fee, which would be higher for the more desirable, more congestion prone places, and this entry fee reflects the public cost of entering (i.e. the money equivalent of the sum of the loss of welfare that existing users experience), then the park will function efficiently. Without cooperatively "fixing" the market, everybody tends to be worse off. This problem results from a phenomenon known as non-excludability; if you cannot exclude people from enjoying a service because they have not paid, then people will use too much of it (analogous to the tragedy of the commons)

On the other hand, if an entity were to create trails and charge an entry fee, as long as congestion isn't a problem, a profit-maximizing entity will charge a fee which is too high, preventing a multitude of users from benefiting from the trails. In this case, adding an additional user (because congestion is not a problem ) adds almost no costs to those maintaining/providing the trail. An efficient entry fee would reflect this low costs of service, but as I noted at the beginning, a private entity can be reasonably expected to charge too much. This problem is known as non-rivalvry, as the addition of another user has almost no cost, but private markets tend not to account for this. Ultimately too few people access the park.

None of this answers the questions of what we should do with a particular piece of land, but it makes clear that there are plenty of situations where private decision making results in inferior outcomes.

Also the effects of entry on congestion and the costs of providing access are only a small part of the picture, as with wilderness we're also considering water quality, biodiversity protection, and much more.

To further complicate the matter, and probably contributing to the satisfaction of anti-regulators is the cost of acquiring information and implementing a procedure to correct market failure. When the USFS or USFWS charges a few dollars for parking or sets limits on entry, if the numbers they use are wrong, the inefficiencies of meddling with a broken private market might be offset by the inefficiencies of inappropriate regulation. The same can be said about regulating the emission of CO2, as if we restrict too much, we might be worse off than if we restrict too little.


----------



## playpunk (Apr 1, 2005)

Blurr said:


> Yea IM a snob when I am sitting here railing for the rights of thsoe I do not even know, in acitvities I no longer participate in, what an Evil person I am.
> 
> Have fun on your ride, just got back from a quick morning loop myself, felt better, and makes it a little easier to deal with the bunny huggers.
> 
> ...


No, that's not what you're arguing about. You're making an argument "any use is reasonable, because taxpayers own public land." Really, what you're arguing, is that every single taxpayer should be servient to the taxpayers with the most disruptive and dominant usage of publicly owned lands - as this is what would happen without restriction.

Everyone else rejects that argument. And I mean everyone. Even OHV people don't want mineral extraction corporations to do whatever THEY (as taxpayers with individual rights) want to publicly owned lands.


----------



## nikojan (Jun 18, 2011)

Liquidmantis said:


> What do you call someone who works on bikes?


mechani- oh i see what you did right there


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

playpunk said:


> No, that's not what you're arguing about. You're making an argument "any use is reasonable, because taxpayers own public land." Really, what you're arguing, is that every single taxpayer should be servient to the taxpayers with the most disruptive and dominant usage of publicly owned lands - as this is what would happen without restriction.


 again, there should be trails and usage allowed for all forms of recreation within said land, that is YOUR land that YOU pay taxes for, YOU own it and not the government.



> Everyone else rejects that argument. And I mean everyone. Even OHV people don't want mineral extraction corporations to do whatever THEY (as taxpayers with individual rights) want to publicly owned lands.


You have to be a village idiot of unprecidented proportions to not take advantages of your recourses, that is what made america great, and now limiting access to recourses and productivity is helping with our decline. Absolutely no person in America with half a brain can logically argue against mining, your computer is made via mined and drilled recourses, and your bicycle is made frome mined and drilled recourses, seriously people reality does exist try it :thumbsup:


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

Blurr said:


> Overly simplistic views? You mean following the constitution? yea, very simple guideline we aught to be able to follow, the horror of giving people in America actual rights and limiting government b We really are not arguing over access to public land, your rights really are not violated going through airport security? Get a clue pal.


Your vision of how the US should operate and how the Constitution should be interpreted has never existed, and your ideas require a complete disregard of even the smallest understanding of human behavior. In other words, a typical libertarian. You live in a fantasy world and invite everybody in because it's such a nice place. None of which changes the fact that it's a complete fantasy.

At the 2:30 mark, Bugs does an excellent job of being a libertarian while Elmer represents "big government."


----------



## allenfstar (Jul 7, 2011)

Blurr said:


> again, there should be trails and usage allowed for all forms of recreation within said land, that is YOUR land that YOU pay taxes for, YOU own it and not the government.
> 
> You have to be a village idiot of unprecidented proportions to not take advantages of your recourses, that is what made america great, and now limiting access to recourses and productivity is helping with our decline. Absolutely no person in America with half a brain can logically argue against mining, your computer is made via mined and drilled recourses, and your bicycle is made frome mined and drilled recourses, seriously people reality does exist try it :thumbsup:


you know blurr youre right screw everyone else lets not regulate use lets just mine everything, clearcut everywhere, pave it all, kill everything just for fun

i mean the world is ending in 2012 any way right 
why save for future generations that arent going to exist

thanks for showing me the light:thumbsup:

@$$ hole


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

allenfstar said:


> SERIOUSLY! i would love to see you build a road with out first destroying the land your building on


So you do not use the land in other words, you really are only a spiritual entity within the matrix,is that how you are typing?



> WE DONT OWN THE LAND @$$ HOLE it was here long before us and will be here long after and i'd like my grand children and great grand children to be able to see and enjoy the beauty that we get to see and enjoy


 Yes actually you do that is why it is called PUBLIC LAND. Again, nobody is saying to destroy the land, we are saying to access and use it.


----------



## nikojan (Jun 18, 2011)

richde said:


> Your vision of how the US should operate and how the Constitution should be interpreted has never existed, and your ideas require a complete disregard of even the smallest understanding of human behavior. In other words, a typical libertarian. You live in a fantasy world and invite everybody in because it's such a nice place. None of which changes the fact that it's a complete fantasy.
> 
> At the 2:30 mark, Bugs does an excellent job of being a libertarian while Elmer represents "big government."


+1 :thumbsup:


----------



## allenfstar (Jul 7, 2011)

Blurr said:


> So you do not use the land in other words, you really are only a spiritual entity within the matrix,is that how you are typing?
> 
> Yes actually you do that is why it is called PUBLIC LAND. Again, nobody is saying to destroy the land, we are saying to access and use it.


the first part of that doesnt even make sense 
the second part is exactly what youre proposing


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

richde said:


> your vision of how the us should operate and how the constitution should be interpreted has never existed, and your ideas require a complete disregard of even the smallest understanding of human behavior. In other words, a typical libertarian. You live in a fantasy world and invite everybody in because it's such a nice place. None of which changes the fact that it's a complete fantasy.
> 
> At the 2:30 mark, bugs does an excellent job of being a libertarian while elmer represents "big government."









.


----------



## nikojan (Jun 18, 2011)

Blurr said:


> Yes actually you do that is why it is called PUBLIC LAND. Again, nobody is saying to destroy the land, we are saying to access and use it.


Which would in turn destroy it...give me one example of a public area that can foster a wildlife habitat while supporting access to the public.


----------



## playpunk (Apr 1, 2005)

Blurr said:


> again, there should be trails and usage allowed for all forms of recreation within said land, that is YOUR land that YOU pay taxes for, YOU own it and not the government.
> 
> You have to be a village idiot of unprecidented proportions to not take advantages of your recourses, that is what made america great, and now limiting access to recourses and productivity is helping with our decline. Absolutely no person in America with half a brain can logically argue against mining, your computer is made via mined and drilled recourses, and your bicycle is made frome mined and drilled recourses, seriously people reality does exist try it :thumbsup:


How about this - you can use all public lands based on how much you contribute to the federal government in federal income tax.

As to your second "paragraph."

What do you know about mineral extraction? What do you know about what it does to communities, to the people that work in mines, to the natural resources that surround mining operations?

Probably nothing, but that doesn't really surprise me.

I lived in West Virginia for 3 years. You know, the Saudi Arabia of coal. Also one of the poorest states in the nation, and one with real and severe environmental problems like groundwater contamination, acid mine drainage, and the total destruction of mountain top removal mining.

WIthout acknowledging the real and severe downside of mineral extraction, you are further exposing your ignorance.

No one wants NO mineral extraction, as we all want to be able to turn on the lights and otherwise use electricity, but to make the argument, as you are, that mining doesn't require any supervision, or any provision for the good of the surrounding communities, exposes your stupidity and ignorance even further.

You might say that you didn't make that argument explicitly, but it is the direction of your posts. Please, please, try to argue that unregulated, untaxed mineral extraction will somehow be good for most people?

You are the village idiot in this discussion.


----------



## allenfstar (Jul 7, 2011)

Blurr said:


> Yes actually you do that is why it is called PUBLIC LAND. Again, nobody is saying to destroy the land, we are saying to access and use it.


i've found the solution

blurr go out and get a signature from EVERY AMERICAN saying that its ok to build roads on wilderness land since we all own it and everything


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

allenfstar said:


> the first part of that doesnt even make sense
> the second part is exactly what youre proposing


A trail will not destroy the land, in fact it helps maintain a healthy forest. why you ask? for several reasons, in area's where people are frequented there is less deadfall thus less of a fire hazard and less obsitcles for large animals to pass through, Elk and deer love it as it allows them more vegetation to graze on and also it is easier for them to see predators.
From a fire standpoint it makes complete sense. part of the reasons you have seen out of control fires in California in the past few years is from the "roadless initiatives". those roads once were firebreaks, now they are overgrown and burn very quickly thus allowing more fire to cause both health hazards to your lungs, and hazards to the animals within said forest who more often than not, die in said fires. 
We know now that by responsible logging we actually can make forests grow healthier and stronger than before as surprise tree's need nutrients and more tree's=less nutrients and a less healthy forest. We also have the ability to minimize how we mine, we also can reclaim land once it has been mined and make it look arguably better than it was before. Before you continue your argument you should know that I live in the worlds largest superfund site, I by no means have stated nor will I that we should run completely out of control, but I am for responsible usage in all area's, that means mining, drilling, water, logging on and on. You however are brainwashed to believe man is evil, and there is nothing that can change a brainwashed person back to reality.


