# Montana WSA ruling shuts down alpine riding near Bozeman



## Montana Bob (Sep 28, 2009)

*Montana WSA ruling shuts down alpine riding - 4-20 Update*

On April 7th the Gallatin National Forest released the interim summer use management strategy for the Hyalite Porcupine Buffalo Horn (HPBH) Wilderness Study Area (WSA) south of Bozeman and east of Big Sky. Prompted by a court ruling, the GNF was mandated to rework the management of the WSA under the 2006 Travel Plan.   The GNF has appealed the court decision but the appeals process can take 6 months to 2 years to be resolved with no guarantees of a different outcome. The interim stategy goes into affect May 1st and will be in place until it is replaced by Congressional action - which could take another 33 years.

The new interim stategy drastically reduces the miles open to bicycles in the WSA. The coveted Gallatin Crest and most of the high country side trails are now closed to bicycles.  Trails open to both bicycles and motorcycles were reduced from 70 miles to 40 and trails open to only mountain bicycles went from *170 miles to 20*! This loss of alpine trail access is substantial and irresplaceable. Front country trails are not a substitute for the backcountry access just lost.

We can thank the Wilderness plaintiffs, The Greater Yellowstone Coalition, Montana Wilderness Association and The Wilderness Society, for the initial lawsuit and subsequent testimony that threw bicycles under the motorized bus by repeatedly lumping bicycles in with motorized users for having the same impact on other users, wildlife and the landscape. They argued that mechanized is motorized to acheive their conservation goals. This anti-bicycle sentiment was mirrored in Judge Molloy's ruling and the Forest Service had no choice but to manage bicycles as motorized or risk being in contempt of court.

BOGUS!

See Map

Read GNF press release.

Read IMBA's WSA press release.


----------



## davidarnott (Feb 28, 2007)

IMBA is allied with the Sierra Club. Mountain bikers are not allied with the Blue Ribbon Coalition. Stupid Hurts.


----------



## Moustache rider (Jun 1, 2007)

davidarnott said:


> IMBA is allied with the Sierra Club. Mountain bikers are not allied with the Blue Ribbon Coalition. Stupid Hurts.


Aligning ourselves with motorized groups is stupid. It is exactly what anti bike groups would love to see happen.


----------



## Sasquatch (Dec 23, 2003)

davidarnott said:


> IMBA is allied with the Sierra Club. Mountain bikers are not allied with the Blue Ribbon Coalition. Stupid Hurts.


IMBA does not support motorized recreation. I agree with their position. The Blue Ribbon Coalition is a sham organization created by big oil and mining that opposes any regulations on public land that will limit their ability to make more money, and they love to sucker fools like David into supporting the"coalition" of fossil fuel powered vehicles and bicycles.

Keep sending them your money, and let me know when they "fix" this wilderness probelm for us. I'm sure it's at the top of their agenda.

Meanwhile, I will keep supporting IMBA, and attempting to educate hikers and wilderness groups that bikes aren't so bad.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

Moustache rider said:


> Aligning ourselves with motorized groups is stupid. It is exactly what anti bike groups would love to see happen.


Why they are other people who enjoy the outdoors, are you so arrgant as to assume that your hobby is more important than others?

The real problem here is that yet again, those people do not want you having access at all and only in their approved manner. More control, more loss of freedom. Comrads


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

Sasquatch said:


> IMBA does not support motorized recreation. I agree with their position. The Blue Ribbon Coalition is a sham organization created by big oil and mining that opposes any regulations on public land that will limit their ability to make more money, and they love to sucker fools like David into supporting the"coalition" of fossil fuel powered vehicles and bicycles.


 You do realize that 60 percent of oil goes to other things besides fuel? That little computer you are typing on would not exist nor would that cycle you like to ride, if it was not for mining and oil.



> Keep sending them your money, and let me know when they "fix" this wilderness probelm for us. I'm sure it's at the top of their agenda.


 take a minute, look around, and ask yourself if you would prefer to live in a cave.



> Meanwhile, I will keep supporting IMBA, and attempting to educate hikers and wilderness groups that bikes aren't so bad.


Again, this is the problem people assuming their activity is more important than others.


----------



## mtbGreg (Feb 15, 2010)

Montana Bob said:


> On April 7th the Gallatin National Forest released the interim summer use management strategy for the Hyalite Porcupine Buffalo Horn (HPBH) Wilderness Study Area (WSA) south of Bozeman and east of Big Sky. Prompted by a court ruling, the GNF was mandated to rework the management of the WSA under the 2006 Travel Plan.   The GNF has appealed the court decision but the appeals process can take 6 months to 2 years to be resolved with no guarantees of a different outcome. The interim stategy goes into affect May 1st and will be in place until it is replaced by Congressional action - which could take another 33 years.
> 
> The new interim stategy drastically reduces the miles open to bicycles in the WSA. The coveted Gallatin Crest and most of the high country side trails are now closed to bicycles.  Trails open to both bicycles and motorcycles were reduced from 70 miles to 40 and trails open to only mountain bicycles went from *170 miles to 20*! This loss of alpine trail access is substantial and irresplaceable. Front country trails are not a substitute for the backcountry access just lost.
> 
> ...


This is utter crap!!! :madmax: :madmax: And I never took the opportunity to ride those trails on the few occaisions when I passed through the Bozeman area. :madman: :madman:


----------



## Moustache rider (Jun 1, 2007)

Blurr said:


> Why they are other people who enjoy the outdoors, are you so arrgant as to assume that your hobby is more important than others?
> 
> The real problem here is that yet again, those people do not want you having access at all and only in their approved manner. More control, more loss of freedom. Comrads


Not being arrgant. You have clearly misunderstood me. 
Over time the trend will be towards more restriction of motorized use of public lands. Not saying I agree with it (in all cases). Just saying, it is inevitable and will happen. If we align bikes with them we are screwing ourselves.

Our best strategy is to attach bikes to other non-motorized travel. I consider myself a hiker on wheels. Not a dirt bike without a motor.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

Moustache rider said:


> Not being arrgant. You have clearly misunderstood me.
> Over time the trend will be towards more restriction of motorized use of public lands. Not saying I agree with it (in all cases). Just saying, it is inevitable and will happen. If we align bikes with them we are screwing ourselves.


 by pushing them away, you are losing millions of other people to push for a place to enjoy ourselves.



> Our best strategy is to attach bikes to other non-motorized travel. I consider myself a hiker on wheels. Not a dirt bike without a motor.


Thats a shame, I am a four wheeler rider, a cyclist, a hiker, snowshoeing, target shooting, hunting, motorcyclist, and whatever else i can find to enjoy myself with.


----------



## mtbGreg (Feb 15, 2010)

Moustache rider said:


> Not being arrgant. You have clearly misunderstood me.
> Over time the trend will be towards more restriction of motorized use of public lands. Not saying I agree with it (in all cases). Just saying, it is inevitable and will happen. If we align bikes with them we are screwing ourselves.
> 
> Our best strategy is to attach bikes to other non-motorized travel. I consider myself a hiker on wheels. Not a dirt bike without a motor.


I agree with this post a lot. Mountain biking is a whole lot closer to hiking than it is to dirt biking as far as ecological impact goes. I also personally think that we as mountain bikers have an environmental ethos very similar to those who hike, climb, ski, etc.

Trying to teach LNT to a ATVer with a beer gut? Might as well try to tell Americans why they shouldn't rack up massive amounts of credit card debt, haha!


----------



## Howeler (Sep 23, 2005)

Big Land Area

Not Many People There Right

Patriot Poach Fest


----------



## Sasquatch (Dec 23, 2003)

Blurr said:


> by pushing them away, you are losing millions of other people to push for a place to enjoy ourselves.
> 
> Thats a shame, I am a four wheeler rider, a cyclist, a hiker, snowshoeing, target shooting, hunting, motorcyclist, and whatever else i can find to enjoy myself with.


I enjoy playing with home made bombs, burning scrap plastic, and playing with my Air Raid siren. I should have the right to do what I enjoy wherever I want also, right? What's your address? I might stop by to recreate this weekend.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

Sasquatch said:


> I enjoy playing with home made bombs, burning scrap plastic, and playing with my Air Raid siren. I should have the right to do what I enjoy wherever I want also, right? What's your address? I might stop by to recreate this weekend.


Sounds like Fun I love blowing **** up too.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

Howeler said:


> Big Land Area
> 
> Not Many People There Right
> 
> Patriot Poach Fest


Actually no, what few roads are left are heavily restricted with what access is available and when.


----------



## Skookum (Jan 17, 2005)

It's pretty bad when the local Forest Service themselves speak up as this being a poor ruling that they are forced to implement. That should really speak volumes.

We had a debate here locally on the thought of who to support.

Regardless of that argument, the fact remains that if we are speaking specifically to mt. bikers as an individual user-group, this decision has tremendous negative ramifications.

The original intent for public meetings were to serve as a process to best serve the public interest, which includes recreation. Every stakeholder has impact on these lands, it's a given that stakeholders like Mining, Timber, Cattle, have enormous impact. The checks and balances of environmental groups for the most part were founded to provide that check and balance to protect the lands for the enjoyment of future generations to recreate. But for the last 30 years you have environmental groups actively working against recreation interests, this particular action serves as a clear agenda to drastically minimize mt. biking decreasing our legitimate claim of being a stakeholder in these lands. So it's my opinion that this further illuminates their modern agenda as unreasonable and in my view undermines their efforts as unsustainable and unsound.

This has huge negative ramifications that i foresee will trickle well outside of Montana. And i would even dare say that if you are pro-wilderness this will have negative repurcussions, for the sentiment that it seems a decision like this makes it even more challenging when trying to form alliances.

Look at all the effort, double-dealing, money, energy going to this, when if this energy could be finding ways harness that energy, cooperating and collaborating together for the good of the land. When you look at it from that point of view it's really really sad.

_The Forest Service has appealed Judge Malloy's ruling because managers believe that the travel plan decision provides the most appropriate way to manage this area.
"We understand the impacts these restrictions will cause mountain bike and motorcycle enthusiasts. Because the Court said the amount of motorized and mechanized use the Forest allowed in the WSA did not maintain the 1977 era wilderness character there were few options other than to further limit use areas," said Mary Erickson, Gallatin Forest Supervisor.
"The Court's decision clearly states that the Judge does not believe a solution to this issue can be found through additional environmental analysis. It also acknowledged the untenable position the agency is now placed in given Congress's intent to act on the Wilderness Study Act during the mid-1980s," continued Erickson. "We encourage all recreation user groups to work together, with the agency, and the state's elected delegation to determine appropriate long-term management for the WSA."_


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

Call up George Bush, take him for a ride dwon there...get him to start the lobbying effort...

