# Banned in the USA



## a.d.85 (Aug 14, 2007)

"There is no environmental merit to banning bikes. None. Many opponents of bikes in Wilderness acknowledge this. Bikes, they argue instead, simply don't belong. This is less an environmental thing and more a social thing. Hikers and horseback riders don't like mountain bikers. It's as simple as that."

Read more on Pinkbike


----------



## KevinGT (Dec 25, 2012)

That's interesting. I absolutely DESPISE horses. Even though my daughter is a high school equestrian and was captain of her team last year, I hate horses.

- People towing horses generally drive far below the speed limit, clogging roads and highways, backing up traffic lights, and generally creating more traffic problems than cars with bikes.
- Horse trailers take up more room in parking lots.
- Horses **** all over the trails. If people or dogs did that, there would be a public outcry to clean it up but it's fine for horses to do it without any recourse to the rider.
- Horses are stupid and can't control themselves in a natural environment. I actually saw a person knowingly enter a horse in a horse show that was spooked by...wait for it...clapping. I also saw a 2000 lbs. horse spook and throw a 110 lbs. rider in the middle of an empty ring because a small plastic sandwich bag blew into the ring 30 feet away.
- Many horses can't be controlled around other trail users on multi-use trails. Anyone who brings a horse onto a multi-use trail that cannot function around other legal trail users should be penalized.
- Horses cause FAR more damage to trails than any other trail users.

Ban 'em. Ban them from public trail systems completely.


----------



## jim c (Dec 5, 2014)

Aw c'mon KevinGT, tell us what you really think.


----------



## armii (Jan 9, 2016)

KevinGT said:


> That's interesting. I absolutely DESPISE horses. Even though my daughter is a high school equestrian and was captain of her team last year, I hate horses.
> 
> - People towing horses generally drive far below the speed limit, clogging roads and highways, backing up traffic lights, and generally creating more traffic problems than cars with bikes.
> - Horse trailers take up more room in parking lots.
> ...


That is pretty harsh, I agree, but still that is pretty harsh.


----------



## sdsantacruzer (Sep 23, 2005)

Hey a.d.85 good article. I'm a strong advocate of many of the story's printings. Haters will hate...that's just what they do and they have to keep busy doing something their good at. But banning cyclists in all Wilderness areas is preposterous. I truly wonder what percentage of the total mtb'ing population would attempt many of the trails that are on the banned list. But that's another debate in itself. 

I especially connected with this statement;

"The Forest Service’s new, unwritten policy, however, has effectively widened the reach of the ban by bypassing Congress entirely and creating de facto Wilderness areas."

They are supposed to be the regulators but but they seem to be creating hardship with many user groups due to their inconsistency of view point due to lack of presence of groups like the STC...which I'm not totally familiar with but like their direction of efforts from first glance. I'm sure they have their 'haters' too. 

IMBA on the other hand have IMO, become so wishy-washy in their stance on the highly sensitive topics that I've dropped my membership. 

I'm definitely going to look into the STC's efforts and determine if I want to jump on that band wagon as we have some prime wilderness trail riding that was closed some years' back. And as far as my view point of the Forest Service...well let's just say my momma always said; "If you don't have anything good to say about someone, it's just best to not say anything at all." Or at least until you get pissed off enough by their ignorance to step up and say, 'Enough's enough. 

Kudos on putting this information out there.


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

a.d.85 said:


> "There is no environmental merit to banning bikes. None. Many opponents of bikes in Wilderness acknowledge this. Bikes, they argue instead, simply don't belong. This is less an environmental thing and more a social thing. *Hikers and horseback riders don't like mountain bikers. It's as simple as that*."
> 
> Read more on Pinkbike


That is not a surprise at all. The environmentalists hate us and then some.

Come to think of it, they annoy me with their sense of style, which fires me up enough to pass them by at an even higher rate of speed and aplomb.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Horses taste good with spicy Mustard.


----------



## Kofaram (Oct 20, 2014)

Kevin nailed it. I always yield to horses until they tell me what to do. Even so, I'm often met with disapproval. No wonder my mtb'rs get fed up.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Some other thoughts. The writers of the bill wanted the people to be able to explore the great scenic areas of the US. Under their own( human) power, no motors. The ban on " mechanized transport" was not meant to include bikes. The bike seems a perfect, low impact way for people to get out and explore. Right now this ban includes wheelbarrows and chainsaws. How are they supposed to do trail work? Some updating might be in order.


----------



## matadorCE (Jun 26, 2013)

Crankout said:


> That is not a surprise at all. The environmentalists hate us and then some.
> 
> View attachment 1057574


Which completely ironic since if you look at mainstream media (commercials, tv shows, movies, etc) the average joe thinks mountain biking and hiking are pretty much one and the same (ie. those weird people who like do be outside and care about the environment).