----------



## allenfstar (Jul 7, 2011)

Blurr said:


> A trail will not destroy the land, in fact it helps maintain a healthy forest. We know now that by responsible logging we actually can make forests grow healthier and stronger than before as surprise tree's need nutrients and more tree's=less nutrients and a less healthy forest. We also have the ability to minimize how we mine, we also can reclaim land once it has been mined and make it look arguably better than it was before. Before you continue your argument you should know that I live in the worlds largest superfund site, I by no means have stated nor will I that we should run completely out of control, but I am for responsible usage in all area's, that means mining, drilling, water, logging on and on. You however are brainwashed to believe man is evil, and there is nothing that can change a brainwashed person back to reality.


is that why there were no forests here before we came? damn i always wondered about that thanks for clearing it up

sounds like you are the brain washed one my friend i have not stated man was evil but since you mentioned it go read a history book

my favorite trails are an old quarry its fun to ride but there is now a vast tract of land where nothing but weeds will ever grow pull your head out of your rear turn off your john mccain inspirational tapes and OPEN YOUR EYES TO THE REAL WORLD


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

playpunk said:


> How about this - you can use all public lands based on how much you contribute to the federal government in federal income tax.


 so you are for a class society in other words where people of little income have no rights and only those with excessive property and money have many. btw, I own a few houses so I would be enjoying that land while your sorry ass would be arguing for me, good job genius :thumbsup:



> As to your second "paragraph."
> 
> What do you know about mineral extraction? What do you know about what it does to communities, to the people that work in mines, to the natural resources that surround mining operations?
> 
> ...


 Would you like me to post up pictures of mine reclamation projects I have done? Would you like me to post up pictures of the wasteland caused from out of control mining I grew up in? I fully understand it on every level, both the ******** and beneficial level of reclamation, but more than that, I fully understand that we must mine in order to live our current very privalaged lifestyles, we also must mine in order to advance as a species.



> No one wants NO mineral extraction, as we all want to be able to turn on the lights and otherwise use electricity, but to make the argument, as you are, that mining doesn't require any supervision, or any provision for the good of the surrounding communities, exposes your stupidity and ignorance even further.


 NO you are making that argument I have never not once argued otherwise.



> You might say that you didn't make that argument explicitly, but it is the direction of your posts. Please, please, try to argue that unregulated, untaxed mineral extraction will somehow be good for most people?
> 
> You are the village idiot in this discussion.


Nice try putting words in my mouth moron, now please go recycle your computer, bicycle, and automobile and being walking barefoot clothless please.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

allenfstar said:


> is that why there were no forests here before we came? damn i always wondered about that thanks for clearing it up
> 
> sounds like you are the brain washed one my friend i have not stated man was evil but since you mentioned it go read a history book
> 
> my favorite trails are an old quarry its fun to ride but there is now a vast tract of land where nothing but weeds will ever grow pull your head out of your rear turn off your john mccain inspirational tapes and OPEN YOUR EYES TO THE REAL WORLD


Actually we have more tree's than one hundred years ago, but whatever, save the planet kill yourself. Or continue using wood products to wipe yer bum and repair your home, which will it be?


----------



## SilkMoneyLove (Nov 1, 2010)

*It can be done*



> give me one example of a public area that can foster a wildlife habitat while supporting access to the public.


Yes. Yellowstone NP. Completely commercialized yet the Bison don't seem to care. They crap right on the paved trails. You know what they like? Food and not being hunted. They like to screw too, because there are plenty of them there. Along with bears, wolves...
Anyhow, the place is crawling with old people/young people/foreigners/natives and it seems to do OK. You know the best part? Whenever the earth decides, it will erupt and blow all the silly trails whatnot to bits. Nature is like that. Here before us and here after us.


----------



## allenfstar (Jul 7, 2011)

Blurr said:


> Actually we have more tree's than one hundred years ago, but whatever, save the planet kill yourself. Or continue using wood products to wipe yer bum and repair your home, which will it be?


thank you for showing how stupid you really are

do you know why we have more trees then 100 years ago?

its called regulations limiting how and where people can build, log, drive, ect

do you know who enforces these regulations the government you hate so much

these regulations came because people like you got their way and were allowed to do what ever they wanted and nearly destroyed our forests and what became our national parks

in conclusion
bite me


----------



## nikojan (Jun 18, 2011)

Blurr said:


> *A trail will not destroy the land, in fact it helps maintain a healthy forest.* why you ask? for several reasons, in area's where people are frequented there is less deadfall thus less of a fire hazard and less obsitcles for large animals to pass through, Elk and deer love it as it allows them more vegetation to graze on and also it is *easier for them to see predators.*
> From a fire standpoint it makes complete sense. part of the reasons you have seen out of control fires in California in the past few years is from the "roadless initiatives". those roads once were firebreaks, now they are overgrown and burn very quickly thus allowing more fire to cause both *health hazards to your lungs*, and hazards to the animals within said forest who more often than not,* die in said fires.*
> We know now that by responsible logging we actually can make forests grow healthier and stronger than before as *surprise tree's need nutrients and more tree's=less nutrients and a less healthy forest.* We also have the ability to minimize how we mine, *we also can reclaim land once it has been mined and make it look arguably better than it was before*. Before you continue your argument you should know that I live in the worlds largest superfund site, I by no means have stated nor will I that we should run completely out of control, but I am for responsible usage in all area's, that means mining, drilling, water, logging on and on. *You however are brainwashed to believe man is evil, and there is nothing that can change a brainwashed person back to reality.*


First, tree marking is very different then deforestation. Trails don't prevent wildfires, parking lots and streets do, they also promote pollution. Only an idiot would make an argument that having an impact on an ecosystem would be a good idea. Most "animals" don't die from the fire, they die from the resulting lack of food. Clear cutting takes in some instances a century to rebuild, mountaintop removal is irreversible, effects from polluting the environment with chemicals used in franking are often permanent, ergo we can't 'reclaim' the environment in most cases. He doesn't believe man is evil, he understands that the primary goal of a business is to increase profit and if that means working through loopholes or establishing a lobbying effort to retain those loopholes then in most instances if not all that measure will be taken.


----------



## allenfstar (Jul 7, 2011)

SilkMoneyLove said:


> Yes. Yellowstone NP. Completely commercialized yet the Bison don't seem to care. They crap right on the paved trails. You know what they like? Food and not being hunted. They like to screw too, because there are plenty of them there. Along with bears, wolves...
> Anyhow, the place is crawling with old people/young people/foreigners/natives and it seems to do OK. You know the best part? Whenever the earth decides, it will erupt and blow all the silly trails whatnot to bits. Nature is like that. Here before us and here after us.


out of curiosity as i have no idea but does yellowstone allow biking?


----------



## nikojan (Jun 18, 2011)

SilkMoneyLove said:


> Yes. Yellowstone NP. Completely commercialized yet the Bison don't seem to care. They crap right on the paved trails. You know what they like? Food and not being hunted. They like to screw too, because there are plenty of them there. Along with bears, wolves...
> Anyhow, the place is crawling with old people/young people/foreigners/natives and it seems to do OK. You know the best part? Whenever the earth decides, it will erupt and blow all the silly trails whatnot to bits. Nature is like that. Here before us and here after us.


I guess we have very different definitions of 'a wildlife habitat'. I wouldn't consider a zoo a 'wildlife habitat', nor would I consider an area where, as you said, animals **** in parking lots and in some cases depend on visitors to feed then as a successful wildlife habitat.


----------



## playpunk (Apr 1, 2005)

Blurr said:


> so you are for a class society in other words where people of little income have no rights and only those with excessive property and money have many. btw, I own a few houses so I would be enjoying that land while your sorry ass would be arguing for me, good job genius :thumbsup:
> 
> NO you are making that argument I have never not once argued otherwise.


Then what are you arguing for, jackass?

I'm happy you are rich on the internet, but you're also a total idiot on the internet, and probably a real pain in the ass in real life, as well.

Have fun putting bandaids on strip mines and calling it reclamation.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

nikojan said:


> Which would in turn destroy it...give me one example of a public area that can foster a wildlife habitat while supporting access to the public.


Uhmm you mean like yellowstone, and glacier, and yosemeti, and other national parks?

[/ATTACH]

http://www.insurance-website.com/Content/tag/car-deer-collisions/
West Virginia Car-Deer Accidents Annually Exceed $44 Million

I can post em all day long tulip, ya aught to go out and actually spend some time riding that thing you call a mountain bike in the actual mountains off the city streets.


----------



## robinlikethebird (Sep 16, 2009)

bsieb said:


> You obviously don't live in a place that is overun with bears and cougars like it is here, nowhere near any wilderness area I might add. Looks like wolves may be moving in too due to recent wildfire activity. Like others who reply here, you are making assumptions that don't match reality. Cougars and bears are doing just fine poaching your urban sprawl. Watch out, one might get you... or more likely your pet.


I am interested to know where here is? and these large mammals are not doing just fine. they are decreasing in most areas. and those areas that they are not decreasing, is because of alot of hard work to ensure their existence.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

nikojan said:


> . Only an idiot would make an argument that having an impact on an ecosystem would be a good idea.


Only an idiot would equate "impact" with "damage". We are part of the system. If you stop all the bickering and try to stay on the topic - riding a bike in wilderness is in no way shape or form causes any substantive "damage". Bike trail is infinitesimally negligible compared to everything else that goes on. It can be properly designed, managed and maintained.

The only butthurt caused by riding is among the sanctimonious blowhards who think they know better and only their preferences are important - be that horse riding as part of our "heritage" (how about restoring slavery and genocide of aboriginals while we are at it), or the inane drivel about what constitutes "mechanization" (anything that they personally do not want to use).