See George really is a good guy.


----------



## ErickKTM (Jul 29, 2004)

Poach it, its not about the environment, its about control. The environmental wacks will not stop until there is no access to any wilderness areas.


----------



## socal_jack (Dec 30, 2008)

Going it alone will do no good, the Wilderness groups and Sierra Club(with which the IMBA has an agreement not to fight Wildernss designation) already equate mtn bikers with motorized vehicles(as does the IMBA by proxy). So whether you want to be aligned with OHVs or not, in effect you already are.



Moustache rider said:


> Aligning ourselves with motorized groups is stupid. It is exactly what anti bike groups would love to see happen.


----------



## socal_jack (Dec 30, 2008)

And all public lands are to be designated Wilderness, take a look at HR 980, 24 million acres Idaho, Montana , Oregon, Washington, Wyoming submitted by a Ny(D) as usual

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-980



ErickKTM said:


> Poach it, its not about the environment, its about control. The environmental wacks will not stop until there is no access to any wilderness areas.


----------



## mtbGreg (Feb 15, 2010)

Skookum said:


> It's pretty bad when the local Forest Service themselves speak up as this being a poor ruling that they are forced to implement. That should really speak volumes.
> 
> We had a debate here locally on the thought of who to support.
> 
> ...


What the crap. I mean if the forest service doesn't even want to do it, then why did the courts pass this law or whatever it is?


----------



## Moustache rider (Jun 1, 2007)

socal_jack said:


> Going it alone will do no good, the Wilderness groups and Sierra Club(with which the IMBA has an agreement not to fight Wildernss designation) already equate mtn bikers with motorized vehicles(as does the IMBA by proxy). So whether you want to be aligned with OHVs or not, in effect you already are.


Not everyone in pro-wilderness groups/Sierra club can be pigeonholed together. True, some equate bikes with OHV's and will never change their minds. Some could be influenced to see things a different way. While others are far more pro bike.

It doesn't matter what they think anyways. It matters what the decision makers think. If we stand in front of the decision makers joined to the off roaders at the hip, we shoot ourselves in the foot


----------



## sean salach (Sep 15, 2007)

The obvious solution is to flood the wilderness groups with mountain biker membership and make our voice heard.


----------



## davidarnott (Feb 28, 2007)

*Wow*

That's the first constructive idea I've heard in months.



sean salach said:


> The obvious solution is to flood the wilderness groups with mountain biker membership and make our voice heard.


----------



## Wild Wassa (Jun 4, 2009)

The world wide Membership of the Sierra Club is +700,000.

The world wide membership of the IMBA plus the affiliated rider's groups in 12 countries/chapters outside of the US is approx 80,000 riders and supporters.

80,000 aligned with +700,000 = +780,000 ... doing what ever the Sierra Club wants. 

The Sierra Club has divided the US into 23 zones. Each zone has a proposed network of Biospheres regions. Each of the Biosphere regions will not work 'fully' unless they are linked to the entire network with wildlife corridors.

Expect to lose a hell of a lot more back country riding areas, lost each and every year. The Sierra Club are big supporters of UNESCO programmes.

Ride the remaining bits of wild country while you still can.

Warren.


----------



## socal_jack (Dec 30, 2008)

As Wild Wassa is pointing out, if you stand with IMBA you are standing with the Sierra Club and all the other Wilderness groups for which OHV=MTB and they have the money, the decision makers listen to money not you, thru the courts if necessary as in the case of the Forest service.

You are joined at the hip with OHVs right now whether you want to admit that or not and you won't be talking these groups out of it, it is the stated goal of these groups to eliminate mtbs from Wilderness irrespective of what some individual members may think, most probably don't care.



Moustache rider said:


> Not everyone in pro-wilderness groups/Sierra club can be pigeonholed together. True, some equate bikes with OHV's and will never change their minds. Some could be influenced to see things a different way. While others are far more pro bike.
> 
> It doesn't matter what they think anyways. It matters what the decision makers think. If we stand in front of the decision makers joined to the off roaders at the hip, we shoot ourselves in the foot


----------



## Moustache rider (Jun 1, 2007)

socal_jack said:


> As Wild Wassa is pointing out, if you stand with IMBA you are standing with the Sierra Club and all the other Wilderness groups for which OHV=MTB and they have the money, the decision makers listen to money not you, thru the courts if necessary as in the case of the Forest service.
> 
> You are joined at the hip with OHVs right now whether you want to admit that or not and you won't be talking these groups out of it, it is the stated goal of these groups to eliminate mtbs from Wilderness irrespective of what some individual members may think, most probably don't care.


To criticize IMBA and group them in with the Sierra Club shows you don't know much about IMBA. They influenced the Sierra Club to change its official stance on MTB to be more accepting than it once was. IMBA has done more for MTB access than the Blue ribbon coalition ever could.

I'm not anti OHV, I wish them luck. However, my bike is NOT an OHV. Accepting this label would be the biggest mistake we could ever make. 
Joining with the OHV community will only help them and hurt us. I am suspicious of the motives of those supporting such an alliance. They need to fight their own battle without dragging us into it.

Over time there will be more and more restrictions on the use of public land. It has been the trend for decades and nothing is going to change that.
We can try to make ourselves a part of the group that will face more of those restrictions, or the group that will face fewer of those restrictions. 
Your choice.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

Moustache rider said:


> To criticize IMBA and group them in with the Sierra Club shows you don't know much about IMBA. They influenced the Sierra Club to change its official stance on MTB to be more accepting than it once was. IMBA has done more for MTB access than the Blue ribbon coalition ever could.
> 
> I'm not anti OHV, I wish them luck. However, my bike is NOT an OHV. Accepting this label would be the biggest mistake we could ever make.
> Joining with the OHV community will only help them and hurt us. I am suspicious of the motives of those supporting such an alliance. They need to fight their own battle without dragging us into it.
> ...


Again, you do not get it, they think Humans are a scourge to the earth, that is the problem. I sat in on a meeting with a subsidiary of the EPA who believes shower water is contaminated because people may urinate in the shower, I asked "what if I urinate off a trail?" their answer was a resounding "yes"

Edit: http://www.walkingandhiking.co.uk/environmental-impact-caused-walking-hiking.html


----------



## GregB406 (Dec 19, 2005)

Skookum said:


> Look at all the effort, double-dealing, money, energy going to this, when if this energy could be finding ways harness that energy, cooperating and collaborating together for the good of the land. When you look at it from that point of view it's really really sad.


I like this revelation. I'm gonna spread it around.:thumbsup:


----------



## Moustache rider (Jun 1, 2007)

Blurr said:


> Again, you do not get it, they think Humans are a scourge to the earth, that is the problem. I sat in on a meeting with a subsidiary of the EPA who believes shower water is contaminated because people may urinate in the shower, I asked "what if I urinate off a trail?" their answer was a resounding "yes"
> 
> Edit: http://www.walkingandhiking.co.uk/environmental-impact-caused-walking-hiking.html


I'm not really sure how to respond to this post. I guess you win.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

Moustache rider said:


> I'm not really sure how to respond to this post. I guess you win.


man IM not trying to win, all I am doing is trying to bring awareness to what is really going on here.


----------



## sxotty (Nov 4, 2005)

Blurr said:


> man IM not trying to win, all I am doing is trying to bring awareness to what is really going on here.


Well you have certainly brought awareness to your opinion, but that is about it.


----------



## mtbGreg (Feb 15, 2010)

Wild Wassa said:


> The world wide Membership of the Sierra Club is +700,000.
> 
> The world wide membership of the IMBA plus the affiliated rider's groups in 12 countries/chapters outside of the US is approx 80,000 riders and supporters.
> 
> ...


Only 80,000? There are so many more mountain bikers than that out there. That's crazy!


----------



## bigskyguy (Apr 6, 2008)

When they outlaw bikes, only outlaws will ride. Bear spray works even better on people. 

The GYC turning science into religion one lawsuit at a time.

The plus of the lawsuit is that it has diverted money away from the forest circus that would have probably gone twords patrol. If some eco-nazi wearing a euro purse starts running thier mouth about how I'm not allowed on the crest he/she will be having a side of habanero sauce. As I float downhill at a much faster rate than all the other trail users ie horses (who by the way do signifigant trail damage) or walkers (I refuse to call them hikers). Let the poaching commence.


----------



## GregB406 (Dec 19, 2005)

*objective info*

I may have just found the most objective information regarding the Gallatin Range on the web. I think. It is certainly worth a careful read. Especially for those with only marginal knowledge of the area.

http://www.summitpost.org/parent/170951/gallatin-range.html


----------



## Sasquatch (Dec 23, 2003)

bigskyguy said:


> When they outlaw bikes, only outlaws will ride. Bear spray works even better on people.
> 
> The GYC turning science into religion one lawsuit at a time.
> 
> The plus of the lawsuit is that it has diverted money away from the forest circus that would have probably gone twords patrol. If some eco-nazi wearing a euro purse starts running thier mouth about how I'm not allowed on the crest he/she will be having a side of habanero sauce. As I float downhill at a much faster rate than all the other trail users ie horses (who by the way do signifigant trail damage) or walkers (I refuse to call them hikers). Let the poaching commence.


Mocking the opposition and threatening violence certainly won't help our cause.


----------



## LeeL (Jan 12, 2004)

wow - comparing this map and my Bozeman trails map you guys lost 60 - 70% of trails?


----------



## Jlar (May 29, 2006)

LeeL said:


> wow - comparing this map and my Bozeman trails map you guys lost 60 - 70% of trails?


Ya, thank god we live in Canada.