----------



## Singletrackd (May 3, 2015)

a.d.85 said:


> "There is no environmental merit to banning bikes. None. Many opponents of bikes in Wilderness acknowledge this."
> 
> Read more on Pinkbike


I love how willing the "probikes in wilderness area" people are to speak up for the anti wilderness bike crowd. I can think of plenty of reasons that bikes will create negative impacts on wilderness areas. Just the increased amount of traffic alone is a reason to keep bikes out of wilderness areas....that plus the fact that any popular mountain bike trail i have ever been on is riddled with side features that were never originally part of the trails design.

Then someone who has zero wilderness trail buliding experience will pop up and talk about how bikes can revolutionize wilderness trail maintenance. Nope that's what we have horses and pack mules for.

It just frustrates me that the pro bikes in Wilderness crowd is drowning out everyone else just by talking the loudest. I feel like every article I have read has a section about how all mountain bikers support this cause....when I, a mountain biker living in colorado(a state with plenty of designated wilderness areas) would love to keep mountain bikers out of our precious wilderness areas


----------



## Singletrackd (May 3, 2015)

leeboh said:


> Right now this ban includes wheelbarrows and chainsaws. How are they supposed to do trail work?


Hand saws, horses, pack miles and we take the wheels off the wheel barrows, attach handles and carry it like a streacher.

The main culprit for shitty/nonexistent trail work is the lack of funding for our parks and the absence of willing volunteers. Random motivated individuals riding through the wilderness with a chain saw arnt going to be as big of an impact as a people try to make you think


----------



## ghood (Dec 26, 2011)

Singletrackd said:


> I love how willing the "probikes in wilderness area" people are to speak up for the anti wilderness bike crowd. I can think of plenty of reasons that bikes will create negative impacts on wilderness areas. *Just the increased amount of traffic alone is a reason to keep bikes out of wilderness areas*....that plus the fact that *any popular mountain bike trail i have ever been on is riddled with side features that were never originally part of the trails design.
> *
> Then someone who has zero wilderness trail buliding experience will pop up and talk about how bikes can revolutionize wilderness trail maintenance. Nope that's what we have horses and pack mules for.
> 
> It just frustrates me that the pro bikes in Wilderness crowd is drowning out everyone else just by talking the loudest. I feel like every article I have read has a section about how all mountain bikers support this cause....when I, a mountain biker living in colorado(a state with plenty of designated wilderness areas) would love to keep mountain bikers out of our precious wilderness areas


This may be the case in Colorado, or California where there are huge population centers resulting in much more pressure on the trails, but neither is true in Montana. Decide access region by region. End the blanket ban.


----------



## HTR4EVR (Jun 15, 2007)

KevinGT said:


> - Horses are stupid and can't control themselves in a natural environment...


I don't like horses on single tracks but on my experience is the horse rider the cause of must problems due to lack of good judgement.

Horse riders never remove obstacles from the trails, never I have seen a horse people working on trail maintenance.

Having horses banned from public trails, sweeeeeet.


----------



## Singletrackd (May 3, 2015)

sdsantacruzer said:


> "The Forest Service's new, unwritten policy, however, has effectively widened the reach of the ban by bypassing Congress entirely and creating de facto Wilderness areas."


I'm sure I'm totally wrong, but isn't this talking about the implication of "wilderness study areas". These are more of a beaurocratic pain in the ass and can be solved by getting your local bike advocacy groups to send letters to the agency involved and your congressman. Sadly It won't be a quick process but it doesnt mean the land is lost to the next generation.

And yes imba probably didn't make the best choice by taking such a negative stance on bikes in Wilderness areas but their intention was to not divide up the mtb community and be more tactifull about the fights they choose. Basically they would rather fight for close accessible trails that more people can enjoy then spend all that time and energy on trails in wilderness areas that are generally alot less accessible and in turn don't benifit a large population. Sadly the STC has helped this blow up in their face and now the mtb comunity is more split than ever and I guarantee the IMBA has taken a huge hit in donations as they loose important supporters that are flocking over to STC.

But my bus ride is over so I'll stop being a debi downer on this thread

Don't we all just want more trails?

Edit...ghood nailed it on the head I have only ridden trails in colorado,california and the east coast. So I am as ignorant as trump about the trail issues in Montana and idaho where this seems to be the biggest issue. But I'm also a selfish person that loves hiking in wilderness areas and with overpopulation i don't see a future where I could take my kids into the wild woods i grew up hiking as a child without these protected areas


----------



## cookieMonster (Feb 23, 2004)

^^Agreed. It should be managed by region. In Montana, if the ban on bikes in wilderness areas were lifted -- all of a sudden it would seem like there were a lot less mountain bikers anywhere (because they would all be spread out).