----------



## allenfstar (Jul 7, 2011)

Blurr said:


> Uhmm you mean like yellowstone, and glacier, and yosemeti, and other national parks?
> 
> [/ATTACH]
> 
> ...


wow pics of animals in town and cities really helps your argument:thumbsup:


----------



## nikojan (Jun 18, 2011)

Axe said:


> Only an idiot would equate "impact" with "damage". We are part of the system. If you stop all the bickering and try to stay on the topic - riding a bike in wilderness is in no way shape or form causes any substantive "damage". Bike trail is infinitesimally negligible compared to everything else that goes on. It can be properly designed, managed and maintained.
> 
> The only butthurt caused by riding is among the sanctimonious blowhards who think they know better and only their preferences are important - be that horse riding as part of our "heritage" (how about restoring slavery and genocide of aboriginals while we are at it), or the inane drivel about what constitutes "mechanization" (anything that they personally do not want to use).


That comment was in response to Blurr's "cutting down trees makes it easier for preditors to catch prey" or something along those lines, not mountain biking trails.


----------



## nikojan (Jun 18, 2011)

allenfstar said:


> wow pics of animals in town and cities really helps your argument:thumbsup:


I'm pretty sure his post was meant as a joke...


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

nikojan said:


> First, tree marking is very different then deforestation. Trails don't prevent wildfires, parking lots and streets do, they also promote pollution. Only an idiot would make an argument that having an impact on an ecosystem would be a good idea. Most "animals" don't die from the fire, they die from the resulting lack of food.


 As a wildland firefighter you probably should rethink you stance. (comes with having heavy equipment ya know, doing lots of diff jobs  )
View attachment fireelk.bmp

View attachment fireanimal.bmp




> Clear cutting takes in some instances a century to rebuild, mountaintop removal is irreversible,


 False try fifteen years tulip, which is why we now can go back in two decades and harvest tree's in that area all over again. 
False mountain reclamation is completely possible,
View attachment after reclmation.bmp




> effects from polluting the environment with chemicals used in franking are often permanent, ergo we can't 'reclaim' the environment in most cases. He doesn't believe man is evil, he understands that the primary goal of a business is to increase profit and if that means working through loopholes or establishing a lobbying effort to retain those loopholes then in most instances if not all that measure will be taken.


Im all for controlling chemicals used in Mining, which has zero to do with the discussion at hand. I do suggest you quit buying into the radical bunny hugger propoganda which is irrational and obviously incorrect, you would also have better luck arguing with someone not in the reclmation business. Oh yea, btw, I do reclmation because of the money, but if I was rich, I probably would do it anyhow cause that is the kind of guy I am. toodles, have to go send my monthly care packages to the Philippines.


----------



## allenfstar (Jul 7, 2011)

Axe said:


> Only an idiot would equate "impact" with "damage". We are part of the system. If you stop all the bickering and try to stay on the topic - riding a bike in wilderness is in no way shape or form causes any substantive "damage". Bike trail is infinitesimally negligible compared to everything else that goes on. It can be properly designed, managed and maintained.
> 
> The only butthurt caused by riding is among the sanctimonious blowhards who think they know better and only their preferences are important - be that horse riding as part of our "heritage" (how about restoring slavery and genocide of aboriginals while we are at it), or the inane drivel about what constitutes "mechanization" (anything that they personally do not want to use).


agreed you dont need to build roads to go biking as i said in a previous post if all the trails were flat and easy access we wouldnt be wanting to ride them any way

i say just poach it regardless


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

allenfstar said:


> wow pics of animals in town and cities really helps your argument:thumbsup:


Yellowstone national park genius, no city at all  
But thanks for pointing out that we do have wildlife living within city limits, not helping your own arguments on any level.


----------



## allenfstar (Jul 7, 2011)

Blurr said:


> Yellowstone national park genius, no city at all
> But thanks for pointing out that we do have wildlife living within city limits, not helping your own arguments on any level.


your other two pics in that potst were NOT yellowstone and thats not my argument so get your facts straight

youre just too dumb to leave alone thats my argument


----------



## nikojan (Jun 18, 2011)

Blurr said:


> As a wildland firefighter you probably should rethink you stance. (comes with having heavy equipment ya know, doing lots of diff jobs  ) I can show my red card if you would like.
> View attachment 626693
> 
> View attachment 626694
> ...


Last year my was second season of tree planting up in Ottawa. I know how long is takes for a forest to regrow, and it sure as hell isn't 15 years. Obviously some regions take longer than others but on average for the entire habitat to be rebuilt it would take AT LEAST half a century. I'll just attribute your assumption that 'a few trees is paramount to a healthy forest' to you're simple mindedness... please show me a few more pictures of animals near roads!

EDIT: Again, showing me two deers in a river doesn't exactly prove "most animals die in forest fires"...


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

allenfstar said:


> agreed you dont need to build roads to go biking as i said in a previous post if all the trails were flat and easy access we wouldnt be wanting to ride them any way
> 
> i say just poach it regardless


I am not sure I want to poach on a regular basis. I just want simple things - like riding the whole of the Tahoe Rim trail - on alternating days is fine. Or crossing the Sierra Nevada over some of the trails that hardly see a hiker a day. Nothing wrong with that.

But this particular discussion has degenerated into some silly bluster.


----------



## allenfstar (Jul 7, 2011)

nikojan said:


> Last year my was second season of tree planting up in Ottawa. I know how long is takes for a forest to regrow, and it sure as hell isn't 15 years. Obviously some regions take longer than others but on average for the entire habitat to be rebuilt it would take AT LEAST half a decade. I'll just attribute your assumption that 'a few trees is paramount to a healthy forest' to you're simple mindedness... please show me a few more pictures of animals near roads!


niko- not trying to be mean but i think you mean century


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

nikojan said:


> That comment was in response to Blurr's "cutting down trees makes it easier for preditors to catch prey" or something along those lines, not mountain biking trails.


I still had that silly notion that we are talking about mountain biking in wilderness around here.


----------



## Fischman (Jul 17, 2004)

robinlikethebird said:


> I vote for us to stay out of the wilderness! there are plenty of trails out there for use to enjoy. And i am pretty sure that there has not even been that much wilderness made in the last ten plus years any way.
> 
> I wonder what would happen if we put all this energy towards, not letting new strip malls and PAvement from being put down. Lets put our trails in those areas instead and leave the wild for the wolf, cougars and bears. Instead of fighting wilderness we should be fighting walmart, target, safeway, car dealerships and all that ********. then we will be able to ride right from our god dam tiny boxes to our fav. trails.
> just my two cents.
> ...


Thanks for your vote. You can take comfort in knowing you're on the winning side, no matter how wrong it may be.

I'm not sure what you consider to be "not much," but I have seen numerous areas, wilderness or not, exclue bikes in recent years. I had to live in the DC area for a couple years recently and was looking forward to riding in the Dolly Sods area on WV--oops! Too late--was made into a wilderness area shortly after I arrived. This year I am taking a vacation to Montana where I used to live--part of the vacation was supposed to be to ride the trails I missed during the two years I lived there. Oops! Off limits to bikes now--these not yet, and maybe never, wilderness areas are currently "Wilderness Study Areas" and recently declared closed to bikes. Some of these routes were traditional MTB routes and much cherished by the MTB community. This is just my personal observation from my little corner of the world. I'm sure others could chime in with scores of other examples, both Wilderness and non-Wilderness. Pretty sad when you consider about half of roadless areas in western states are already closed to bikes.

Good luck trying to fight the Wal-Mart thing. I'm no fan of big box stores either--I really enjoyed those times when I lived in a Walmart/Target/Best Buy/Michaels/PetSmart etc.-free zone. I sometimes pine for the days when each little corner of America had its own unique character and hadn't yet become a bland, homogenized, soulless suburban blueprint. However, the demand is there and that's why those places are there. Who am I to tell the rest of the country where and how they should shop? Just like who are your or anyone else to tell a cyclist he shouldn't ride in the backcountry when he has no more impact than a hiker?

By your logic we should also be excluding hikers from large areas--as you've pointed out, "there are plenty of trails out there for use to enjoy." In fact, since biking is criticized by MTB-banning Wilderness advocates for being "faster" than hiking, biking should be more open than hiking. After all, if in a similar lifetime, a hiker can't cover as much ground as a biker, he shouldn't need access to as many trails!


----------



## SilkMoneyLove (Nov 1, 2010)

> out of curiosity as i have no idea but does yellowstone allow biking?


Yellowstone allows biking on their roads. You are not to stray from any of their marked trails. I was there with my wife and 5 year old, so I can't tell you what hiking the back country is like there.

My point is that access by the public is good, when managed properly. I think the discussion is exactly how to manage access. Some say "bar anything but foot/hoof traffic" and others are in the "allow certain machines in certain areas" camp. I am on the "allow certain machines in certain areas" camp while still having a foot in the "bar anything other than foot/hoof traffic" camp. Some wilderness is more wild thanb others. Some wilderness in the Uinta Mountains is accessable by ATV and that provides great views and can be done in one day. It is very rocky in that specific area, so atv "damage" to the area (meaning, ruts, erosion...) is minimal and makes sense, to me. Your mileage may vary...


----------



## nikojan (Jun 18, 2011)

allenfstar said:


> niko- not trying to be mean but i think you mean century


thanks for the catch :thumbsup:


----------



## allenfstar (Jul 7, 2011)

Axe said:


> I am not sure I want to poach on a regular basis. I just want simple things - like riding the whole of the Tahoe Rim trail - on alternating days is fine. Or crossing the Sierra Nevada over some of the trails that hardly see a hiker a day. Nothing wrong with that.
> 
> But this particular discussion has degenerated into some silly bluster.


again agreed my point with the poaching thing is just its there, we dont leave a trace (the numbers required for that would never be able to ride in a posted area), and we carry on with our lives


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

nikojan said:


> Last year my was second season of tree planting up in Ottawa. I know how long is takes for a forest to regrow, and it sure as hell isn't 15 years. Obviously some regions take longer than others but on average for the entire habitat to be rebuilt it would take AT LEAST half a century. I'll just attribute your assumption that 'a few trees is paramount to a healthy forest' to you're simple mindedness... please show me a few more pictures of animals near roads!
> 
> EDIT: Again, showing me two deers in a river doesn't exactly prove "most animals die in forest fires"...