----------



## speedmetal (Feb 28, 2007)

If it's sparsely populated, how do they know when a mountain bike rider is there? (just saying...) And what would be the consequences of getting caught poaching a closed trail? (just wondering, don't get any ideas...;-) )


----------



## davidarnott (Feb 28, 2007)

*Ride the remaining bits of wild country while you can*

Words of wisdom Lloyd. Words Of Wisdom. Now we will just have to go and ride those places where the Blue Ribbon Coalition has been busy keeping open to OHV's. Which is trails and roads open to motor bikes quads and jeepers. Obviously we have failed in our hapless quest to have "them" eliminated from "our" trails. And so our just dessert is that we will have to "share it" with the loathsome enemy. This has to be the best thing that ever happened to us. It will mean that from now on we will be riding with other bicycle riders who have an ounce of tolerance in their souls. All you urban aesthetes can stay home spinning your air trainers and going around and around and around and around and around and around and around your Hula Loops. Good riddance I say. Thanks For Nothing.


----------



## The Sagebrush Slug (Jan 12, 2004)

Trying to be constructive here, but I'm not sure how this is 1.) the most objective set of information; and 2.) actually contributing to the conversation? It's got some pretty pictures, but it's hard to take ugly pictures of any of the natural areas of western Montana or northern Idaho.

The rule is proposed for all of USFS region 1; the Gallatin is only part of the larger issue.One of the real problems with this whole proposal is that getting information out of the USFS about what lands and most specifically, what trails, are affected is like pulling teeth.

I think the question is not "is this land worth protecting?" -- I know nobody who suggests such a thing; it is "what protections are most appropriate?" And one of the questions there is "what are the common recreational activities, and how are those activities tied in with the livelihood of the community?"

Personally, wilderness vs. biking is a tough call. But right now, I wouldn't mind seeing a major wilderness proposal go down in flames due to recreational opposition.

Rolland



GregB406 said:


> I may have just found the most objective information regarding the Gallatin Range on the web. I think. It is certainly worth a careful read. Especially for those with only marginal knowledge of the area.
> 
> http://www.summitpost.org/parent/170951/gallatin-range.html


[edit: tried to make it more clear that lack of information was the issue I was raising, not anything specific about this post.]


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

Sasquatch said:


> Mocking the opposition and threatening violence certainly won't help our cause.


Worked for the founding fathers :thumbsup:

In a little area In Montana, I wont mention where, as roads were gated, the locals chained up and pulled em out, finally, the gov simply gave up.


----------



## Big Jim (Jul 9, 2008)

what if you just get off your bike and walk when you see the fancy green ranger truck, and say you're taking your bike for a walk. If they didn't see you riding it, you were only walking.
Doing and intending are different things.


----------



## bear (Feb 3, 2004)

Blurr said:


> Worked for the founding fathers


Actually, they spent more time acting on their intent, vs sitting around jawing on it, than I suspect we do.


----------



## bigskyguy (Apr 6, 2008)

My mountain bike is no more "motorized" than the office chair of the bureaucrat who banned it.


----------



## M_S (Nov 18, 2007)

Blurr said:


> Again, you do not get it, they think Humans are a scourge to the earth, that is the problem. I sat in on a meeting with a subsidiary of the EPA who believes shower water is contaminated because people may urinate in the shower, I asked "what if I urinate off a trail?" their answer was a resounding "yes"


Wastewater is contaminated because of many reasons, but one of the most concerning water quality issues currently is the high concentration of chemicals of pharmaceutical origin. Yes, from excrement and urine. The urine itself can be filtered, but there are currently few ways of getting the chemicals out, which can have very serious environmental consequences. The fact that you would mock concern over this issue without understanding the basis just shows you are in no position to criticize it.


The Sagebrush Slug said:


> Trying to be constructive here, but I'm not sure how this is 1.) the most objective set of information; and 2.) actually contributing to the conversation? It's got some pretty pictures, but it's hard to take ugly pictures of any of the natural areas of western Montana or northern Idaho.
> 
> The rule is proposed for all of USFS region 1; the Gallatin is only part of the larger issue.One of the real problems with this whole proposal is that getting information out of the USFS about what lands and most specifically, what trails, are affected is like pulling teeth.
> 
> ...


Very good post, and I agree. As an ardent environmentalist I have become disheartened with the Wilderness movement for many reasons, most of which have nothing to do with bikes (which let's face it, are not always the most important issue). Not only is a lot of wilderness based on a fairly recent and rather shaky social construct (that there were no people here before us and the land was pristine before ******) but the designation is generally being pushed on lands where it is not an appropriate management strategy IMO.

The future of Western Public lands will largely be based on recreational activities. For better or worse, it's already happened if you look at the economics of most Western states.

That said, there are worse things than new Wilderness designation.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

M_S said:


> Wastewater is contaminated because of many reasons, but one of the most concerning water quality issues currently is the high concentration of chemicals of pharmaceutical origin. Yes, from excrement and urine. The urine itself can be filtered, but there are currently few ways of getting the chemicals out, which can have very serious environmental consequences. The fact that you would mock concern over this issue without understanding the basis just shows you are in no position to criticize it.


 sigh, except for the simple fact that 1 UV rays will do their part, you are aware of that as well, and that two, the earth itself will filter it. However the chemicals are biodegradable from said showers, as well as they are not the issue to begin with, so I guess you are showing where you are completely uninformed on this subject.



> The future of Western Public lands will largely be based on recreational activities. For better or worse, it's already happened if you look at the economics of most Western states.
> 
> That said, there are worse things than new Wilderness designation.


 There really is little worse than the government taking hte land from the people and not giving them access, be it for recreation, or for the needs of said society (logging, mining, oil, and whatever else we shall discover) there is a mud hut with your name on it.


----------



## mtbGreg (Feb 15, 2010)

bigskyguy said:


> My mountain bike is no more "motorized" than the office chair of the bureaucrat who banned it.


So true!


----------



## mtbGreg (Feb 15, 2010)

speedmetal said:


> If it's sparsely populated, how do they know when a mountain bike rider is there? (just saying...) And what would be the consequences of getting caught poaching a closed trail? (just wondering, don't get any ideas...;-) )


haha good point! Although, i don't think it's going to help our cause any to promote poaching.


----------



## M_S (Nov 18, 2007)

Blurr said:


> sigh, except for the simple fact that 1 UV rays will do their part, you are aware of that as well, and that two, the earth itself will filter it. However the chemicals are biodegradable from said showers, as well as they are not the issue to begin with, so I guess you are showing where you are completely uninformed on this subject.


None of that made any sense. And UV radiation may have a negligible effect, considering the levels of introduction into the water system, and depending on the chemical in question.
_
Direct Photolysis Degradation Rates. Cimetidine reacts negligibly under the sunlight irradiation conditions employed in this study (summer sunlight in Minneapolis, MN, 45° latitude). Ranitidine is photodegraded much more quickly with a half-life of 35 min under noon summertime sunlight. The UV-vis spectra of 1 and 2 are markedly different (see Supporting Information, Figure S20), with 1 displaying an absorbance maximum at 218 nm and very little absorbance above 260 nm, while 2 has absorbance maxima at 226 and 315 nm. *The photostability of 1 can be rationalized by the fact that it does not appreciably absorb in the wavelength region supplied by the solar spectrum*. Likewise, the photolability of 2 can be rationalized in part by its efficient absorption of light in the lower wavelength region of the solar spectrum._


> There really is little worse than the government taking hte land from the people and not giving them access, be it for recreation, or for the needs of said society (logging, mining, oil, and whatever else we shall discover) there is a mud hut with your name on it.


Hardly relevant since they are public lands anyways, but you're free to vote for politicians who support privatization of public lands. LOL, good luck with that.

Sorry to everyone else for the thread derailment. I couldn't help myself.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

M_S said:


> None of that made any sense. And UV radiation may have a negligible effect, considering the levels of introduction into the water system, and depending on the chemical in question.
> _
> Direct Photolysis Degradation Rates. Cimetidine reacts negligibly under the sunlight irradiation conditions employed in this study (summer sunlight in Minneapolis, MN, 45° latitude). Ranitidine is photodegraded much more quickly with a half-life of 35 min under noon summertime sunlight. The UV-vis spectra of 1 and 2 are markedly different (see Supporting Information, Figure S20), with 1 displaying an absorbance maximum at 218 nm and very little absorbance above 260 nm, while 2 has absorbance maxima at 226 and 315 nm. *The photostability of 1 can be rationalized by the fact that it does not appreciably absorb in the wavelength region supplied by the solar spectrum*. Likewise, the photolability of 2 can be rationalized in part by its efficient absorption of light in the lower wavelength region of the solar spectrum._


  oh brother, dude UV treatment is used in the vast, vast majority of your sanitation fascilities and is by far the most effective, it is also how most of your septic pumpers will "treat" waste when it is spread out in a field. Son I go to a conference every year over this with the "powers that B" you can save your BS and attempt at information overload 



> Hardly relevant since they are public lands anyways, but you're free to vote for politicians who support privatization of public lands. LOL, good luck with that.


Actually this is on public land where I stated this was referenced, now maybe you on some wacko planet think that someone taking a leak on a tree is a hazard to the environment, but any person with an ounce of common sense knows this is not the case. but whateva chanp :thumbsup:


----------



## M_S (Nov 18, 2007)

Little current UV treatment is directed at decomposition of pharmaceuticals, and if you had bothered to read the quoted section of the study I linked to, it clearly indicates that pharmaceuticals are not necessarily degradable by the wavelengths present in normal sunlight.


----------



## ~martini~ (Dec 20, 2003)

I don't live there, but would certainly not be above poaching in this case. If civil discourse didn't work, civil disobedience is the next best thing. I'm really not impressed with IMBA's efforts in this case...


----------



## Shelbak73 (Nov 10, 2007)

mtbGreg said:


> Only 80,000? There are so many more mountain bikers than that out there. That's crazy!


To quote an IMBA rep on a post last year:
Only *.*2% of mountain bikers join IMBA.
That's POINT TWO PERCENT......two tenths of one percent.
Yep, that's crazy, and very sad.


----------



## mtbGreg (Feb 15, 2010)

Shelbak73 said:


> To quote an IMBA rep on a post last year:
> Only *.*2% of mountain bikers join IMBA.
> That's POINT TWO PERCENT......two tenths of one percent.
> Yep, that's crazy, and very sad.


Wow. We as a sport need to shape up!


----------



## Shelbak73 (Nov 10, 2007)

LeeL said:


> wow - comparing this map and my Bozeman trails map you guys lost 60 - 70% of trails?


I'm not taking issue with you, but more with this train of thought. Allow me to fix your quote.