I have done a considerable amount of hiking in wilderness areas in addition to all the mountain biking I've done in legal areas (for the record, I VASTLY prefer mountain biking and generally only hike if that's what my friends/family want to do -- or if biking is off-limits for the area). Anyway, there's hardly anybody using the wilderness. Why can't I ride my bike there???

Well, instead, we keep getting pushed into smaller and smaller areas. You know what? This should be managed by the individual STATES. Because I couldn't care less what someone from Colorado or Vermont or California or Rhode Island or Washington F-ing D.C. thinks about how my local trail systems are managed. They are not the stakeholders.

As for that comment about trails being "riddled with side features;" I ask Singletrackd this question: Have you ever hiked on a wilderness trail that regularly features outfitted pack trains of 20+ horses? We're talking the Grand Canyon in the making....

I'm not supportive of excluding equestrians from anything. But lets face the facts -- they cause more damage than us. So the real issue of fairness really needs to be heard by Congress and the Supreme Court. 

I loved that article on Pinkbike. Forward it to your congressmen/women, people.


----------



## 53119 (Nov 7, 2008)

states and regions should always be able to decide their own legislation in this matter.


----------



## jp08865 (Aug 12, 2014)

KevinGT said:


> That's interesting. I absolutely DESPISE horses. Even though my daughter is a high school equestrian and was captain of her team last year, I hate horses.
> 
> - People towing horses generally drive far below the speed limit, clogging roads and highways, backing up traffic lights, and generally creating more traffic problems than cars with bikes.
> - Horse trailers take up more room in parking lots.
> ...


----------------------
*KevinGT for president !*

*I hate getting ****-faced because of horses & their riders !*


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

I really love Vernon Felton's writing and can't fault anything that he said in that article.

Here's something to consider though that I haven't really seen mentioned anywhere yet; who lobbies for land protections in the first place?

In my opinion, this is a consideration of no small importance.

How many mtb organizations have put forth proposals and lobbied to protect areas of land?

How many hiking organizations have done that?

I'm fully aware of mtb organizations building and maintaining trails, but how many have tried to protect ecologically-sensitive areas?


----------



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

Until recently I would have fought tooth and nail to allow mountain bikes access to (some) wilderness areas but recent threads here on mtbr on e-bikes and their "inevitability" have caused me consider the fact that maybe them hoity-toity Sierra Clubbers were right all along.

There, I said it.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

J.B. Weld said:


> Until recently I would have fought tooth and nail to allow mountain bikes access to (some) wilderness areas but recent threads here on mtbr on e-bikes and their "inevitability" have caused me consider the fact that maybe them hoity-toity Sierra Clubbers were right all along.
> 
> There, I said it.


Oh, I rather agree that e-bikes greatly complicate the issue.


----------



## smmokan (Oct 4, 2005)

Curveball said:


> Oh, I rather agree that e-bikes greatly complicate the issue.


E-bikes are actual mechanized/motorized transport, and should not be allowed in Wilderness areas. Nothing complicated there.


----------



## HTR4EVR (Jun 15, 2007)

Curveball said:


> I really love Vernon Felton's writing and can't fault anything that he said in that article.
> 
> Here's something to consider though that I haven't really seen mentioned anywhere yet; who lobbies for land protections in the first place?
> 
> ...


This is a great argument. Sometimes I wonder the same. How can I do more for the environment from a mtb perspective?


----------



## 2old (Aug 31, 2015)

KevinGT for prez..."Lets build a wall around the horse people and all the other idiots that don't like bikes!" That is a catchy campaign slogan. Some horse people are real idiots.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

smmokan said:


> E-bikes are actual mechanized/motorized transport, and should not be allowed in Wilderness areas. Nothing complicated there.


THe notion that they shouldn't be allowed is very straightforward due to being motorized. The complications come into play when you start talking about enforcement. That would be a nightmare for land managers having ranger staff checking each bike to see if it has a motor or not.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

HTR4EVR said:


> I don't like horses on single tracks but on my experience is the horse rider the cause of must problems due to lack of good judgement.
> 
> Horse riders never remove obstacles from the trails, never I have seen a horse people working on trail maintenance.
> 
> Having horses banned from public trails, sweeeeeet.


I was riding down a very popular multi use trail a couple of years ago. I was having to dodge quite a few leafy branches strewn on the trail that were obviously fresh cut. I rode ahead to see if I could catch who was doing it. I rounded a corner to find an equestrian with pruning clippers who was in the process of removing the wonderful overhead canopy. Her excuse was that she had to ride hunched over on this section and she was tired of it. When I pointed out that she wasn't on the trail maintenance crew, nor was she authorized, and the fact that she was leaving all of the branches along the trail...she just shrugged and said her horse could step over it and that she could do what she wanted. I took a quick video of her in action, called the sheriff and they met her at the trailhead. Ticketed her with destruction of public property and willful endangerment. Hefty ticket. After signing as a witness, I spent the next two hours walking up the trail and cleaning up her mess. I'm not a fan.