SO you fail to understand nutrients in the ground, you do realize that like all living things, plants must compete for nutrients in the soil? lol seriously man could you have made a more uneducated post?


----------



## allenfstar (Jul 7, 2011)

Blurr said:


> SO you fail to understand nutrients in the ground, you do realize that like all living things, plants must compete for nutrients in the soil? lol seriously man could you have made a more uneducated post?


sure he could have

he could have just copied one of yours


----------



## nikojan (Jun 18, 2011)

Blurr said:


> SO you fail to understand nutrients in the ground, you do realize that like all living things, plants must compete for nutrients in the soil? lol seriously man could you have made a more uneducated post?


So, just to reiterate, your argument is that forests are not self sufficient and "if we don't pull out some plants or cut down some trees" the forest will die?  I'm actually giving you too much credit, your actual statement was that entire fields should be cut down, you know, so it's easier for animals to hunt each other :thumbsup:

EDIT: It's almost like you're taking a page out of your hero Ron Pauls "invidiaul rights, but no gay marriage or aborition" argument :madman:

P.S If that last comment didn't change the topic completely, I dont know what will lol


----------



## nikojan (Jun 18, 2011)

YAY! More negative rep, I love this forum


----------



## playpunk (Apr 1, 2005)

Blurr said:


> False try fifteen years tulip, which is why we now can go back in two decades and harvest tree's in that area all over again.
> False mountain reclamation is completely possible
> 
> you would also have better luck arguing with someone not in the reclmation business. Oh yea, btw, I do reclmation because of the money, but if I was rich, I probably would do it anyhow cause that is the kind of guy I am. toodles, have to go send my monthly care packages to the Philippines.


Reclamation doesn't put the mountain top back to its condition before the mining. You *should* know this. If you want grass instead of trees, and uniformly graded dirt instead of rocks and naturally occurring changes in grade, i guess you could *say* that reclamation works, even though anyone who has observed the before and after of a reclamation site knows better. (see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-perks/mountaintop-removal-recla_b_578706.html if you like... although blurr will probably scream "liberal media blah blah blah blah blah" and ignore the evidence that doesn't fit into his schema)

You're right, I would have better luck arguing with someone who didn't have a vested interest in the continuation of mining, and has already made up their mind. Arguing with you is pointless if I really wanted to convince *you. I really don't care if you change your mind or not - just exposing your "arguments" is enough for me.

Oh, and I love that you send care packages to the Philipines. Good for you. Doesn't make you any less wrong.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

nikojan said:


> So, just to reiterate, your argument is that forests are not self sufficient and "if we don't pull out some plants or cut down some trees" the forest will die?  I'm actually giving you too much credit, your actual statement was that entire fields should be cut down, you know, so it's easier for animals to hunt each other :thumbsup:
> 
> EDIT: It's almost like you're taking a page out of your hero Ron Pauls "invidiaul rights, but no gay marriage or aborition" argument :madman:
> 
> P.S If that last comment didn't change the topic completely, I dont know what will lol


Jesus man I am saying that through management we can have healthier forests than those which are cluttered with deadfall and starving eachother out. With more nutrients your grow time on tree''s is also less. Seriously, not that hard to understand.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

playpunk said:


> Reclamation doesn't put the mountain top back to its condition before the mining. You *should* know this. If you want grass instead of trees, and uniformly graded dirt instead of rocks and naturally occurring changes in grade, i guess you could *say* that reclamation works, even though anyone who has observed the before and after of a reclamation site knows better. (see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-perks/mountaintop-removal-recla_b_578706.html if you like... although blurr will probably scream "liberal media blah blah blah blah blah" and ignore the evidence that doesn't fit into his schema)


 Oh the horror of not having exact placing boulders. the point is we have the ability to reclaim land for a sustainable useable level, That is backed via hard data, many on here really believe than an area is completely destroyed after mining. Take hte town I live in for example, when I grew up there were no tree's do to the polution on the mountains or inbetween towns. Now tree's have came back both naturally and from being planted, we also have reclaimed much of the land and continue to do so, many area's are totally unrecognizable and I struggle to remember what they looked like before.



> You're right, I would have better luck arguing with someone who didn't have a vested interest in the continuation of mining, and has already made up their mind. Arguing with you is pointless if I really wanted to convince *you. I really don't care if you change your mind or not - just exposing your "arguments" is enough for me.


 Why I have actually pulled off a reclmation job costing myself tens of thousands of dollars because of a disagreement on both safety and fully cleaning up said land. I would rather see any job being done right, versus simply dumping soil onto contaminated land. On the other hand, some area's are simply best left alone rather than disturbing said land. 
Merely because I am in the business does not mean I am an evil greedy individual. Nor does it mean that I do not care. Because I hunt and have trapped does not mean I do not want animals for future generations to enjoy, quit the opposite I am a conservationist who understands what that truly means and how to appreciate it.



> Oh, and I love that you send care packages to the Philipines. Good for you. Doesn't make you any less wrong.


I do what I can and would love to see everyone do the same to end famine in the world, but I realize a shiny new bike is more important to other people, whatever, it all goes around, that shiny new bike was built from some poor sap happy to have a job, good comes in many unforseen ways.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

playpunk said:


> Reclamation doesn't put the mountain top back to its condition before the mining.


A few million years ago that mountain was not there. It will not be there in another few millions, no matter what we do.

Look at the big picture. We are an aberration. All we can do is keeping it clean for our kids - an incredibly important goal in our world, no question. That green former mountain top looked rather clean and nice to me. I would rather have the original mountain, but few had to go. Will be less of those in the future. Progress, cool stuff.

They just had closed the last landfill in Palo Alto - last along the bay. All of them made for some nice parks where I bike with my kids. Would I rather have the old tidal swamp? Not really..


----------



## playpunk (Apr 1, 2005)

nikojan said:


> YAY! More negative rep, I love this forum


If you weren't a caps fan I'd give you some rep points. As a sabres fan, though, my conscience compels me otherwise.


----------



## nikojan (Jun 18, 2011)

Blurr said:


> Jesus man I am saying that through management we can have healthier forests than those which are cluttered with deadfall and starving eachother out. With more nutrients your grow time on tree''s is also less. Seriously, not that hard to understand.


Theres a big difference between "clearcutting" as you previously said and "removing deadfall"... :madman:


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

nikojan said:


> Theres a big difference between "clearcutting" as you previously said and "removing deadfall"... :madman:


You do realize there is a difference between clearcutting and deforestation.

while I do not agree with every aspect of this article, it will give you a better understanding to what is actually going on.

http://www.wvu.edu/~agexten/forestry/clrcut.htm

Btw, I have not been leaving negative rep, not my style, I may think someone is a moron, but I usually only leave good rep except in extreme cases.


----------



## allenfstar (Jul 7, 2011)

*seriously*

this is better than cable


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

Blurr said:


> You do realize there is a difference between clearcutting and deforestation.
> 
> while I do not agree with every aspect of this article, it will give you a better understanding to what is actually going on.
> 
> http://www.wvu.edu/~agexten/forestry/clrcut.htm


Good explanation there. Way too often people jump to conclusions.

It does suck that there is no old growth redwoods near my place anymore though. Maybe in a couple thousand years..


----------



## nikojan (Jun 18, 2011)

Blurr said:


> You do realize there is a difference between clearcutting and deforestation.
> 
> while I do not agree with every aspect of this article, it will give you a better understanding to what is actually going on.
> 
> ...


You're right, I shouldn't have confused the two. Either way, they're both a far stretch from "removing deadfall". Also, I stand by what I said, you can't rebuild a mountain; at best you'll end up with a hill of compact trash unable to support a thick forest and subsequently a habitat.


----------



## nikojan (Jun 18, 2011)

Reputation left said:


> get a clue
> You're an ass!
> idiot
> I dissaprove


UGH Yes, your hatred fuels me lol


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

nikojan said:


> UGH Yes, your hatred fuels me lol


"I dissaprove" was me for you being a Capitals fan. Sorry. Could not resist.

Go Sharks.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

nikojan said:


> You're right, I shouldn't have confused the two. Either way, they're both a far stretch from "removing deadfall". Also, I stand by what I said, you can't rebuild a mountain; at best you'll end up with a hill of compact trash unable to support a thick forest and subsequently a habitat.


Tell you what, if you ever come to my area look me up and I will take you to some reclmation area's via the old mtn bike, the climb punishing, but the Downhills will be sweet as hell. 
Oh yea, I can say this, I have hauled in far more topsoil than was previously in native area's thus in the future I do believe you will have better land than previously should it be done right. however some of the designs are simply ridiculous and aesthetic in nature. For example, taking a previously straight streem and making in wind such as the typical blue ribbon stream. the problem here is simple, soon as spring hits it floods over thus not taking into proper account the native area. I look at it like this though, we are fairly new at this and doing a damn good job considering. And we will only get better. 
I dont want to see land destroyed, I am a loner and I honestly only feel at home in the backcountry, I mearly want others to be able to enjoy the same spiritual connection that I have. It is important, the more people who get out and enjoy nature, the less bitter dicks we have in society, plus the better educated people are about how nature works itself. Lots of mysconceptions on here, and all of ya are invited to my area.


----------



## nikojan (Jun 18, 2011)

Axe said:


> "I dissaprove" was me for you being a Capitals fan. Sorry. Could not resist.
> 
> Go Sharks.


I wish your team was relevant enough for me to have some jokes about it  You too playpunk, whats next, an oilers fan? lol


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

Axe said:


> Good explanation there. Way too often people jump to conclusions.
> 
> It does suck that there is no old growth redwoods near my place anymore though. Maybe in a couple thousand years..


Hey in extreme cases I am ok with leaving area's alone, this would be one of them.