"wow - comparing this map and my Bozeman trails map _*we*_ lost 60 - 70% of _*our*_ trails."

The fact you have a Bozeman trail map book I'm sure you understand the point I'm trying to make.
It doesn't matter if these trails are 10ft from your front door, or 10,000mi away, they are all trails we could and should be allowed to ride. We should all be pulling together to save them like they are our hometown trails.

IMO here's a good place to start: www.montanamountainbikealliance.com


----------



## GregB406 (Dec 19, 2005)

*uh yeah*



bigskyguy said:


> My mountain bike is no more "motorized" than the office chair of the bureaucrat who banned it.


Great quote! I love it.

I have to clarify a bit about this link.

http://www.summitpost.org/parent/170951/gallatin-range.html

What I thought was special is that it wasn't wilderness propaganda or MMBA alert stuff. Just mountains, locations, logistics, etc. It is info everyone can grasp.

Hey look, i'm posting Crest pictures on Montana Mountain Bike Alliance on facebook. Check them out and add your own. Or do it here. One picture is worth a thousand words, ya know.


----------



## Wild Wassa (Jun 4, 2009)

Moustache rider said:


> To criticize IMBA and group them in with the Sierra Club shows you don't know much about IMBA. .


Moustache rider, you wrote that I don't understand? The following is from the agreement reached at Park City, Utah, April 1994.

Sierra Club and International Mountain Bicycling Association agree:

1. To work for Wilderness, park, and open-space protection;

2. That mountain bicycling is a legitimate form of recreation and transportation on trails, including single track, when and where it is practised in an environmentally sound and socially responsible manner;

3. That not all non-Wilderness trails should be opened to bicycle use;

4. To create joint projects to educate all non-motorized trail users;

5. To encourage communication between local mountain bicycle groups and Sierra Club entities.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

What is the definition of motorized again? ... as per the Court's ruling?

I would like to suggest that you are the one who doesn't have a clue? The early agreements between the IMBA and the Sierra Club (of which the above is an early agreement) are now coming back to roost in the favour of our, we riders, exclusion from wilderness world wide. Only by degrees at first, but still, exclusion by degrees.

The Sierra Club supports UNESCO programmes, so by default, the IMBA also supports UNESCO's *environmentally sound* and *socially responsible programmes* (not just manner), like *'Sustainable Environments' *and* 'Man and the Biosphere'*?

Warren.

PS, Dude get with the programmes ... because to be *environmentally sound* and *socially responsible* nowadays, has trapped the unwary like the IMBA. Welcome to the overwhelming power of the Sierra Club and UNESCO.


----------



## freebiker (Mar 19, 2006)

What a tragic loss. I lived in Big Sky for several years. My thoughts go out to those fat tired friends in the area. Great! Now everything on the east and west side of gallatin is closed to bikes. WTF? Glad I got out there last summer and did the Porcupine/eaglehead/gallatin divide/big creek for a friends bachelor party. My second time on that ride and my last. Got plenty of photos in hand. No flipping wilderness coalition can take those away from me!


----------



## LeeL (Jan 12, 2004)

Shelbak73 said:


> I'm not taking issue with you, but more with this train of thought. Allow me to fix your quote.
> 
> "wow - comparing this map and my Bozeman trails map _*we*_ lost 60 - 70% of _*our*_ trails."
> 
> ...


I totally understand what you're saying. I actually donated when I went down last year. There was a lot I wanted to see. Hope that's not in the past tense now


----------



## Frozenspokes (May 26, 2004)

I read the GNF press release. It seemed to say, " Sorry MTbikers, your [email protected] Not our fault". This ruling is based on a law suit. Who filed the suit? Should we blame lawmakers for their failure to take action on this WSA for over 30 years? (Hell Yes!). As far as I can tell, congress designated these areas as WSA in the '70s with the intent to designate them Wilderness in the '80s. They have failed to take action. Either designate it Wilderness or lift the WSA label. That would go a long way toward diffusing the arguments of the HOHA groups to ban access. This is the type of crap that happens when leaders refuse to lead. Instead of laws being created in congress where they should be, they are instead created in the courts. This ruling sets a precedent that will be used by the HOHAs to close ANY WSA to bikes. Get ready for trail closures in your NTL Forest in the near future! I'm afraid we have lost. Our only hope is to elect legislaters who will actually make some tough decisions. I don't see that happening in my lifetime. But I can promise you this. I'm going to make my thoughts on the subject known to my representatives.


----------



## Glide the Clyde (Nov 12, 2009)

*And the band...*

:band:


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

Frozenspokes said:


> I read the GNF press release. It seemed to say, " Sorry MTbikers, your [email protected] Not our fault". This ruling is based on a law suit. Who filed the suit? Should we blame lawmakers for their failure to take action on this WSA for over 30 years? (Hell Yes!). As far as I can tell, congress designated these areas as WSA in the '70s with the intent to designate them Wilderness in the '80s. They have failed to take action. Either designate it Wilderness or lift the WSA label. That would go a long way toward diffusing the arguments of the HOHA groups to ban access. This is the type of crap that happens when leaders refuse to lead. Instead of laws being created in congress where they should be, they are instead created in the courts. This ruling sets a precedent that will be used by the HOHAs to close ANY WSA to bikes. Get ready for trail closures in your NTL Forest in the near future! I'm afraid we have lost. Our only hope is to elect legislaters who will actually make some tough decisions. I don't see that happening in my lifetime. But I can promise you this. I'm going to make my thoughts on the subject known to my representatives.


The Peoples "voice" has been drowned out for years and is only getting worse.


----------



## Montana Rider (Aug 21, 2005)

Devastating news...

I'm glad that I got up there last summer

http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=561715

Sad that my not quite 4 yo daughter mtn biker in training won't be allowed the chance...

Is this decision a 'done deal'?

Is there any chance that this 'interpretation' could be modified down the line?

I'd like to voice my opposition to this decision somehow -- I need to replace my sadness and anger with hope.


----------



## M_S (Nov 18, 2007)

It's certainly reversible, but the whole WSA thing is a big mess, and in my opinion a strong argument for alternative designations such as recreation and scenic areas, which have room for different types of use where appropriate, but minimal mechanical "treatment."


----------



## mtbGreg (Feb 15, 2010)

Shelbak73 said:


> I'm not taking issue with you, but more with this train of thought. Allow me to fix your quote.
> 
> "wow - comparing this map and my Bozeman trails map _*we*_ lost 60 - 70% of _*our*_ trails."
> 
> ...


Yes, I 100% agree with this post. Even if we live thousands of miles away, we still need trails to dream about riding, destinations to travel to to ride for vacation, and simply for the progress of the sport as a whole. If trails start getting shut down for such asinine reasons as this, you can bet it's going to spread.


----------



## Fischman (Jul 17, 2004)

*Aaaarrrrrgggggghhhhhhhh!!!!!!!*

I was stationed at Malmstrom AFB in Great Falls for a few years--got to do some great riding in Big Sky Country. :thumbsup: Unfortunately, 60 -80 hr work weeks and family commitments kept me from riding as much as I would have liked, especially the trails that were more than a couple hours away.  Then I got transferred to the Pentagon (Montana to DC--kinda' like being banished from eden into hell):bluefrown: .

Flash forward to now--retiring after 21 years of service. My reward to myself is to take off some time between military service and my next civilian job to execute the mother of all road trips in which I will return to Montana and ride all those great trails I never got to when I lived there. Wait--I can't: The Gallatin Crest was on the menu-- No more!! GD MF SOB. !$&@*#^!! :madmax:

So I was there and got hosed by my job. Now, I'm soon to be free but I'm hosed by my government! :madman: I was never one to expect perks from my service, but can't a vet get in a ride on the trail of his choice in the land he dedicated his life to defending?!?

What exactly was I defending? The Sierra Club? The Wilderness Association? A bunch of exclusive lobbies that subvert the democratic process? Kinda pisses me off. No--check that--really pisses me off. Of course, the selfish bastards disguised as environmental advocates are mostly anti-military, so with me, their victory is double sweet.

All my posts on the wilderness topic in the past have been completely rational, non-emotional, fact- and logic-based, as have been my letters to lawmakers and governmental decision makers. I'll admit to a naked rant here--emotion has taken over, but it's only because good sense and democracy have been squashed.

I hope everyone who rides a bike in his public lands takes this as a call to action!!!


----------



## GregB406 (Dec 19, 2005)

Freebiker.
Great passion. Could you post some of those photos full size? It's hard for me to hold a magnifier up to the screen.



freebiker said:


> What a tragic loss. I lived in Big Sky for several years. My thoughts go out to those fat tired friends in the area. Great! Now everything on the east and west side of gallatin is closed to bikes. WTF? Glad I got out there last summer and did the Porcupine/eaglehead/gallatin divide/big creek for a friends bachelor party. My second time on that ride and my last. Got plenty of photos in hand. No flipping wilderness coalition can take those away from me!


----------



## davidarnott (Feb 28, 2007)

*It's Annoying As All Hell*

Worst of all we keep losing access to public lands through both democratic and republican presidential administrations and congress and senate majorities. Bush was reputed to be a mountain biker and we lost big time during his administration. For damn sure the Clinton administration set into motion WSA proposals that are killing us. Personally I find it disturbing that the federal government has been so hard on bicycles in general. Particularly considering the combination of transportation, energy, emmissions, noise and preventative health benefits of riding bicycles. What I wonder sometimes is: Are bicycles so efficient in so many different ways that they represent a threat to the present state of affairs? Bicycles most certainly are one of the best answers to our oil/transportation problem. Commuting could represent that large of a threat to the Health Care Industry. I ramble on but my opinion is that the federal government should be Openning public and federal rights of way to bicycles. Not closing them.


----------



## Frozenspokes (May 26, 2004)

Blurr said:


> The Peoples "voice" has been drowned out for years and is only getting worse.


Only because fewer and fewer people are holding their representatives accountable for the BS they perpetrate. It's quite honestly shamefull some of the outright criminals that are in congress. Democrats or Republicans, no party is innocent. Yet people keep re-electing them. Sadly, when I enter the voting booth I usually feel like I am choosing between the lesser of two evils. But I will continue to let whatever loser my fellow mericans choose to represent me know my thoughts on issues that are important to me. When the all of people give up, the special interests have won completely.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

Frozenspokes said:


> Only because fewer and fewer people are holding their representatives accountable for the BS they perpetrate. It's quite honestly shamefull some of the outright criminals that are in congress. Democrats or Republicans, no party is innocent. Yet people keep re-electing them. Sadly, when I enter the voting booth I usually feel like I am choosing between the lesser of two evils. But I will continue to let whatever loser my fellow mericans choose to represent me know my thoughts on issues that are important to me. When the all of people give up, the special interests have won completely.