----------



## pdxmark (Aug 7, 2013)

Since we are part of the UN, we have to follow, or try to a degree at least to follow/participate in mandates. I completely understand the need and the importance of Agenda-21, but, US environmentalist in the federal lobby are taking things to an extreme.

Give it a moment though, I don't think this has been taken to the max yet, and I have this sneaking suspicion that a completely different group of users of Public Trail systems is going to be shut out of millions of acres soon.

Here is info on Agenda-21...

Agenda 21 - Combating Deforestation - United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)

Forests pivotal to new post-2015 development agenda | UN DESA | United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/topics/forests


----------



## HTR4EVR (Jun 15, 2007)

This US park service is in a financial hole and they don't have the resources to take care of all trails and to enforce all those senseless rules. Must of those rules are intended to accommodate the horse people. I use to live in a place with segregated trails, horse only and bikes only signs and no body was following those rules.

Multi use is the future.


----------



## donutnational (Jan 18, 2013)

I hurts me to see all this hatred for our fellow trail users. On my most local trail the cowboy hatted dude has removed a boatload of trees with a little help from bikers. When I talk to horseback riders I tell them that they are next as far as having access removed in hopes they will support multi use trails. With all the hatred from some bikers we may be creating a powerful enemy when we could be making a powerful ally.

And if Kevin GT truly hated horses he would have bought his kid a bike instead of a horse. I've lived for the last 26 years with horses in all of my neighbors yards. My daughter wanted a horse when she was little but I got her skis and a bike instead, saved me many thousands of dollars and gave me hours of bonding.


----------



## 29ger (Jan 1, 2011)

Singletrackd said:


> I love how willing the "probikes in wilderness area" people are to speak up for the anti wilderness bike crowd. I can think of plenty of reasons that bikes will create negative impacts on wilderness areas. Just the increased amount of traffic alone is a reason to keep bikes out of wilderness areas....that plus the fact that any popular mountain bike trail i have ever been on is riddled with side features that were never originally part of the trails design.
> 
> Then someone who has zero wilderness trail buliding experience will pop up and talk about how bikes can revolutionize wilderness trail maintenance. Nope that's what we have horses and pack mules for.
> 
> It just frustrates me that the pro bikes in Wilderness crowd is drowning out everyone else just by talking the loudest. I feel like every article I have read has a section about how all mountain bikers support this cause....when I, a mountain biker living in colorado(a state with plenty of designated wilderness areas) would love to keep mountain bikers out of our precious wilderness areas


Right, because everyone that could do trail maintenance has a mule in their back yard. Not to mention the extra expense and inconvenience of doing the maintenance makes it much less likely to happen.

In my neck of the woods, the people I mainly see doing trail maintenance are bikers, and a lot of it is fixing trail damaged by equestrians (I don't blame the horses, just the riders). Banning bikes is probably on of the main reasons wilderness trials aren't maintained. Who wants a good trail the most? Hikers and equestrians don't care as much, as they just walk over it/tread through it. They don't have to get off and push. And most of the "unauthorized side trails" I see are either hikers cutting switchbacks because they don't want to walk so far, or horses going around trees that they can't be bothered to move. (Bikes and hikers do the same, they just don't tear up the ground when they do it.)

And I donated to STC a while ago. Totally agree with local control. And this "wilderness study area" is so stupid. Southern Utah has thousands and thousands of acres in study areas, it's ridiculous.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Why do these discussions of the Wilderness ban always lead to horses versus bikers?

Isn't that very tangential to the topic at hand?


----------



## KevinGT (Dec 25, 2012)

How about this scenario...

A mountain biker decides that he wants to see how fast he can ride a long descent on a multi-use trail. But to take away the temptation to over-brake, he removes his brakes completely from his bike. He's going to keep his bike on the trail just by controlling the bike through the turns the whole way.

Other trail users are on that trail, both ascending and descending, and he yells and screams at them to get out of his way because he can't completely control his bike. A few weeks or months later, this no-brakes idea becomes "a thing" and now you've got multiple mountain bikers riding trails without the ability to fully control their bikes. Other trail users are basically forced to contend with these riders or someone is going to get hurt (usually the brake-less rider, but could be others).

Sound absurd? 

That's horseback riding.

(Hyperbole? of course, but you get the point.)


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Curveball said:


> Why do these discussions of the Wilderness ban always lead to horses versus bikers?
> 
> Isn't that very tangential to the topic at hand?