----------



## allenfstar (Jul 7, 2011)

Blurr said:


> Tell you what, if you ever come to my area look me up and I will take you to some reclmation area's via the old mtn bike, the climb punishing, but the Downhills will be sweet as hell.
> Oh yea, I can say this, I have hauled in far more topsoil than was previously in native area's thus in the future I do believe you will have better land than previously should it be done right. however some of the designs are simply ridiculous and aesthetic in nature. For example, taking a previously straight streem and making in wind such as the typical blue ribbon stream. the problem here is simple, soon as spring hits it floods over thus not taking into proper account the native area. I look at it like this though, we are fairly new at this and doing a damn good job considering. And we will only get better.
> I dont want to see land destroyed, I am a loner and I honestly only feel at home in the backcountry, I mearly want others to be able to enjoy the same spiritual connection that I have. It is important, the more people who get out and enjoy nature, the less bitter dicks we have in society, plus the better educated people are about how nature works itself. Lots of mysconceptions on here, and all of ya are invited to my area.


blur please dont take this the wrong way because i mean it very well

thats the most logical/coherent thing you have said and should have been your first post on the current topic (which is not the same as it was when the thread started) if im out that way ill look you up and we will let the riding speak for its self


----------



## BumpityBump (Mar 9, 2008)

Blurr said:


> Tell you what, if you ever come to my area look me up and I will take you to some reclmation area's via the old mtn bike, the climb punishing, but the Downhills will be sweet as hell.
> Oh yea, I can say this, I have hauled in far more topsoil than was previously in native area's thus in the future I do believe you will have better land than previously should it be done right. however some of the designs are simply ridiculous and aesthetic in nature. For example, taking a previously straight streem and making in wind such as the typical blue ribbon stream. the problem here is simple, soon as spring hits it floods over thus not taking into proper account the native area. I look at it like this though, we are fairly new at this and doing a damn good job considering. And we will only get better.
> I dont want to see land destroyed, I am a loner and I honestly only feel at home in the backcountry, I mearly want others to be able to enjoy the same spiritual connection that I have. It is important, the more people who get out and enjoy nature, the less bitter dicks we have in society, plus the better educated people are about how nature works itself. Lots of mysconceptions on here, and all of ya are invited to my area.





allenfstar said:


> blur please dont take this the wrong way because i mean it very well
> 
> thats the most logical/coherent thing you have said and should have been your first post on the current topic (which is not the same as it was when the thread started) if im out that way ill look you up and we will let the riding speak for its self


Yep, he obviously has a great understanding of the ecological function of floodplain and riparian corridors.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

BumpityBump said:


> Yep, he obviously has a great understanding of the ecological function of floodplain and riparian corridors.


Riparian comes from the latin word Ripa, just saying.

But what part do I fail to understand Genius? 

Just took this sunday as a matter of fact. Was this damage done A. from nature. Or B. From man.


----------



## BumpityBump (Mar 9, 2008)

Blurr said:


> Riparian comes from the latin word Ripa, just saying.
> 
> But what part do I fail to understand Genius?


On this topic, or all the others you post on?

If a meandering stream is being implemented, this means the corridor is not confined. Overbank flooding is a natural occurrence in these areas which supports a wider variety of plant species that are reliant on occasional soil saturation. An established riparian corridor and floodplain, where appropriate, is a very important habitat component for nesting birds, amphibians, invertebrates, and a host of other organisms.

Straight streams are the norm where they are geologically confined. Otherwise, it's called a ditch. Stick to what you know, hauling dirt.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

BumpityBump said:


> On this topic, or all the others you post on?
> 
> If a meandering stream is being implemented, this means the corridor is not confined. Overbank flooding is a natural occurrence in these areas which supports a wider variety of plant species that are reliant on occasional soil saturation. An established riparian corridor and floodplain, where appropriate, is a very important habitat component for nesting birds, amphibians, invertebrates, and a host of other organisms.
> 
> Straight streams are the norm where they are geologically confined. Otherwise, it's called a ditch. Stick to what you know, hauling dirt.


Ahh you mean like in the picture posted above where the vegetation must regrow every damn year and no animals in the meantime may live in said area.
Like I said, not taking natural factors into account. stick to what you know, that would be putting a plastic bottle in a recycle bin. Very few people planted on a desk have a clue as to reality, but hey, books n computer graphs look purrrttty until they are applied to reality.


----------



## BumpityBump (Mar 9, 2008)

Blurr said:


> Ahh you mean like in the picture posted above where the vegetation must regrow every damn year and no animals in the meantime may live in said area.
> Like I said, not taking natural factors into account. stick to what you know, that would be putting a plastic bottle in a recycle bin. Very few people planted on a desk have a clue as to reality, but hey, books n computer graphs look purrrttty until they are applied to reality.


We've gone around before, but you probably forgot. I was doing a pretty good job of ignoring you there for quite a while. Yes, let's ignore those natural factors why don't we. Wouldn't want that to muddy things up.

I will refresh your memory once again. I have over 15 years of professional experience working on surface water, drinking water, and groundwater issues, including wetland/stream mitigation and watershed management. I have many many field days under my belt and do just a little more than sit behind a desk and recycle plastic bottles.

I have taken this too off topic, and you are a bore. Back to ignore mode, I'm out.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

BumpityBump said:


> We've gone around before, but you probably forgot. I was doing a pretty good job of ignoring you there for quite a while. Yes, let's ignore those natural factors why don't we. Wouldn't want that to muddy things up.
> 
> I will refresh your memory once again. I have over 15 years of professional experience working on surface water, drinking water, and groundwater issues, including wetland/stream mitigation and watershed management. I have many many field days under my belt and do just a little more than sit behind a desk and recycle plastic bottles.
> 
> I have taken this too off topic, and you are a bore. Back to ignore mode, I'm out.


Great Licensed contractor for the same amount of time. Multiple mine reclmation projects, multiple bird refuges worked on, not to mention roads built, river banks reclaimed, design work. and growing up ranching/irrigating. 
Let us take argument at hand I said


> For example, taking a previously straight streem and making in wind such as the typical blue ribbon stream. the problem here is simple, soon as spring hits it floods over thus *not taking into proper account the native area*


You said


> An established riparian corridor and floodplain, where appropriate


 Yea, we said the same thing but uhm yer an idiot for letting your hatred getting into the way of a rational discussion.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

robinlikethebird said:


> I am interested to know where here is? and these large mammals are not doing just fine. they are decreasing in most areas. and those areas that they are not decreasing, is because of alot of hard work to ensure their existence.


You are wrong. Where do you get your info? In New Mexico the sustainable mortality number for 2011-2015 is 745 cougars of which 299 may be females. So far a total of 28 have been taken. Do the math. Bears are even more numerous, one broke a window out of my wife's car the other night. I appreciate cougars and bears for what they are and wish them no harm, btw.

edit: Here are some facts from a differently oriented point of view, only one subspecies is listed as endangered in the US. http://www.defenders.org/wildlife_and_habitat/wildlife/mountain_lion.php#animal_threatstatus


----------



## petersterling (Jan 5, 2011)

*Why would you want to overturn the ban on bikes in wilderness areas?*

There are millions of acres of federal land not designated as wilderness that we bikers have potential access to. federally protected wilderness are the few spots in the country where someone can explore in quiet and solitude nature in all it's glory. not to mention the important role these wilderness areas play in providing habitat for critters that are real adverse to human interactions. and probably most importantly, don't kid yourself-- any effort to allow mountain bikes into wilderness areas will surely be complemented by allowing ATVs, motorcycles and other polluting and destruction forms of recreation.

Don't get me wrong, I want to see more trails for our glorious sport but no way is this worth it


----------



## BumpityBump (Mar 9, 2008)

Blurr said:


> Great Licensed contractor for the same amount of time. Multiple mine reclmation projects, multiple bird refuges worked on, not to mention roads built, river banks reclaimed, design work. and growing up ranching/irrigating.
> Let us take argument at hand I said
> 
> 
> ...


We did not say the same thing because "appropriate" would apply to the site in question. Failure of a specific design does not imply the general concept was flawed.

No hatred, only flabbergasting.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

petersterling said:


> There are millions of acres of federal land not designated as wilderness that we bikers have potential access to. federally protected wilderness are the few spots in the country where someone can explore in quiet and solitude nature in all it's glory. not to mention the important role these wilderness areas play in providing habitat for critters that are real adverse to human interactions. and probably most importantly, don't kid yourself-- any effort to allow mountain bikes into wilderness areas will surely be complemented by allowing ATVs, motorcycles and other polluting and destruction forms of recreation.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I want to see more trails for our glorious sport but no way is this worth it


Because motorized conveyance is specifically prohibited. Bicycles are not. Allowing bicycles in an area does not mean that infrastructure will be developed, so I doubt there will be a sudden rush to the Wilderness. Bicycles are an ideal back country conveyance in some areas because they leave little impact and allow one to get further back in with less disturbance. In other areas they are not useful at all. This idea that the flood gates will be opened is fantasy, the reality is that most Wildernes Areas see little use and would continue to see little use. These "critters" you mention seem to do just fine in non-wilderness areas, where are you getting this info? :skep:


----------



## chuck80442 (Oct 4, 2009)

In some areas, like rural Montana or Idaho, where the population is small and the protected wilderness millions of acres in size, allowing bikes in wilderness areas probably would have minimal impact. In other places, such as Colorado or California, where the smaller scale wilderness areas are already quite packed with people, allowing mountain bikes would make things crazy.

And the fact that we're seeing more and more wildlife in suburbs and towns does not mean that they're "doing fine". If anything, it's a sign that their natural habitat is getting smaller and smaller, and more and more fragmented, conditions which force them out of the remaining wildlands and into civilization.

I think the best approach would be to allow bikes on certain trails that pass through wilderness areas, such as the Colorado Trail where it passes through a few miles of the Lost Creek Wilderness. This could be done as a pilot program, in a few areas, to gauge the impact on wildlife and other forms of recreation.