I look at it like this, would I hire the person to work for me, nearly always it is a resounding NO, so I have written myself in for years and years.
However if you really want your voice heard, this is your big chance. http://secondamendmentmarch.com/


----------



## freebiker (Mar 19, 2006)

*is this his address?*

Anyone in the neighboorhood, please leave a sack of sh_t on his door step for me!
Thanks

*Don Molloy *

Bigfork, MT 59911

(406) 837-6255


----------



## ionsmuse (Jul 14, 2005)

1: This is a legit issue to debate, not a socialist conspiracy. Grow up folks.

2: With a few exceptions (as Freebiker points out), the trails is question are not exceptionally bikeable. As MT Rider's TR from last year reveals, the parts of the Devil's Backbone which are now off-limits to bikes are faster on foot anyways. Loads of great scenery, and loads of 30-40 degree ups and down, neither of which are rideable. 

Just to keep things in perspective.

3: It is troubling that the '81 FS rule that classified bikes as mechanized keeps getting solifidied. Every rule in support of it does make it harder to undo. 

There are some wilderness areas closed to biking where the closure frankly isn't that big of a deal (see above, many of the ones in southern Utah) because they're unlikely to be suitable and sustainable mountain desinations. There are others (Bob Marshall here in Montana, Weminuche in CO, High Uintahs in Utah, Wind Rivers in WY) that would be mountain bike meccas. 

All of the four I just mentioned are places I've seen horrific erosion from horsepackers, and the extent to which bikes are regulated and horses not is another can of beans.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

ionsmuse said:


> 1: This is a legit issue to debate, not a socialist conspiracy. Grow up folks.


 SO in other words you are just completely clueless? We are discussing the agenda, HELLOOOOO HELLOOOOOOO



> 2: With a few exceptions (as Freebiker points out), the trails is question are not exceptionally bikeable. As MT Rider's TR from last year reveals, the parts of the Devil's Backbone which are now off-limits to bikes are faster on foot anyways. Loads of great scenery, and loads of 30-40 degree ups and down, neither of which are rideable.


 a good 20 percent of my ride is usually spent carrying my bike over some ridiculous terrain, however that is irrelevant, if it is Impassable, then banning a MTN bike really was not necessary at all was it?



> Just to keep things in perspective.
> 
> 3: It is troubling that the '81 FS rule that classified bikes as mechanized keeps getting solifidied. Every rule in support of it does make it harder to undo.


 Which is what they want, that whole conspiracy thing that really actually does exist.



> There are some wilderness areas closed to biking where the closure frankly isn't that big of a deal (see above, many of the ones in southern Utah) because they're unlikely to be suitable and sustainable mountain desinations. There are others (Bob Marshall here in Montana, Weminuche in CO, High Uintahs in Utah, Wind Rivers in WY) that would be mountain bike meccas.


 And should be accessable



> All of the four I just mentioned are places I've seen horrific erosion from horsepackers, and the extent to which bikes are regulated and horses not is another can of beans.


Lol horrific erosion? dude, no matter what you will have an Impact ON YOUR ENVIRONMENT, that is how things go, horrific? lol, now thats funny, We have to exist, and the land is ment for our use, in reality, each state should have only one wilderness area and no more, with access by basic means. 
There is a huge bonus to allowing more means of accessibility to a wilderness area, more trails, and less deadfall meaning larger animals have more area to easily travel. You also now have less of a fire hazard. One last thing, you also will have people more spread out and not so bottle necked up with intense pressure on a given area.


----------



## Fischman (Jul 17, 2004)

Blurr said:


> One last thing, you also will have people more spread out and not so bottle necked up with intense pressure on a given area.


Sure thing--start taking away legal options and th those that remain will becom overrun. If you thought Emerald Lake was crowded now . . .

Then, when those remaining trails become overcrowded, that will be the impetus to ban MTBs from them due to traffic volume/user conflicts (real, percieved or completely fabricated, usually the latter). No conspiracy theory here -- I've seen it happen (just ask the folks in Marin, where MTB started--currently happening all over Colorado).


----------



## The Sagebrush Slug (Jan 12, 2004)

Skookum said:


> It's pretty bad when the local Forest Service themselves speak up as this being a poor ruling that they are forced to implement. That should really speak volumes.


While I appreciate your personal knowledge of a lot of the inside scoop, I'm pretty convinced that this ruling was fully supported internally by the USFS.

The Forest Service is adept at PR, including both hiding and publicizing details about what's going on. They publish what they want to create controversy; hide what they don't to avoid it. That they haven't published a list of trails and the access implications tells me they're interested in keeping the ruling as it is.

This matches what I hear: that the bulk of the decision makers in Region 1 actively dislike mountain bikes and are managing against them. In other words, it's not as simple as moving the wilderness ball forward.

But we don't have to go to conspiracy theories, and we do have to keep the long range view. My long range view is that: 1.) the hiker-only folks are going to have a harder time as the irrationality of their positions become more apparent; 2.) rash actions and threats of violence do nothing to help the cause in the short term or the long term; and 3.) while there will still be local losses of trails, some of which will well and truly suck, by and large the momentum is in favor of mountain biking.

Rolland

ps. Interesting page I ran across better describing the Gallatins including a brief discussion of currently allowed access:

http://www.nativeforest.org/campaigns/last_refuge/gallatin_range.htm


----------



## davidarnott (Feb 28, 2007)

*Sunday's Fun Day*

So I resolve to be positive. The Blue Ribbon Coalition has worked long and hard on my behalf and I am eternally grateful to them for that. I will ride those roads and trails so hard won in battle. Thanks to everyone who fights for access to public lands! There is one hundred million miles of kick ing double track out there that have never seen a bicycle. It will see mine. My doorstep is North America, and it's already got a lot of cow poop on it.


----------



## dave54 (Jul 1, 2003)

freebiker said:


> Anyone in the neighboorhood, please leave a sack of sh_t on his door step for me!
> Thanks
> 
> *Don Molloy *
> ...


molloy has a long track record of being the lap dog of the environmental industry. He is 'their boy' and consistently rules in their favor regardless of science or law.

Someone should check his financials to see how much the environmental industry is paying him under the table.


----------



## GregB406 (Dec 19, 2005)

ionsmuse said:


> 1: This is a legit issue to debate, not a socialist conspiracy. Grow up folks.
> 
> 2: With a few exceptions (as Freebiker points out), the trails is question are not exceptionally bikeable. As MT Rider's TR from last year reveals, the parts of the Devil's Backbone which are now off-limits to bikes are faster on foot anyways. Loads of great scenery, and loads of 30-40 degree ups and down, neither of which are rideable.
> 
> ...


I can mostly agree

1. This is an issue for debate. However it is also a conspirisy. Those who will be trying to squelch debate in the near future are the conspiritors. I believe there is nothing socialist about their efforts though.

2. I couldn't disagree more. Point number 2 spreads misinformation. The WSA is super rideable and a really cool place to have bike explorations. The Crest Trail aka Devils Backbone is very rideable. Most people do ride from north to south, opposite Montana Rider. North to south has better flow, but south to north has it's steller segments as well. Montana Rider had a great experience, and showed us all that camping is a viable option. His outing was not a typical one though. His lack of route knowledge and extra gear may have slowed him down and altered his perception of the Crest Trail logistics. Then his well presented report has altered others perceptions as well. I am an old person, thus a bit slow. I have usually ridden up there with other experienced riders. They knew when to start in the AM, knew where to take breaks and how often. A typical ride for someone in the 40 to 60 age group is about 12 hours. Please believe me, a 12 hour ride with friends, battling whatever weather, across wild ridgelines, is a great way to reconnect with nature. It has been the defining zenith of Bozeman mountain bike experience for at least 25 years. Sure it doesn't have flow in the new accepted sense, it's an old school experience.

Now to emphasize and compare others experiences to mine. Young riders who have ants in their pants travel the Crest in around 8 hours. I contend they are not lingering long enough to enjoy their surroundings, but it's just my opinion. Trail runners can and do travel much faster. There is a race for the last few years that traverses the same route I have ridden, but they also RUN ALL THE WAY BACK! The winners are in the 9 hour range. The race puts more people on the Crest in one day than an entire season of bike riding. Definite hypocrisy. Motorcycle riders do the Crest from south to north only, opposite of most bicyclists. It can take them many hours, and provides a huge adventure. I am not going to defend their activity here, in fact I'm not pleased with the trail surface after they have been through, and don't intend for my post to start a motorcycle debate. I'm just saying that motorcycles have been used in the WSA for at least 60 years and have been on the Crest for at least 50 years. Just fact. Never saw a horse up there. Not saying it can't be done, but one would have to leave the Crest periodically to water the horse and find a good campsite. Crater Lake water is pretty bad and the route, other than in Hyalite Creek drainage, is dry. A few places a horse should be led for safety. Not any different than getting off you bike and climbing in order to be safe.

Just want to say, it isn't for everyone. Just cause a route isn't for everyone doesn't mean it should be closed to all riders, especially without debate or science.

3. I agree.

As far as opening up wilderness areas to bikes, that is an entirely different subject, one that I would like to avoid because; a. It draws attention away from the important subject at hand. b. It groups a recreation area into the designated wilderness category, which it is not.

Interesting concept though. One that deserves it's own thread.


----------



## GregB406 (Dec 19, 2005)

Montana Rider said:


> Devastating news...
> 
> I'm glad that I got up there last summer
> 
> ...


I liked your posting from last summer. it showed a different perspective on how to ride that country. A good report and good photos.

This decision is a done deal for one year for sure, maybe longer. Travel plans must be reviewed every few years, and this one will be in about 10 years.

It is sad about the young people's opportunities. This will be especially true if the WSA is in place for another 33 years.

The MMBA will be doing two things in the next year. One will be to try to get some small detail adjustments to the interim plam for 2011. Another will be to help form and participate in a process to sunset the WSA. It is anticipated that the Wilderness lobby will not want to participate in a fair process. Thank goodness they cannot sue to have an unfair grassroots process. I surely will not speculate where this all will lead.