No, because in a tangential conversation the topic goes off in another direction never to return to the original topic at hand. Give this thread a few hundred more posts and it will get back to its original topic.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

Singletrackd said:


> I'm sure I'm totally wrong, but isn't this talking about the implication of "wilderness study areas". These are more of a beaurocratic pain in the ass and can be solved by getting your local bike advocacy groups to send letters to the agency involved and your congressman. Sadly It won't be a quick process but it doesnt mean the land is lost to the next generation.


No. It also includes recommended Wilderness areas, and the decision as to what is or isn't a RWA is made by the Forester.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

HTR4EVR said:


> I don't like horses on single tracks but on my experience is the horse rider the cause of must problems due to lack of good judgement.
> 
> Horse riders never remove obstacles from the trails, never I have seen a horse people working on trail maintenance.
> 
> Having horses banned from public trails, sweeeeeet.


Here in Montana, most maintenance of USFS trails is limited to clearing fallen timber. That's all they need, for the most part. The CCC could build trail. Backcountry Horsemen do a lot of that clearing. They can carry bigger saws than we can.


----------



## pdxmark (Aug 7, 2013)

I encourage everyone to make a sign for the front of their property that reads...

"SIERRA-CLUB IS BANNED FROM THIS PROPERTY"

That way the ignorant millennials that are hired to canvas are going to ask questions about why they are banned from peoples property without doing anything wrong themselves, and maybe it might show the youth who help the Sierra Club just how despotic the Sierra Club is.

Well, I can dream can't I?


----------



## ghood (Dec 26, 2011)

evasive said:


> Here in Montana, most maintenance of USFS trails is limited to clearing fallen timber. That's all they need, for the most part. The CCC could build trail. Backcountry Horsemen do a lot of that clearing. They can carry bigger saws than we can.


In and around Missoula, I see mountain bikers doing most of the volunteer trail maintenance. Backcountry Horsemen do great work, but it's mostly on trails we can't ride - Wilderness down in the Bitterroot or in the Bob Marshall.









I carry a saw.


----------



## HTR4EVR (Jun 15, 2007)

evasive said:


> Here in Montana, most maintenance of USFS trails is limited to clearing fallen timber. That's all they need, for the most part. The CCC could build trail. Backcountry Horsemen do a lot of that clearing. They can carry bigger saws than we can.


That is good to know. There has to be a different culture somewhere else. My experience in Northern California has been of little help and big complains from the horse people.


----------



## Speed Goat (Dec 31, 2013)

Wow, lots of horse hatred here! I can only speak for the wilderness areas in home state of Wyoming, but here we go. 

There are a few misconceptions here...

Horse groups (Back Country Horsemen in particular) have done more trail maintenance on the trails (in and out of the wilderness) in Wyoming than any of the other groups combined. 

This same group, along with Back Country Hunters and Anglers, the RMEF, MDF, TRCF, Wyoming Sportsman's Alliance and other conservation groups are constantly speaking up to protect our road less areas and work tirelessly to keep public land in public hands. The mountain bike crowd HAS NEVER SPOKEN UP IN FAVOR OF PROTECTING OUR PUBLIC LANDS....EVER. When it comes to using public land, the mountain bike community has had a free ride on the back of other user groups for years and hasn't done squat!! We should be ashamed as a user group!

I really question how many of you have ever even been to a REAL wilderness area. In Wyoming, you could not physically ride a bike on many of the trails I've been on in the back country. It's impossible, too steep, too rocky for too long.

Do not lump me and my horses into the same group as some granny riding party who does a one hour Sunday ride through the park on the children's trail. Real back country horses are not afraid of you, your bike, your dog, your ugly girlfriend....running into a grizzly bear is going to happen if you recreate in the part of the world. Lumping me and my horses in the "stupid and can't control themselves" is a rib on me, my stock, and my horsemanship. Might as well call me a fat, lazy slob on a crappy bike while you're at it.

I love to mountain bike and I love to use my horses in the wilderness. It's no secret that bikers hate equestrians and hikers, but ignorant folks in both of those user groups hate mountain bikers just as much. Nothing ever positive is ever going to happen if folks can't get together to work things out.

Don't worry about it though, many politicians throughout this nation are working hard to get rid of our federal public land system. There may be no wilderness areas to worry about!!


----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

And this is why I'm happy I don't live in the US ^^

-----------------------------------------------------------
#1 resolution... Ride it like I stole it!!


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

Speed Goat said:


> Wow, lots of horse hatred here! I can only speak for the wilderness areas in home state of Wyoming, but here we go.
> 
> There are a few misconceptions here...
> 
> ...