----------



## playpunk (Apr 1, 2005)

nikojan said:


> I wish your team was relevant enough for me to have some jokes about it  You too playpunk, whats next, an oilers fan? lol


unless I'm very much mistaken, i'm pretty sure the caps and the sabres have won exactly as many playoff games in the past 2 years...

just to kick this further off topic.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

chuck80442 said:


> In some areas, like rural Montana or Idaho, where the population is small and the protected wilderness millions of acres in size, allowing bikes in wilderness areas probably would have minimal impact. In other places, such as Colorado or California, where the smaller scale wilderness areas are already quite packed with people, allowing mountain bikes would make things crazy.
> 
> And the fact that we're seeing more and more wildlife in suburbs and towns does not mean that they're "doing fine". If anything, it's a sign that their natural habitat is getting smaller and smaller, and more and more fragmented, conditions which force them out of the remaining wildlands and into civilization.
> 
> I think the best approach would be to allow bikes on certain trails that pass through wilderness areas, such as the Colorado Trail where it passes through a few miles of the Lost Creek Wilderness. This could be done as a pilot program, in a few areas, to gauge the impact on wildlife and other forms of recreation.


I not talking about seeing animals in towns and suburbs, I'm talking about basic National Forest, BLM, and other Federal and State lands where these animals live, reproduce, and die. Millions of acres, bicycles allowed anywhere, no problem, lots of cougar, bear, coyote, bobcat, turkey, elk, deer, foxes, eagles, ospreys, vultures, hawks. What are these super sensitive animals that need total isolation from everything? How do healthy populations indicate that there is a problem? I'm not aware of any Federal or State lands that are being sold off and developed, thus shrinking available habitat. Maybe you need to get out of the city... or stop watching TV. :skep:

I agree that a sensible approach should be taken. Categorically including or excluding certain user groups based on prejudice doesn't seem a sensible approach, however.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

chuck80442 said:


> In some areas, like rural Montana or Idaho, where the population is small and the protected wilderness millions of acres in size, allowing bikes in wilderness areas probably would have minimal impact. In other places, such as Colorado or California, where the smaller scale wilderness areas are already quite packed with people, allowing mountain bikes would make things crazy.


And you make this assumption based on what?

I live in the San Francisco Bay Area, with 10M people packed in. Plenty of lands where biking is allowed - nothing crazy is going on. Nothing. Well, at least as far as mountain biking is concerned.

Packed with people? Go ride in Henry Coe park. Or hike in some Sierra wilderness outside of a few popular trails. There is nobody there.

Go to Tahoe an compare the trails in wilderness and trails popular for cycling. No difference. If anything, allowing more lands for access will spread out the impact.

I assert that you are talking out of your behind.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

petersterling said:


> There are millions of acres of federal land not designated as wilderness that we bikers have potential access to. federally protected wilderness are the few spots in the country where someone can explore in quiet and solitude nature in all it's glory. not to mention the important role these wilderness areas play in providing habitat for critters that are real adverse to human interactions. and probably most importantly, don't kid yourself-- any effort to allow mountain bikes into wilderness areas will surely be complemented by allowing ATVs, motorcycles and other polluting and destruction forms of recreation.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I want to see more trails for our glorious sport but no way is this worth it


Why do I want to overturn it? Because I pay a boatload of taxes, it is our public land, and I think it is patently unfair and unjustified to exclude my favorite way to enjoy my property. There is no good reason for this prohibition, none whatsoever. And I do not want to be opposed to further preservation efforts, which I am forced due to the current misguided approach to conservation.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

chuck80442 said:


> In some areas, like rural Montana or Idaho, where the population is small and the protected wilderness millions of acres in size, allowing bikes in wilderness areas probably would have minimal impact. In other places, such as Colorado or California, where the smaller scale wilderness areas are already quite packed with people, allowing mountain bikes would make things crazy.
> 
> And the fact that we're seeing more and more wildlife in suburbs and towns does not mean that they're "doing fine". If anything, it's a sign that their natural habitat is getting smaller and smaller, and more and more fragmented, conditions which force them out of the remaining wildlands and into civilization.
> 
> I think the best approach would be to allow bikes on certain trails that pass through wilderness areas, such as the Colorado Trail where it passes through a few miles of the Lost Creek Wilderness. This could be done as a pilot program, in a few areas, to gauge the impact on wildlife and other forms of recreation.


Animals are heading into towns because of overpopulation in most area's, and pressure from predators in some other area's do to more restrictions on hunting/trapping.


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

Axe said:


> Why do I want to overturn it? Because I pay a boatload of taxes, it is our public land, and I think it is patently unfair and unjustified to exclude my favorite way to enjoy my property. There is no good reason for this prohibition, none whatsoever. And I do not want to be opposed to further preservation efforts, which I am forced due to the current misguided approach to conservation.


My favorite activity is driving bulldozers. My kids love driving bulldozers. It's a wholesome, fun family activity. I pay boatloads of taxes, it's my public land. I think it's patently unfair that I'm excluded.


----------



## JonathanGennick (Sep 15, 2006)

The wilderness battle really isn't worth fighting right now. I too would like to see biking considered as a possible activity for wilderness. One issue I have with the wilderness designation is that it is overly rigid, often locking out perfectly feasible uses for a given area of land. That issue is possibly exacerbated by the tendency to misapply (IMHO) the wilderness designation to parcels of land that really aren't wilderness at all. I sometimes use the term "artificial wilderness". However, the battle has been lost for now, and I have no idea whether there will ever come an opportunity to challenge the status-quo. Our children or grand-children will probably be the ones to revisit the issue.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

On the other hand, we are moving into a time when there will be mountain bikers in administrative gov't positions and other positions of influence. A lot changes then, administrative decisions can be reconsidered, new ideas can be promulgated. Let's keep our eyes open and our wits about us.


----------



## Boyonabyke (Sep 5, 2007)

bsieb said:


> On the other hand, we are moving into a time when there will be mountain bikers in administrative gov't positions and other positions of influence. A lot changes then, administrative decisions can be reconsidered, new ideas can be promulgated. Let's keep our eyes open and our wits about us.


A perfect example of why we need less government in our lives. Government Employees with a personal agenda, that weren't elected to represent us in any way, shape or form.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

zrm said:


> My favorite activity is driving bulldozers. My kids love driving bulldozers. It's a wholesome, fun family activity. I pay boatloads of taxes, it's my public land. I think it's patently unfair that I'm excluded.


Reductio ad absurdum does not work here. Those two activities are not even remotely comparable.

Cycling on trails is very popular and had negligible impact. It is obvious to anybody with a brain that it should be prioritized over such uses as OHV on public lands. Hiking, then cycling, then OHV and horseback riding, then bulldozer rodeo - in that order, rapidly declining in importance.

I am not sure why your "argument" even warrants a response though.


----------



## HarryCallahan (Nov 2, 2004)

RandyBoy said:


> A perfect example of why we need less government in our lives. Government Employees with a personal agenda, that weren't elected to represent us in any way, shape or form.


 Right. Because no one should bring personal experience or good judgement to work with them...


----------



## Black Bart (Apr 19, 2004)

RandyBoy said:


> And is a bicycle considered a vehicle? Is it subject to the motor vehicle code? Does your state Department of Motor Vehicles require that bicyclist's share the road with motorists, not pedestrians, to use roads, not sidewalks? Do public roads in your state have bicycle specific lanes? Do you, as a bicyclist ,have to obey all rules of the road that any other motor vehicle does? Can you be cited for drunk driving while operating a vehicle while on a bike on a public road?
> 
> Do all state, county and local vehicle codes apply while operating any vehicle in designated (if any) roads in Wilderness areas, USFS lands or National Park lands?
> 
> ...


Does the Wilderness act prohibit "vehicles" or "motor vehicles"?

_edit to add: per the CVC definition of "vehicle", a bicycle is not a vehicle as it moves under human power._

The DMV does not require anything of bicycle operators, they only register _motor_ vehicles and license operators of said vehicles. It's kinda right there in the name. They do not make law, the legislature does. One notable exception to this however, are boats. Many boats must be registered with the DMV even though they may not have a motor, yet a boat registered with the DMV is allowed in a wilderness area provided it does not use a motor.

The Vehicle code, (be it CVC, ARS, ect., there is no "motor vehicle code") covers bicycles when operated upon public highways. It also covers pedestrians, or as we also call them, "hikers". It does not prohibit the operation of a bicycle upon a sidewalk, unlike _motor_ vehicles. It does not cover bicycles when operated upon a trail.

Arguing that a state's definition of a bicycle affects their access to designated federal wilderness areas is ludicrous, as federal law trumps state law, especially with regard to federal lands.

So, your whole argument is a house of cards.

As far as "mechanical" things being allowed into a wilderness area and the use of your fishing reels and hiking gear, lets hear what RandyBoy has to say about it:



RandyBoy said:


> If it's involves any form of transportation that includes wheels, bearings, grease, oil, plastic, teflon, gliding lubricant, be it dry or wet, wax, oil or any derivative of petroleum or synthetic hydrocarbon molecule chain lubrication based, metal on metal bearing points or pivot points, pins, axles screws or fasteners, some sort of inspection or recommended maintenance schedule, it's mechanized, as far as I am concerned. In short, any material used by it to reduce friction or increase efficiency of propulsion makes it mechanized.
> 
> In short, if the item is made with any form of power tool that runs on electricity, where the labor to produce it is not all done by hand, or non powerized hand tools, then it's mechanized, because all of those tools basically were designed by Mechanical Engineers, then manufactured and produced.
> 
> As I see it, the design would have had to been made sometime before the timeframe of the Industrial Revolution, and before the carriage was designed for horse and buggy or carriage operation. Non mechanized, pretty much means on foot, or swimming, without support of outside produced devices by mechanized production methods. All the steps of production must be done by hand, by hand tools, no power.


Interesting viewpoint RandyBoy, clearly manufactured boots and other gear fall under this. RandyBoy, do you have a rebuttal to RandyBoy's statement?


----------



## SkaredShtles (May 13, 2007)

:lol:


----------



## Fischman (Jul 17, 2004)

*I can ride my bike through the backcountry and . . .*

. . . if you didn't see me do it, you'd never know I did it. A bulldozer on the other hand . . .