----------



## Shelbak73 (Nov 10, 2007)

freebiker said:


> What a tragic loss. I lived in Big Sky for several years. My thoughts go out to those fat tired friends in the area. Great! Now everything on the east and west side of gallatin is closed to bikes. WTF? Glad I got out there last summer and did the Porcupine/eaglehead/gallatin divide/big creek for a friends bachelor party. My second time on that ride and my last. Got plenty of photos in hand. No flipping wilderness coalition can take those away from me!


Really happy you posted these pictures.
It's a stark example of the devastating effect of mountain biking on these trails.


----------



## Montana Rider (Aug 21, 2005)

_2: With a few exceptions (as Freebiker points out), the trails is question are not exceptionally bikeable. As MT Rider's TR from last year reveals, the parts of the Devil's Backbone which are now off-limits to bikes are faster on foot anyways. Loads of great scenery, and loads of 30-40 degree ups and down, neither of which are rideable. _

Just to clarify I think the VAST MAJORITY of the Gallatin Crest trail is ridable. Just because I'm slow and not a gonzo downhiller (I ride solo 99.9% of the time and don't want to use my mediocre health insurance) doesn't mean that this trail isn't bike worthy.

I chose S-> N because of the car access to Windy Pass and the fact that I was planning to camp and the only (reliable) water source was closer to Hyalite.

I'd put it a notch or two above Curly Lake Highline in terms of exertion, but I fail to see how that matters, since I'd put the overall experience three or four notches above Curly.

IMO there should be some middle ground in some of these policy decisions.

Biking is not motorized travel. Horses are tougher on trails than bikes and non-native to the americas (yada, yada, yada)

If they can have an adventure race there for the multitudes, then a handful or two of riders per season is just small drop in the bucket.

As much as I fall victim to the binary view of politics myself (Dems > Repukes), I think we users of PUBLIC LANDS have to find a way to get along. In terms of usage Montana is not California or Colorado -- there is no comparison in terms of traffic.

I agree with the earlier poster who said it's not a Montana issue, it's an mountain biker issue.

I plan to ride the Bridgers this summer (just in case...) and I urge everyone who gives a damn about the decline in access to do something about it.

I regret not taking part in the Lima advocacy rides over the two summers, but you bet your a$$ I will never take riding in the high country for granted.

I respect all the work that Greg and others have done in the fight to protect what we have.

You don't know what you've got until it's gone.

(rant off)

P.S.


----------



## GregB406 (Dec 19, 2005)

*IMBA news alert*

The last two paragraphs are particularly poignant.

"Mountain bikers recently learned that they will see trail access cut from 170 miles to just 20 miles in Montana's Hyalite-Porcupine-Buffalo Horn wilderness study area (WSA). The restrictions stem from a lawsuit that challenged the Forest Service's management of the WSA, setting the stage for similar challenges in Montana, and perhaps across the United States. The plaintiffs - The Greater Yellowstone Coalition, Montana Wilderness Association and The Wilderness Society - contended that the Forest Service failed to preserve the wilderness character of the study area.

The Gallatin National Forest office oversees the Hyalite-Porcupine-Buffalo Horn WSA. Gallatin officials have appealed the ruling, made by U.S. District Judge Donald W. Molloy. Since the appeals process can take 6 months to 2 years to be resolved, the Gallatin officials say they have no choice but to implement an interim strategy, starting May 1. The interim plan will decide access in the Gallatin until it is replaced by congressional action on the management of WSAs - which could take decades. The decision will close the coveted Gallatin Crest and other spectacular high-country trails to bicycling.

"We knew a decision like this was coming," said Mike Van Abel, IMBA's executive director. "IMBA supported the Gallatin office in its attempts to improve the Forest Service's policies regarding WSAs. We joined the legal proceedings and provided written testimony asserting that mountain biking does not compromise a landscape's wilderness attributes, and that bicycling is not equivalent to motorized recreation. Unfortunately the judge did not follow our guidance, which puts mountain bike access in a very precarious place."

Decision Based on User Experience, Not Environmental Impacts

Marna Daley, public affairs officer for the Gallatin National Forest, told the Billings Gazette that the new trail closures are not based on the environmental impacts caused by mountain biking. "Judge Molloy's decision did not cite a resource concern with regard to wilderness character," said Daley. "So the only thing we can address is the opportunity for solitude."

Following that logic, a handful of trails along the fringes of the WSA will be kept open to mountain biking (some will also allow motorized recreation). "By moving use from the core area to the perimeter, the forest has increased the opportunity for solitude in the WSA," Daley told the Gazette.

There is a growing body of evidence that the environmental impacts of mountain biking are about the same as hiking. The social impacts of shared-use trails are more difficult to quantify, but several studies have concluded that the perception of trail conflicts is often exaggerated.

Next Steps for Mountain Bikers

IMBA and the Montana Mountain Bike Alliance, as well as other Montana-based affiliated clubs, will continue working with the Forest Service to improve their strategies for managing mountain biking. At the same time, re-energized grassroots campaigns will enable mountain bikers to document trail losses, establish dialogues with decision makers and continue asking for fair treatment with regards to trail access.

If you support fair access for mountain bikers in Montana and across the United States, please make a donation to IMBA's Legal Advocacy Fund and the Montana Mountain Bike Alliance."


----------



## socal_jack (Dec 30, 2008)

Actually in 2003 Bush instituted the "No More Wilderness" policy, no much if any was lost, it was mostly during Clinton and now Obama that we lost/are losing major areas to WSA. BTW, not a Bush fan, just saying.



davidarnott said:


> Worst of all we keep losing access to public lands through both democratic and republican presidential administrations and congress and senate majorities. Bush was reputed to be a mountain biker and we lost big time during his administration. For damn sure the Clinton administration set into motion WSA proposals that are killing us. Personally I find it disturbing that the federal government has been so hard on bicycles in general. Particularly considering the combination of transportation, energy, emmissions, noise and preventative health benefits of riding bicycles. What I wonder sometimes is: Are bicycles so efficient in so many different ways that they represent a threat to the present state of affairs? Bicycles most certainly are one of the best answers to our oil/transportation problem. Commuting could represent that large of a threat to the Health Care Industry. I ramble on but my opinion is that the federal government should be Openning public and federal rights of way to bicycles. Not closing them.


----------



## socal_jack (Dec 30, 2008)

BRC membership is over 600,000 seems like more than a "sham". Maybe you should actually look at the history of the group

http://www.sharetrails.org/about/

IMBA and BRC are on the same side of the lawsuit over the Gallatin decision. So to a degree there is support.

As a matter of comparison the IMBA action alert page doesn't show any Wilderness or Monument alerts going back 2 years

http://www.imba.com/news/action_alerts/index.html

The RBC and AMA pages are rife with travel plan alerts, Wlderness leglislation, and the new Obama National Monument land grab similar to the Clinton used 22 times to grab 9 million acres , this one is 14 sperate usages of the Antiquities Act for a total of 13 million, Salazar claims it's only "brainstorming" but that's pretty hard to believe from this admin.

http://www.americanmotorcyclist.com/legisltn/documents/doi_internal_document.pdf

To see what a real alert page looks like

http://www.sharetrails.org/public-lands/

2 new Wilderness bills for Colorado, almost a million acres between them HR4289 and HR 3914 and one still to be introduced in the next few weeks called "Hidden Gems" shuts down 600,000 acres in Colorado.

About the only thing IMBA has going for it is an effort trying to get an interpretation to the Wilderness Act adopted that will specifically allow mountain biking. But just I like to ride MTBs, I have plenty of friends into dirt bikes and I think they need areas to ride also. Designation of inappropriate areas (don't fit the original intent) as "Wilderness" millions of acres at a time doesn't do anybody any good.

Then the HR980 bomb is still out there, 24 million acres of NW states in one swipe, just referred to committee last week.



Sasquatch said:


> IMBA does not support motorized recreation. I agree with their position. The Blue Ribbon Coalition is a sham organization created by big oil and mining that opposes any regulations on public land that will limit their ability to make more money, and they love to sucker fools like David into supporting the"coalition" of fossil fuel powered vehicles and bicycles.
> 
> Keep sending them your money, and let me know when they "fix" this wilderness probelm for us. I'm sure it's at the top of their agenda.
> 
> Meanwhile, I will keep supporting IMBA, and attempting to educate hikers and wilderness groups that bikes aren't so bad.


----------



## Montana Bob (Sep 28, 2009)

Wanting it ALL?

In an 'official' response to the WSA ruling last week, The Wilderness Society stated:

'The Gallatin Crest is wild, it's in our backyard, and it's one of the best places for Montanans to enjoy a wilderness experience. We need places where we can leave our bikes and motorcycles behind and just go at natures pace.'

It is important to note that the statement makes it sound like there are no other opportunities for a (w)ilderness experience nearby. It fails to mention that 41 % of the Gallatin National Forest is already designated Wilderness and that within an hour drive of Bozeman there are *3.5 MILLION ACRES* of permanently protected land that is bicycle and motor free in the form of Yellowstone National Park, the Absaroka Beartooth and Lee Metcalf Wilderness areas. For those in a *HURRY* to 'go at nature's pace,' the Lee Metcalf Wilderness can be accessed in a quarter of the time required for the Crest by driving through Ted Turner's Flying D Ranch at Spanish Creek or going up any number of trails off the west side of Gallatin River / Hiway 191. It's a pity that there are so few local opportunities to find solitude&#8230;

Sadly the closure of the Gallatin Crest is a done deal for the moment - possibly for the rest of our lives. The appeal of Judge Molloy's decision by the GNF is our best hope to re-open the Crest. It can take between 6 months and 2 years for the appeal to be resolved and there is no guarantee that the outcome will be any different from Molloy's ruling.

One of the FEW remaining alpine riding opportunities in the region is in the Henry Mountains (Lionhead) west of West Yellowstone. Mile Creek is just north and east of Reynolds Pass on the Montana / Idaho border - and *IS the Continental Divide Trail National Scenic Trail*. The trail was constructed from scratch in the trail-less Mile Creek drainage in the mid-90's to bicycle grade with 50 bicycle radius switchbacks where you can climb 4,000 feet in 6+ miles from the trail head to a spectacular view point at 10,000. It's a great out and back ride or a good loop out to Targhee Pass. Built by the legendary trail guru Terry Johnson (Bangtail Divide) - the trail joins safe and sustainable modern trail design (no water bars - grade reversals - and MORE!) with jaw dropping scenery for a ridable work of environmental art. Mile Creek was built with bicycles in mind; and has had 15 years to gently age, grow back vegetation and settle in as a shining example of how all trails on public land should be built, managed, shared and hopefully preserved for the enjoyment by future generations.