The butthurt is strong with this one. I appreciate you letting me know that I've always been going to fake wilderness areas, as opposed to the "real" wilderness areas. Just so you're in the know, myself and most bikers will NEVER support wilderness, not as long as it bans bikes. That's probably a good reason you don't see us out fighting for it.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

ghood said:


> In and around Missoula, I see mountain bikers doing most of the volunteer trail maintenance. Backcountry Horsemen do great work, but it's mostly on trails we can't ride - Wilderness down in the Bitterroot or in the Bob Marshall.
> 
> View attachment 1058046
> 
> ...


I carry the same one. So do most of my friends.


----------



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

Silentfoe said:


> Just so you're in the know, myself and most bikers will NEVER support wilderness, not as long as it bans bikes. That's probably a good reason you don't see us out fighting for it.


I've lived and breathed cycling my whole life, and currently mountain biking is pretty much my favorite thing in life.

I support wilderness 100%.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

J.B. Weld said:


> I've lived and breathed cycling my whole life, and currently mountain biking is pretty much my favorite thing in life.
> 
> I support wilderness 100%.


Good for you. I said most. Please refer to the only poll done on the subject at singletracks.com. 96% of mountain bikers want to see bikes in Wilderness.


----------



## kiwisimon (Oct 31, 2006)

in contrast, Permanent cycle season for Heaphy | Stuff.co.nz


----------



## kiwisimon (Oct 31, 2006)

KevinGT said:


> I actually saw a person knowingly enter a horse in a horse show


Bloody perverts, ban them!!


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

matadorCE said:


> Which completely ironic since if you look at mainstream media (commercials, tv shows, movies, etc) the average joe thinks mountain biking and hiking are pretty much one and the same (ie. those weird people who like do be outside and care about the environment).


I think the masses see us as a feckless crew with little regard to the planet beneath our pedals.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

53119 said:


> states and regions should always be able to decide their own legislation in this matter.
> 
> View attachment 1057614


I've seen this proposed for a wide variety of reasons (Cliven Bundy, etc), and I keep on providing the same response:

If states want to take over responsibility for National Forests/Wilderness within their boundaries, so be it. They should also be responsible for fire fighting and disaster relief funding when those events happen.

I'm guessing they won't like that when they see how much the FS spends on fire fighting every year.


----------



## Shark (Feb 4, 2006)

Singletrackd said:


> Hand saws, horses, pack miles and we take the wheels off the wheel barrows, attach handles and carry it like a streacher.
> 
> The main culprit for shitty/nonexistent trail work is the lack of funding for our parks and the absence of willing volunteers. Random motivated individuals riding through the wilderness with a chain saw arnt going to be as big of an impact as a people try to make you think


How is it not going to have an impact?

I lug my chainsaw out (on the back of my bike) to clear trail early in the season, and as needed during the year.

If I had to hike in (5-10 miles) and clear with a hand-saw? Nope probably wouldn't be doing it, ever.


----------



## Mrwhlr (Sep 16, 2006)

kiwisimon said:


> Bloody perverts, ban them!!


Winner!


----------



## misterbill (Aug 13, 2014)

Speed Goat said:


> I really question how many of you have ever even been to a REAL wilderness area. In Wyoming, you could not physically ride a bike on many of the trails I've been on in the back country. It's impossible, too steep, too rocky for too long.
> 
> Do not lump me and my horses into the same group as some granny riding party who does a one hour Sunday ride through the park on the children's trail. Real back country horses are not afraid of you, your bike, your dog, your ugly girlfriend....running into a grizzly bear is going to happen if you recreate in the part of the world. Lumping me and my horses in the "stupid and can't control themselves" is a rib on me, my stock, and my horsemanship.


I am not saying this to be critical. You are obviously in a different catergory than anyone on this website has ever run across.

My wife and I boarded horses for over 30 years. Show horses have been bred down to be show horses. There was not one horse on our property for thirty years that could be ridden into town to get supplys. If it was sunny out, the horses could not be ridden because they would see their shadows on the ground, spook, buck, and run sideways. I said to my wife the last time this subject came up that they are talking about riding horses in the State Forest again. She informed me that that would be by far the stupidest thing she ever heard in her life(30 yrs experience training and lessons).


----------



## 53119 (Nov 7, 2008)

Le Duke said:


> I've seen this proposed for a wide variety of reasons (Cliven Bundy, etc), and I keep on providing the same response:
> 
> If states want to take over responsibility for National Forests/Wilderness within their boundaries, so be it. They should also be responsible for fire fighting and disaster relief funding when those events happen.
> 
> I'm guessing they won't like that when they see how much the FS spends on fire fighting every year.


they absolutely should be responsible for their own. too shite mismanaging, crap financial planning and misappropriations all over the place though


----------



## misterbill (Aug 13, 2014)

pdxmark said:


> Since we are part of the UN, we have to follow, or try to a degree at least to follow/participate in mandates. I completely understand the need and the importance of Agenda-21, but, US environmentalist in the federal lobby are taking things to an extreme.
> 
> Give it a moment though, I don't think this has been taken to the max yet, and I have this sneaking suspicion that a completely different group of users of Public Trail systems is going to be shut out of millions of acres soon.
> 
> ...