You totally skipped the "no good reason" part of the post. There is no good reason to exclude a bike--there is plenty of good readon to exclude a bulldozer.

Do you have any idea how much you just discredited your self and any future argument you may bring?


----------



## Fischman (Jul 17, 2004)

*First good poin RandyBoy's made yet*



RandyBoy said:


> A perfect example of why we need less government in our lives. Government Employees with a personal agenda, that weren't elected to represent us in any way, shape or form.


Right--like an anti-bike bias based on nothing but personal feeling or cowtowing to the best funded self-serving lobby.


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

Axe said:


> Reductio ad absurdum does not work here. Those two activities are not even remotely comparable.
> 
> Cycling on trails is very popular and had negligible impact. It is obvious to anybody with a brain that it should be prioritized over such uses as OHV on public lands. Hiking, then cycling, then OHV and horseback riding, then bulldozer rodeo - in that order, rapidly declining in importance.
> 
> I am not sure why your "argument" even warrants a response though.


I digress, according to the national recreational bulldozing association bulldozing driving, when done responsibly has little impact. Why when my kids drive their little kiddy bulldozers you can hardly tell they've been there and they have so much fun doing it, you should see thir little face light up. Only tree huggers and bunny humpers make a fuss about a track here and there or a little knocked over tree once and a while, after all, those trees are all going to die anyway and according to scientists the sun will turn into a red giant and swallow the earth in a few billion years so why not do what you want now?

Besides, it's PUBLIC LAND! I have my RIGHTS! I pay TAXES! Boatloads of taxes and that means I have a right to do whatever I want on public lands. If I paid taxes that support something I OWN IT. I can't believe how many sheeple don't get that. :madmax:


----------



## PretendGentleman (May 24, 2011)

the wsj weighs in on the issue (not really about wilderness areas) edit: just saw this was already posted....

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903999904576469960615061074.html?

I was looking into planning a 2 or 3 bikepacking ride in north georgia. I'm amazed by how many wilderness areas there are. They totally interfere with my ability to enjoy the forests.

here's a map of the central region of north georgia. its hard to read, but clearly almost everything that is not developed is in a wilderness area. Should mountain bikes be confined to all the periphery? I'm very much for conservation, but I think that the bike ban has gone too far when this many places are forbidden. http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm9_028893.pdf


----------



## Moustache rider (Jun 1, 2007)

zrm said:


> I digress, according to the national recreational bulldozing association bulldozing driving, when done responsibly has little impact. Why when my kids drive their little kiddy bulldozers you can hardly tell they've been there and they have so much fun doing it, you should see thir little face light up. Only tree huggers and bunny humpers make a fuss about a track here and there or a little knocked over tree once and a while, after all, those trees are all going to die anyway and according to scientists the sun will turn into a red giant and swallow the earth in a few billion years so why not do what you want now?


I'm not really surprised to see you use rhetoric virtually identical to what Mike Vandeman has used to attack mountain biking. In fact I'm beginning to suspect you are an anti MTB plant sent here to spread disinformation and sew discord.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

zrm said:


> I digress


Yes, you digress indeed and fail miserably in staying relevant to the topic.


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

Moustache rider said:


> I'm not really surprised to see you use rhetoric virtually identical to what Mike Vandeman has used to attack mountain biking. In fact I'm beginning to suspect you are an anti MTB plant sent here to spread disinformation and sew discord.


:lol::lol: Oh that's me alright. Spreading disinformation and discord. You have _no_ idea.......


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

RandyBoy said:


> A perfect example of why we need less government in our lives. Government Employees with a personal agenda, that weren't elected to represent us in any way, shape or form.


So you want no land protection?

Is it that you want less interference in *our* lives, or is it just less interference in *your* life?


----------



## Moustache rider (Jun 1, 2007)

zrm said:


> You have _no_ idea.......


I know. I left out sanctimony.

Here you make a false claim about basic forest service travel policy. 
Do you simply not know what you are talking about, or are you purposely making things up to bolster your point of view?


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

Axe said:


> Yes, you digress indeed and fail miserably in staying relevant to the topic.


That's because the way most of the folks here (not all) frame the topic makes it hard to have any kind of serious discussion, hence the sarcastic and fictitious reference to recreational bulldozing. (I can't believe that _anyone_ would take that seriously) It really gets me all the talk about your intrinsic and unlimited (or at least very lightly limited) rights to public land are violated, how *the man* has no right to tell you where you can or can't ride your bike, how so few seem to get the difference between a prohibition on a _person _and a prohibition on an _activity,_ or even the fact that is isn't and has never been to any significant degree about trail impacts. It's not even about how big or small a wilderness parcel as long as it meets the minimum acreage required by law or if a land has had some previous use.

It's about how land can be set aside not primarily for its use but for its own sake in as natural a state as can be possible in a country where the majority of public land is used and used heavily be it for extractive industry, recreation industry or just recreation. It's about limiting use to it's most primitive forms for not only aesthetic reasons, but to also to limit the total use - IE: The more restrictive on means of travel, the less use overall. Of course there's more to it than that, but those are a couple concepts that not many here seem to be able to comprehend

Some folks within the Summit Fat Tire Society in Summit County Colorado have been plugging away at the concept of companion designations that provide buffers to designated wilderness but allow bicycle use. The concept has been a heavy stone being pushed uphill, but there has been some gain of traction. Legislation, especially totally new and different legislation moves forward at a glacial pace. It has also worked with folks on adjusting proposed wilderness boundaries to miss current mountain bike trails. These are things that can actually make a difference.

Not to mention, from the start of this discussion, I and others have made the point that rather than getting all frothed up about riding your bike in designated wilderness, why not put that energy into the stewardship of _existing_ trails or working through the process to establish new trails where by law they are allowed? There is a _lot_ of room for improvement within the MTB community there. If more people in the MTB community would treat the trails with more respect, volunteer more even if it means riding less, sit through the tedious meetings, plow through the documents, do the leg work, understand and accept that you rarely get everything you want, to get new trail approved the benefit would be large.

Back to the point though, most (once again not all) of the folks posting on this topic are so busy raging against_ the machine_ - the hikers, the equestrians, the tree huggers, the Sahara Klubbers, all those anti fun grey haired ladies, and on and on, that they have very, very little chance of accomplishing anything that will be positive for MTBing.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

zrm said:


> That's because the way most of the folks here (not all) frame the topic makes it hard to have any kind of serious discussion, hence the sarcastic and fictitious reference to recreational bulldozing. (I can't believe that _anyone_ would take that seriously)


For that to be a successful rhetorical argument it has to have some even remote sense and relevance to it.

I was dead serious in my statement about the complete lack of reasonable justification for exclusion of one particular recreational activity from a large swath of public lands.

Your retort was misplaced, misguided, and irrelevant posturing. It was not funny in this context.


----------



## Black Bart (Apr 19, 2004)

daves4mtb said:


> Awww, come on...everyone knows that manufactured boots are used to go forward, therefore are vehicles, and to use them, you must be licensed to drive in the forest! It makes perfect sense. Why do you keep laughing and looking at me like I have three heads? I mean, I do, but it makes perfect sense! If you are a clydesdale yhou also need a big rig license. It's true


Correct. In addition, a fishing pole and reel is used to carry or convey a fish from one point to another and is thus a vehicle. A license is required to operate a motor vehicle and a license is required to operate a fishing reel. Ergo, a fishing pole and/or reel is a motor vehicle and is prohibited from wilderness areas. And sidewalks.


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

Axe said:


> For that to be a successful rhetorical argument it has to have some even remote sense and relevance to it.
> 
> I was dead serious in my statement about the complete lack of reasonable justification for exclusion of one particular recreational activity from a large swath of public lands.
> 
> Your retort was misplaced, misguided, and irrelevant posturing. It was not funny in this context.


Ah, what's reasonable to you might not be reasonable to another and vice versa. Welcome to a democracy with a wide range of points of view. It may be hard for some to accept but as Mick and his magic lips once put so well, you can't always get what you want. You can pout, stomp or tantrum about that if you prefer or what the hell, stick with it and beyond all odds you may prevail, but you might want to consider moving on to more productive waters.

PS: As I said before, I can't believe anyone would take the bulldozer comment seriously. :lol:


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

zrm said:


> Ah, what's reasonable to you might not be reasonable to another and vice versa.


No, there is some very well defined understanding of what is reasonable. Our whole legal system depends on it. There are scientific studies quantifying impact of cycling on trails, there are stated goals of preservation and low impact recreation. There is nothing hard about it. We are just dealing with established interests and inertia. Eventually, we will win.

We did take you comment seriously - as a serious example of posturing. It was not a good joke.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

Axe said:


> No, there is some very well defined understanding of what is reasonable. Our whole legal system depends on it. There are scientific studies quantifying impact of cycling on trails, there are stated goals of preservation and low impact recreation. There is nothing hard about it. We are just dealing with established interests and inertia. Eventually, we will win.


Exactly! :thumbsup:

Most opposition is based on erroneous assumptions or other forms of ignorance or politics which don't stand up to the reality of doing real things in America in this day and age. The underdog eventually surfaces and rules the day. The lesson is to create no underdogs based on prejudice. :nono:


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

Axe said:


> No, there is some very well defined understanding of what is reasonable. Our whole legal system depends on it. There are scientific studies quantifying impact of cycling on trails, there are stated goals of preservation and low impact recreation. There is nothing hard about it. We are just dealing with established interests and inertia. Eventually, we will win.
> 
> We did take you comment seriously - as a serious example of posturing. It was not a good joke.


Well OK. You're certainly entitled to your POV. If you ever find yourself sitting at a table discussing land use issues with people that have a lot of differing backgrounds, agendas and points of views, my experience is you'll find that everyone thinks _they_ are reasonable and that most of the _other_ people sitting across from them or not. Like I said though, go for it, make it your crusade. You might just prove me and all the other nay sayers wrong. Long odds perhaps, but everyone need a hobby or two.