Part of Lionhead is a Recommended Wilderness Area, possibly falling under the Region 1 bike banning philosophy and certainly on the hit list for the Wilderness folks. Fortunately the area is already summer non-motorized so the argument that bicycles need to get booted because of the motors doesn't hold water.

The timbered sections of the trail in the bottom of the Mile Creek drainage don't usually clear of snow and dry out until late June or early July. Make sure to put Mile Creek on your Bicycle Bucket List to ride this summer. Ride It. Love It. Defend It. *It also could be closed at anytime in the future! *

The Montana Mountain Bike Alliance has presented maps for the Henry Mountains that will protect the land, the wildlife, and the riding opportunities, in the form of a National Protection Area *AND New Wilderness* to local government officials, land managers and fellow conservationists. Some love the idea, some hate it. Bottom line? There is no good or logical reason that bicycles should removed from the already *QUIET* trails in Lionhead. Now that the WSA has been 'decided' for the time being - future bicycle access to Lionhead is at the forefront of the endangered trails list in a state choked full of access challenges.

This summer, for the third year, MMBA members will be assisting the Caribou / Targhee NF and Gallatin National Forest to clear and maintain the trails in Lionhead. This year the goal is to clean up the Dry Fork of Targhee Creek that will offer another loop option for Mile Creek and East Fork of Targhee. Stay tuned for more info on this July work weekend.

SHARING FOR THE GOOD OF ALL - it is what we were expected to learn in KINDERGARTEN.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

Thank you for the information comrad.


----------



## freebiker (Mar 19, 2006)

burn in hell judge malloy, burn in hell


----------



## Brown_Teeth (Jan 15, 2004)

freebiker said:


> burn in hell judge malloy, burn in hell


Strange cause when I lived in Helena in 81-3 those govt revenruters where not welcome ANY Freaking where, WTF happened? Of all the states in the lower 48 if MT bends over for this??? We are all screud if this is now policy, sad to see Obama become a OBUMMER!


----------



## socal_jack (Dec 30, 2008)

Yeah they want it all and they're coming for the rest, short list from section 3 of HR 980 the 24 million acre megaton wilderness bomb, of course introduced and sponsored primarily by the back East libs, and most likely written by a lobbyist.

(3) Gallatin Range Wilderness, consisting of approximately 221,000 acres administered by the Gallatin National Forest.
(4) Chico Peak Wilderness, consisting of approximately 12,000 acres administered by the Gallatin National Forest.
(5) Madison Wilderness, consisting of approximately 15,000 acres administered by the Gallatin National Forest.
(6) Lionhead Wilderness, consisting of approximately 48,000 acres administered by the Gallatin or Caribou-Targhee National Forests.
(22) Garns Mountain Wilderness, consisting of approximately 104,000 acres administered by the Caribou-Targhee National Forest.
(23) Bald Mountain Wilderness, consisting of approximately 17,000 acres administered by the Caribou-Targhee National Forest.
(24) Bear Creek Wilderness, consisting of approximately 98,000 acres administered by the Caribou-Targhee National Forest.
(25) Stump Creek Wilderness, consisting of approximately 97,000 acres administered by the Caribou-Targhee National Forest.
(26) Caribou-Targhee Wilderness, consisting of approximately 94,000 acres administered by the Caribou-Targhee National Forest.
(27) Poker Peak Wilderness, consisting of approximately 20,000 acres administered by the Caribou-Targhee National Forest.
(28) Pole Creek Wilderness, consisting of approximately 7,000 acres administered by the Caribou-Targhee National Forest.
(29) Schmid Peak Wilderness, consisting of approximately 20,000 acres administered by the Caribou-Targhee National Forest.
(30) Sage Creek Wilderness, consisting of approximately 13,000 acres administered by the Caribou-Targhee National Forest.
(31) Red Mountain Wilderness, consisting of approximately 14,000 acres administered by the Caribou-Targhee National Forest.
(32) Huckleberry Basin Wilderness, consisting of approximately 20,000 acres administered by the Caribou-Targhee National Forest.
(33) Dry Ridge Wilderness, consisting of approximately 23,000 acres, administered by the Caribou-Targhee National Forest.
(34) Meade Peak Wilderness, consisting of approximately 45,000 acres administered by the Caribou-Targhee National Forest.
(35) Hell Hole Wilderness, consisting of approximately 5,132 acres administered by the Caribou-Targhee National Forest.
(38) Madison Plateau Wilderness, consisting of approximately 5,000 acres administered by the Gallatin National Forest.



Montana Bob said:


> Wanting it ALL?
> 
> In an 'official' response to the WSA ruling last week, The Wilderness Society stated:
> 
> ...


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

Montana Bob said:


> The Wilderness Society stated:
> 
> 'The Gallatin Crest is wild, it's in our backyard, and it's one of the best places for Montanans to enjoy a wilderness experience. We need places where we can leave our bikes and motorcycles behind and just go at natures pace.'


What a bunch of blowhards. How is biking interferes with anything? Do not they want to ban bright colored clothing and hiking boots instead? How about banning sanctimonious аssholes from the public lands?


----------



## JonnySpitz (Mar 9, 2009)

I personally don't care about poaching trails unless they are temporarily closed for environmental reasons, or if it is going to piss off a bunch of hikers that will then close more trails. I see nothing wrong with continuing to ride out there. What are they going to do, take your birthday away? Just don't bring ID or park near the ranger station. I'm going to Montana in late June and you can bet your a$$ I'll be riding.


----------



## Montana Rider (Aug 21, 2005)

_ I personally don't care about poaching trails unless they are temporarily closed for environmental reasons, or if it is going to *piss off a bunch of hikers that will then close more trails*. I see nothing wrong with continuing to ride out there. What are they going to do, take your birthday away? Just don't bring ID or park near the ranger station. I'm going to Montana in late June and you can bet your a$$ I'll be riding._

+++

I'm into civil disobedience as much (or more so than) as the next guy but I don't think you need to ANNOUNCE that you're going to poach closed trails when you visit Montana.

And if you feel the need to do so, I hear Missoula is lovely in the summertime.

Conversely, if you'd like to learn about the already established time-sharing on trails outside greater Bozeman (or pitch in on the trail work scheduled in some of Wilderness-lite areas still open to us) I'd be happy to give you my .02


----------



## Shelbak73 (Nov 10, 2007)

JonnySpitz said:


> I personally don't care about poaching trails unless they are temporarily closed for environmental reasons, or if it is going to piss off a bunch of hikers that will then close more trails. I see nothing wrong with continuing to ride out there. What are they going to do, take your birthday away? Just don't bring ID or park near the ranger station. I'm going to Montana in late June and you can bet your a$$ I'll be riding.


I've done my fair share of civil disobedience rides, it gets expensive....quick. Prepare for the worst if you don't plan to carry ID. Pack some comfy walking shoes and even some bivy gear because you'll be saying good-bye to the bike you're riding. It will be confiscated and held for you until you show-up in court. Lie to them about who you are? That's another violation. That ranger who's just wrangled your bike has a radio, he's gonna notify someone else in a green uniform which way you're headed out, and the'll be waiting at the trailhead for you, you know, just to be sure you've made it out safely, and to see the vehicle you're driving without a licence.
If I had to do it all over again........
I'd bring ID, and about 20 fellow riders. Now you've got a group action, twenty bikers in court pleading innocent is a movement. Plead your (_our_) case and appeal, appeal, appeal, hopefully all the way to the supreme court. I hate to say it but this sounds like a job for Montanans. Living close to the proceedings, having local roots and local media attention would be a big plus.


----------



## JonnySpitz (Mar 9, 2009)

I think I'm going to have to sit there and collect money from hikers until I get my taxes back for land I can't use. God I hate the man.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

JonnySpitz said:


> I think I'm going to have to sit there and collect money from hikers until I get my taxes back for land I can't use. God I hate the man.


BWAAAA HAAAAA thats awesome and true.

Look it comes down to nothing more than control, while we all argue over "should we or shouldnt we allow this and that blah blah" they slowly take away land meant for the people and deny access based on anything they can possibly find. This is not something that should be happening in a FREE COUNTRY, but it can and does.

Civil Discourse is really the only option, While tickets can mount for one person, if thousands of bikers flooded the closed trails, they soon would be forced to reopen.


----------



## Montana Bob (Sep 28, 2009)

*Gallatin WSA - 4/20 - Update - Game On*

For all of you that are sitting spinning in cyber space instead on your bike - here's an update from Montana; and a glimpse of what GAME ON looks like in the bicycle access skirmish.

In response to the release of the Gallatin WSA summer plan, The Wilderness Society hired a mountain bike 'outreach spokesman' to deliver their spin to the masses. On Saturday the Bozeman Chronicle ran his guest editorial. Check out the article, read the comments and be inspired to contribute if so moved.

https://bozemandailychronicle.com/opinions/article_3b06461e-49a8-11df-ac19-001cc4c03286.html


----------



## M_S (Nov 18, 2007)

Curmy said:


> How about banning sanctimonious аssholes from the public lands?


I could get behind this. It would sure leave a lot of people on all sides sitting at home though.


----------



## rippling over canyons (Jun 11, 2004)

I'm not willing to create a login just to post a comment, but if you know what shop Ben Donatelle works at, I'll certainly email the shop and tell them how misinformed and damaging his comments are.


----------



## Kyle509 (Jul 19, 2006)

"I have found places so wild and so primitive it became necessary to put my bike away and enjoy them at a slower pace, at the speed prescribed by nature."

What a toolbox. Sounds like a Wilderness Society robot.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

sly_foxx said:


> "I have found places so wild and so primitive it became necessary to put my bike away and enjoy them at a slower pace, at the speed prescribed by nature."
> 
> What a toolbox. Sounds like a Wilderness Society robot.


I bet he also enjoyed them naked and without any prepared food with him, as nature prescribed. And he hiked out to the trailhead from his cave.