Here is what I have heard about agenda 21.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...D8663009B2B77ECDB9C2D8663&FORM=VDFSRV&fsscr=0


----------



## moefosho (Apr 30, 2013)

Horses or no horses. I don't care. As long as they get rid of the ban for bikes. There is no rational where it makes sense to allow horses and not allow bikes.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Singletrackd said:


> Hand saws, horses, pack miles and we take the wheels off the wheel barrows, attach handles and carry it like a streacher.
> 
> The main culprit for shitty/nonexistent trail work is the lack of funding for our parks and the absence of willing volunteers. Random motivated individuals riding through the wilderness with a chain saw arnt going to be as big of an impact as a people try to make you think


Hand saws and pack horses? Please. How about something efficient and from the last 50 years? What about a windstorm or after effects from bug/ fire damage. Could be dozens of trees. Lets say you have 5 trees down 5 miles from a trail head. 1 guy, bike, chainsaw, problem solved. How long will it take to handsaw 5 trees, say 1-1.5 feet across? And how long to go out and back? New England rider here. Lack of volunteers? Not in my mt biking group. 1,000's of volunteer work hours every year. new trails, wooden boardwalks, rerouted trails, rehabs etc. Working with land owners, land managers, private land owners, conservation groups and retailers. And I carry a 12 inch silky handsaw on almost every ride.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Curveball said:


> I really love Vernon Felton's writing and can't fault anything that he said in that article.
> 
> Here's something to consider though that I haven't really seen mentioned anywhere yet; who lobbies for land protections in the first place?
> 
> ...


Nemba for one. We bought land in danger of being developed. Called Vietnam trails. Milford, MA. 47 acres, raised apx. $ 210,000.00 to purchase. It is in middle of a larger conservation area belonging to several towns.


----------



## alphazz (Oct 12, 2012)

Singletrackd said:


> ...
> Don't we all just want more trails?...


Nope. I want to be able to ride a fat bike in Yellowstone during the winter and I want to be able to ride anywhere you can take a horse and a pack mule.


----------



## jmmUT (Sep 15, 2008)

Singletrackd said:


> I love how willing the "probikes in wilderness area" people are to speak up for the anti wilderness bike crowd. I can think of plenty of reasons that bikes will create negative impacts on wilderness areas. Just the increased amount of traffic alone is a reason to keep bikes out of wilderness areas....that plus the fact that any popular mountain bike trail i have ever been on is riddled with side features that were never originally part of the trails design.
> 
> Then someone who has zero wilderness trail buliding experience will pop up and talk about how bikes can revolutionize wilderness trail maintenance. Nope that's what we have horses and pack mules for.
> 
> It just frustrates me that the pro bikes in Wilderness crowd is drowning out everyone else just by talking the loudest. I feel like every article I have read has a section about how all mountain bikers support this cause....when I, a mountain biker living in colorado(a state with plenty of designated wilderness areas) would love to keep mountain bikers out of our precious wilderness areas


Thank you. I'm with you.


----------



## jmmUT (Sep 15, 2008)

Silentfoe said:


> Good for you. I said most. Please refer to the only poll done on the subject at singletracks.com. 96% of mountain bikers want to see bikes in Wilderness.


96% of an anonymous uncontrolled poll wanted some wilderness but only something like 39% wanted it all open.

But it really doesn't matter since that poll can't be considered representative in any way. Like a Fox news or MSNBC opinion poll. (96% of people who agree with us agree with us!)


----------



## alphazz (Oct 12, 2012)

Speed Goat said:


> Wow, lots of horse hatred here!...
> 
> I really question how many of you have ever even been to a REAL wilderness area. In Wyoming, you could not physically ride a bike on many of the trails I've been on in the back country. It's impossible, too steep, too rocky for too long.
> ...


I've grown up in Wyoming. I grew up riding a bikes and horses. I'm not sure I'd agree with you. There is a lot of wilderness area that can be ridden by bike. As for all that "horse groups" have done, I've not seen it.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

leeboh said:


> Hand saws and pack horses? Please. How about something efficient and from the last 50 years? What about a windstorm or after effects from bug/ fire damage. Could be dozens of trees. Lets say you have 5 trees down 5 miles from a trail head. 1 guy, bike, chainsaw, problem solved. How long will it take to handsaw 5 trees, say 1-1.5 feet across? And how long to go out and back? New England rider here. Lack of volunteers? Not in my mt biking group. 1,000's of volunteer work hours every year. new trails, wooden boardwalks, rerouted trails, rehabs etc. Working with land owners, land managers, private land owners, conservation groups and retailers. And I carry a 12 inch silky handsaw on almost every ride.