Tomorrow though, I'm volunteering a bit of my time doing trail work with a bunch of other volunteers building some turnpike through a perpetually wet area. (my 6th day of volunteer trail work this season not counting a couple evenings with the chainsaw cutting out blowdown BTW). The trail in question was formally an " un recognized social trail" made an official trail through the efforts of the MTB group mentioned in a previous post. Due to those efforts, work can now be done legally and with the support of the Forest Service. I mention this because it's an example of folks putting their limited time and energy into efforts that actually bear fruit and are of benefit to the MTB community.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

zrm said:


> Well OK. You're certainly entitled to your POV. If you ever find yourself sitting at a table discussing land use issues with people that have a lot of differing backgrounds, agendas and points of views, my experience is you'll find that everyone thinks _they_ are reasonable and that most of the _other_ people sitting across from them or not.


I frequently find myself sitting at a table discussing issues with people with a different point of view, and as I do not regress to sanctimonious posturing, like you have demonstrated here, I do just fine, thank you.

Logic, facts, and reason. Good stuff.


----------



## Fattirewilly (Dec 10, 2001)

Fattirewilly said:


> http://www.wildernessbicycling.org/index.html


To whoever negative rep'd a post with only a factual link....UP YOURS!!!

BTW, link dead now. Don't bother clicking.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

zrm said:


> That's because the way most of the folks here (not all) frame the topic makes it hard to have any kind of serious discussion, hence the sarcastic and fictitious reference to recreational bulldozing. (I can't believe that _anyone_ would take that seriously) It really gets me all the talk about your intrinsic and unlimited (or at least very lightly limited) rights to public land are violated, how *the man* has no right to tell you where you can or can't ride your bike, how so few seem to get the difference between a prohibition on a _person _and a prohibition on an _activity,_ or even the fact that is isn't and has never been to any significant degree about trail impacts. It's not even about how big or small a wilderness parcel as long as it meets the minimum acreage required by law or if a land has had some previous use.
> 
> It's about how land can be set aside not primarily for its use but for its own sake in as natural a state as can be possible in a country where the majority of public land is used and used heavily be it for extractive industry, recreation industry or just recreation. It's about limiting use to it's most primitive forms for not only aesthetic reasons, but to also to limit the total use - IE: The more restrictive on means of travel, the less use overall. Of course there's more to it than that, but those are a couple concepts that not many here seem to be able to comprehend
> 
> ...


The problem being some peole fail to understand the more area opened, the less area we are clumped up on and in the end hte happier people are. 
The more activities allowed, the stronger the economy and thus the stronger the tax base.
The wilderness areas are controlled by two special interest groups, one the most obvious, the tree huggin, bunny huggin wierdos who fail to understand were paper, gold, platinum ect comes from, they think the land belongs only to them and they are the only ones who should be allowed access, the others being the Outfitters who push very hard to have said land restricted so they can horseback in and have bigger trophies for their clients. The politicians like it as one out of state permit equals roughly a dozen regular hunting permits.
Both share one thing in common,they are very very selfish and are taking full advantage of the tax payers, in effect using their money for their own selfish gain.


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

Blurr said:


> The problem being some peole fail to understand the more area opened, the less area we are clumped up on and in the end hte happier people are.
> The more activities allowed, the stronger the economy and thus the stronger the tax base.
> The wilderness areas are controlled by two special interest groups, one the most obvious, the tree huggin, bunny huggin wierdos who fail to understand were paper, gold, platinum ect comes from, they think the land belongs only to them and they are the only ones who should be allowed access, the others being the Outfitters who push very hard to have said land restricted so they can horseback in and have bigger trophies for their clients. The politicians like it as one out of state permit equals roughly a dozen regular hunting permits.
> Both share one thing in common,they are very very selfish and are taking full advantage of the tax payers, in effect using their money for their own selfish gain.


It's bunny _humpers_. Get your nomenclature correct.

You're right, there should be strip mines everywhere. We need the metal for guns to protect our freedom to ride our bikes everywhere we want. (We don't want to be too crowded either, cause someone might go postal due to those overcrowded trails).

Yes, it;s uncanny how those outfitters absolutely _control_ the halls of congress. Extractive industry lobbyists _tremble _in their presence. :lol:


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

zrm said:


> It's bunny _humpers_. Get your nomenclature correct.


 I know what it is, but ya never know what will be censored around here.



> You're right, there should be strip mines everywhere. We need the metal for guns to protect our freedom to ride our bikes everywhere we want. (We don't want to be too crowded either, cause someone might go postal due to those overcrowded trails).


You do need those mines to make those bikes and components we all enjoy, to mention the device we are communicating with right now.



> Yes, it;s uncanny how those outfitters absolutely _control_ the halls of congress. Extractive industry lobbyists _tremble _in their presence. :lol:


Outfitters are playing the cards smart, they realize that the green movement are very powerful lobbyists and they use them as pawns, you know, kind of how the global warming money makers used the hippies there as well.


----------



## Haus Boss (Jun 4, 2010)

Blurr said:


> The problem being some peole fail to understand the more area opened, the less area we are clumped up on and in the end hte happier people are.
> The more activities allowed, the stronger the economy and thus the stronger the tax base.
> The wilderness areas are controlled by two special interest groups, one the most obvious, the tree huggin, bunny huggin wierdos who fail to understand were paper, gold, platinum ect comes from, they think the land belongs only to them and they are the only ones who should be allowed access, the others being the Outfitters who push very hard to have said land restricted so they can horseback in and have bigger trophies for their clients. The politicians like it as one out of state permit equals roughly a dozen regular hunting permits.
> Both share one thing in common,they are very very selfish and are taking full advantage of the tax payers, in effect using their money for their own selfish gain.


Using their money for their own selfish gain... You mean like the politicians who give billion dollar no bid contracts to their former companies and friends? With the amount of timber harvesting on Natl Forest Lands, it's nice to have places that aren't overrun with 18 wheelers barreling down logging roads and other heavy machinery.


----------



## Fischman (Jul 17, 2004)

*More ostensibly rational arguments that are still full of holes . . .*

"It really gets me all the talk about your intrinsic and unlimited (or at least very lightly limited) rights to public land are violated,"

I haven't seen much discussion of unlimited or lightly limited rights. The discussion has generally focused on equal rights--if one use has similar impact to another user, why should he/she be excluded?

"so few seem to get the difference between a prohibition on a person and a prohibition on an activity"

We get it--completely. But if you prohibit the preferred activity you effectively prohibit the person. You completely validate this later on when you say "The more restrictive on means of travel, the less use overall." So you, yourself have confirmed that eliminating an activity eliminates people as well. There are some trails I'd simply rather ride than hike (and I do both extensively, so I'm not just speaking as a biker, but as a trail user who enjoys multiple forms of trial use).

Furthermore, if limiting use is a valid goal, then at least try to find a valid way to reduce use--not an arbitrary one that simply excludes a similar impact user group purely on personal bias.

"rather than getting all frothed up about riding your bike in designated wilderness, why not put that energy into the stewardship of existing trails or working through the process to establish new trails where by law they are allowed? "

I do--trail work, community planning, hours of research and sweat equity. As do many of my fellow MTBers. Far much more as as far as I can tell then our resident hikers and equestrians. In many areas, MTBs are now excluded from trails that MTBers built in the first place. So maybe we have a little justification for getting "frothed up" about being excluded.

"understand and accept that you rarely get everything you want, "

Oh, we do. We really do. But it's not even about what we want, but rather what's fair. Despite being equally or less impactful and equally or more active stewards (at least where I live), bikes are excluded from much while horses are excluded from little and hikers excluded from nothing. Bikes have already made many concessions in addition to being excluded from thousands of miles of prime biking trail. We give up certain trails within larger trail networks. We give up even or odd days so that some poor hiker can ensure himself a bike free experience. Bikes have already shown that they give, often voluntarily, in the name of peaceful, harmonious coexistence on the trails. Appeasement has earned us about as much goodwill with the Sierra Club as Chamberlain got from Hitler.


----------



## H0WL (Jan 17, 2007)

Have been casually following this thread, and came across this somewhat related article at the intersection of state's rights (Utah), outdoor industry, economics.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

Haus Boss said:


> Using their money for their own selfish gain... You mean like the politicians who give billion dollar no bid contracts to their former companies and friends? With the amount of timber harvesting on Natl Forest Lands, it's nice to have places that aren't overrun with 18 wheelers barreling down logging roads and other heavy machinery.


Amount of timber harvesting? you must be joking, we lost mill after mill after mill this past decade, we need far, far more harvesting. And we deserve reasonable access to the land that WE THE PEOPLE own.

I fully agree with you on politicians and their BS as well however.


----------



## Niles (Feb 1, 2009)

Has anyone talked about making wilderness bike access a 'by-permit-only' activity? That way the gov could regulate the number of bikes allowed on a given trail, given their feelings on how much traffic that trail could sustain.


----------



## Fischman (Jul 17, 2004)

*Yep, but just one bike is too many*

The hiking/anti-bike lobby that's steering the ship says they want to limit #s, but when that approach is brought up, it is soundly beaten out--it has nothing to do with #s in reality and just about not sharing.


----------



## cbmtbr (Aug 2, 2004)

No bikes, but...
1980 Congressional Grazing Guidelines, which state in part:
"[W]ilderness designation should not prevent the maintenance of existing fences or other livestock management improvements, nor the construction and maintenance of new fences or improvements which are consistent with allotment management plans and/or which are necessary for the protection of the range&#8230;.

"The maintenance of supporting facilities, existing in the area prior to its classification as wilderness (including fences, line cabins, water wells and lines, stock tanks, etc.), is permissible in wilderness. Where practical alternatives do not exist, maintenance or other activities may be accomplished through the occasional use of motorized equipment. This may include, for example, the use of backhoes to maintain stock ponds, pickup trucks for major fence repairs, or specialized equipment to repair stock watering facilities&#8230;. The construction of new improvements or replacement of deteriorated facilities in wilderness is permissible if in accordance with those guidelines and management plans governing the area involved."

I don't see this one changing without IMBA changing their stance, unless someone purposefully gets a ticket in Wilderness and has the resources to fight it as far as it can go.


----------