What a sorry misguided arrogant blowhard.

Nature did not intend on people having too much free time to hike. One day bike ride is more natural then an overnight camping trip.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

He is a mechanic at the Summit Bike and Ski Shop. I encourage anyone in the Area to boycott that store as well as express your feelings to the store.


----------



## mm9 (Apr 22, 2008)

Here's my opinion on the subject. (FYI: I hike, mtb, cycle, dirtbike, kayak, personal water craft, etc - I just enjoy the outdoors). I agree that really the mtb group seems more in line with the hikers group than the motorized groups in a lot of ways. But, I think the hikers and wilderness folks are the most exclusive in terms of their beliefs in allowing others to have access to the forest. If the majority of leadership in those groups have their way, the rest of the user groups would have very little if any access to the forest. I think the olive branch they are supposedly showing to the mtb groups are intended to help keep their opposition divided. They really don't want mtb's on the trails!!!!  I agree we really don't have a whole lot in common with the ATV crowd, except - They don't mind us riding our mtb's anywhere!!!!

My theory is that the ONLY way we are going to be able to maintain significant trail access is to align with all other groups except for hikers and wilderness groups. We are the enemy to them. Plain and simple. Think about this. There are millions of American that are either too old, or handicaped and can't hike into the wilderness. But they want to enjoy it by other means. Think of the power of the AARP and the Americans with Disabilities. Think of the Automobile lobby groups. The horse groups etc. The only way to defeat the self centered hiking and wilderness crowd is for everyone else to join together - mtb, dirtbike, horse, AARP, Americans with disabilities etc. Protect the forests and wild lands for the people, not from the people!!!!


----------



## mm9 (Apr 22, 2008)

PS - If I'm out riding my MTB on some far away pristine singletrack, I'd much rather deal with the negatives of being passed by a few dirt bikes every once in a while or ATV's on pristine two track, than to not be able to ride there at all because of the strong and unified self centered hiking and wilderness groups!!


----------



## elder_mtber (Jan 13, 2004)

*Sierra Club is mountain biking's enemy*

Who does not understand this fact?

Bewildered,
Terry


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

mm9 said:


> PS - If I'm out riding my MTB on some far away pristine singletrack, I'd much rather deal with the negatives of being passed by a few dirt bikes every once in a while or ATV's on pristine two track, than to not be able to ride there at all because of the strong and unified self centered hiking and wilderness groups!!


Good post, IM gonna add to it, friend who is pretty liberal on this said the other night "most tracks we end up riding on were created by dirtbikes or quads anyhow, its kind of hard to shut them out on something that allowed us to expand our sport"


----------



## deanerbeano (Mar 20, 2010)

can't we all just get along...

edit: summit is really the best bike store in bozeman, in my experience. I will not boycott their friendly service and decent prices. However if I find out which one of them is this Ben Donatelle guy, I will certainly give him an earfull...


----------



## M_S (Nov 18, 2007)

I disagree with him but understand his sentiment. He is entitled to his opinion and is well within his right to note that he is a mountain biker. That does not mean he is purporting to speak for all mountain bikers, even in Bozeman or MT.

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

deanerbeano said:


> can't we all just get along...
> 
> edit: summit is really the best bike store in bozeman, in my experience. I will not boycott their friendly service and decent prices. However if I find out which one of them is this Ben Donatelle guy, I will certainly give him an earfull...


Ben has helped to cost you something you enjoy dearly, the object of the boycott is to send a message to him and those who support them you will not tolerate it, boycotting is something in this country that should be used, but is not do to lazyness and well "I cannot live without the product they sell" false, I boycott numerous companies and products, many of which I like because I do not like their policies. Or you can stay on the sheep route, say something to the guy who won, and simply does not care, nor will not care, because he has no reason to, and in the end, lose everything you enjoy, your choice .



> I disagree with him but understand his sentiment. He is entitled to his opinion and is well within his right to note that he is a mountain biker. That does not mean he is purporting to speak for all mountain bikers, even in Bozeman or MT.
> 
> Just my 2 cents.


 see above, btw, his opinion in the paper as a mountain biker will be perceived as that of others, that means you are included in that now as well.


----------



## ep-gnar (May 16, 2009)

*my 2 cents*



Blurr said:


> In a little area In Montana, I wont mention where, as roads were gated, the locals chained up and pulled em out, finally, the gov simply gave up.


God I love MT. Too bad its so far away from Bozeman. Thanks blurr you just made my day!

On another related side-tangent, I ran across some rather funny news on another forum: it sounds that hikers are much more harmful to wildlife more than slednecks:

"Deer were potentially interrupted from grazing for 
475 and 130 sec by persons afoot and snow- 
mobiles, respectively (average total time in 
MR/trial)..."

Freddy, D. J. W.M. Bronaugh, and M. C. Fowler. 1986. Responses of mule deer to disturbance by persons afoot and snowmobiles. Wildlife Society Bulletin 14(1):63-68.

Not that relevant to the discussion but a good factoid to know if you're ever speaking with the wilderness fanatics. FWIW mtbs appear to be just as "bad" as hikers, but paragliders can be much worse.

I've ridden the divide twice and the only other people I've seen (S of Hyalite) were day hikers near windy pass. It was more of an experience than a "ride" per se, but what a sad and senseless loss. Portal to big creek used to be a pretty epic ride too. Glad they didn't ban mtb's off many of the more popular rides.

Those people don't know what the hell they're talking about "moving traffic away from core areas" or "keeping the area a pristine wilderness". Anybody who can say that with a straight face HAS NOT EVER BEEN THERE. What a bunch of arrogant ass-hole do-gooders. Seriously, and sorry if I missed further up the thread, but who filed the suit? Just the wilderness society? I know some members and I am gonna give 'em [email protected]#t 'till it comes out the other ear.

As for the dirty bikes, I have to disagree with Greg in that I liked what they did to the trail, with the exception of a few blown-out switchbacks. Without them most of the trail will disappear in a couple of years.

Rambling on, summit is great and I'll still shop there, but what a tool that guy Ben is!


----------



## ep-gnar (May 16, 2009)

*my 2 cents*

edit: sorry for the double-post - somehow this ended up as post #40something even though I just wrote it



Blurr said:


> In a little area In Montana, I wont mention where, as roads were gated, the locals chained up and pulled em out, finally, the gov simply gave up.


God I love MT. Too bad its so far away from Bozeman. Thanks blurr you just made my day!

On another related side-tangent, I ran across some rather funny news on another forum: it sounds that hikers are much more harmful to wildlife more than slednecks:

"Deer were potentially interrupted from grazing for 
475 and 130 sec by persons afoot and snow- 
mobiles, respectively (average total time in 
MR/trial)..."

Freddy, D. J. W.M. Bronaugh, and M. C. Fowler. 1986. Responses of mule deer to disturbance by persons afoot and snowmobiles. Wildlife Society Bulletin 14(1):63-68.

Not that relevant to the discussion but a good factoid to know if you're ever speaking with the wilderness fanatics. FWIW mtbs appear to be just as "bad" as hikers, but paragliders can be much worse.

I've ridden the divide twice and the only other people I've seen (S of Hyalite) were day hikers near windy pass. It was more of an experience than a "ride" per se, but what a sad and senseless loss. Portal to big creek used to be a pretty epic ride too. Glad they didn't ban mtb's off many of the more popular rides.

Those people don't know what the hell they're talking about "moving traffic away from core areas" or "keeping the area a pristine wilderness". Anybody who can say that with a straight face HAS NOT EVER BEEN THERE. What a bunch of arrogant ass-hole do-gooders. Seriously, and sorry if I missed further up the thread, but who filed the suit? Just the wilderness society? I know some members and I am gonna give 'em [email protected]#t 'till it comes out the other ear.

As for the dirty bikes, I have to disagree with Greg in that I liked what they did to the trail, with the exception of a few blown-out switchbacks. Without them most of the trail will disappear in a couple of years. Every dirty biker I've run into has been super-friendly and hint: talk to them - they know where all the good stuff is.

Rambling on, summit is great and I'll still shop there, but what a tool that guy Ben is!


----------



## Montana Rider (Aug 21, 2005)

Bozeman Chronicle finally printed my Letter to the Editor (below) -- I think there's been 2 (by my count) pro-bike letters published and 4 anti-bike letters.

I was talking with Greg at the Bike Swap and it's clear that the silent majority need to speak up! 

+++++

I am a wilderness enthusiast opposed to Judge Molloy’s
ruling removing bikes from the Gallatin Crest – his
rationale summarized as such:

Marna Daley, public affairs officer for the Gallatin
National Forest told the Billings Gazette that the new trail
closures are not based on the environmental impacts caused
by mountain biking. “Judge Molloy’s decision did not cite a
resource concern with regard to wilderness character,” said
Daley. "So the only thing we can address is the opportunity
for solitude.”

Having ridden the Crest Trail from Windy Pass back to
Bozeman last summer I disagree with the premise that
mountain biking on the Crest harms the trail, the
environment or solitude. I traveled HALF as far in 36 hours
of biking, walking and camping than Devil’s Backbone runners
do in 10 hours. By traveling solo, I had less impact on the
wilderness experience (of others) than a group of day hikers
would.

I’m not suggesting that trail runners, horseback riders or
hiking groups shouldn’t be allowed access because they move
too fast, damage the trails or disturb MY SENSE of wilderness.

I’m suggesting that facts and scientific research should
inform our land use decisions NOT LAWSUITS.

There are already thousands of miles of trails CLOSED to
mountain bikes in our corner of the Greater Yellowstone
Ecosystem. Despite all the Wilderness hand-wringing, the
Gallatin Crest Trail was not being loved to death. There is
no scientific reason why mountain biking is considered
incompatible with wilderness.

Sharing – it’s what we (should’ve) learned in Kindergarten.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

lol @ kindergarten, its true though. 

good letter man thanks for voicing your opinion.


----------



## GregB406 (Dec 19, 2005)

Montana Rider,

I'd call that letter a home run!


----------



## Bigtime (May 27, 2009)

Moustache rider said:


> Aligning ourselves with motorized groups is stupid. It is exactly what anti bike groups would love to see happen.


FOOL.


----------



## rippling over canyons (Jun 11, 2004)

Nice letter. You articulately stated that the judges ruling makes no scientific sense. My sentiments exactly.


----------