Hundreds of trees. Since the pine bark beetle infestation rolled through about 7-10 years ago, the amount of lodge pole deadfall every year has been silly. One of the most popular rides around here runs for about four miles along the Continental Divide trail, and then drops for nearly three miles into the drainage below. Last year was the worst so far. Our local trail coordinator took days to clear it with a full Montana Conservation Corps crew (an Americorps program). Other popular trails are similar, and take a concerted effort to clear each spring.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

I'll just leave this here.

Mountain Biking Has an Identity Crisis? And it Affects Us All | Singletracks Mountain Bike News


----------



## Jboy71 (Aug 6, 2010)

Here here!! Horses definitely do FAR more trail damage than all the other users put together. They're always kicking rocks loose and they're inevitable out on my local trails early in the spring when it's muddy totally buggering up the trail. People freak out if mt bikers do that! Total double standard.


----------



## Jboy71 (Aug 6, 2010)

If they're going to be restrictive and exclude low impact users from the wilderness, why don't they start by showing they're serious about protecting and preserving our public lands by getting the damn cattle out of the national forests. They do massive damage--I witness it every year. All the low impact users (hikers and bikers) have to put up with this degradation so some moocher cattleman can make money off of raping the land. But no, they're more worried about bikes rolling on a preexisting trail. Totally hypocrisy and misguided priorities. As always, it comes down to $.


----------



## HTR4EVR (Jun 15, 2007)

Le Duke said:


> I'll just leave this here.
> 
> Mountain Biking Has an Identity Crisis? And it Affects Us All | Singletracks Mountain Bike News


Very nice article thanks for sharing.


----------



## kiwisimon (Oct 31, 2006)

can't MTBers make their own trails and make them horse proof? A lot of work I know but it works for cars on streets. Imagine a network of biking trails all across the country...... and paid for by the tax payer. Message from Prime Minister John Key | NZ Cycle Trail


----------



## avidthrasher (Jan 27, 2016)

KevinGT said:


> That's interesting. I absolutely DESPISE horses. Even though my daughter is a high school equestrian and was captain of her team last year, I hate horses.
> 
> - People towing horses generally drive far below the speed limit, clogging roads and highways, backing up traffic lights, and generally creating more traffic problems than cars with bikes.
> - Horse trailers take up more room in parking lots.
> ...


While I know and can agree with where you are coming from this is not a particularly useful standpoint in relation to this issue. We need ALL 'wilderness' trail users to be united and supportive of each others' rights to use the land in the 'land of freedom'. Bickering amongst different groups of outdoor enthusiasts groups will get us about where we are right now; lots of groups who all think they should be working against each other to limit who has the use of trails and who would exclude the others for their own benefit. This sort of selfish behavior has not merit and is of no use when trying to preserve accessibility of these trails to those who most frequently use them.


----------



## 29ger (Jan 1, 2011)

Speed Goat said:


> The mountain bike crowd HAS NEVER SPOKEN UP IN FAVOR OF PROTECTING OUR PUBLIC LANDS....EVER. When it comes to using public land, the mountain bike community has had a free ride on the back of other user groups for years and hasn't done squat!! We should be ashamed as a user group!
> 
> I really question how many of you have ever even been to a REAL wilderness area. In Wyoming, you could not physically ride a bike on many of the trails I've been on in the back country. It's impossible, too steep, too rocky for too long.
> 
> ...


You are definitely only speaking for Wyoming (or your little group there). If it wasn't for Mtn bikers (and hikers) here, I don't think anything would get built in my local area.

I'm not sure how to tell a granny riding party from a "real back country horses". I'm guessing that it was the granny's that actually had the gall to ride on snow groomed single track an ruin it for everyone that came behind them regardless if they were a hiker, snowshoer, or fat-biker?

I have run into some decent horse people, but they seem too far and few between, as I'm sure horse people probably say about bikers too.

And no, I haven't ridden much wilderness, it's illegal as you know. But there are some places I went as a kid I'd love to bike now, if I just had the chance.


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

Curveball said:


> Why do these discussions of the Wilderness ban always lead to horses versus bikers?
> 
> Isn't that very tangential to the topic at hand?


I think there's always been a contentious relationship between the two user groups. It's not so much about trail damage caused by either group as it is about being at one with nature on an animal vs a machine.


----------



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

I met another one of those hostile horsie people on the trail yesterday. She saw me coming and expertly maneuvered her steed about 10 feet off trail, then glared at me with a smile as she told me to go on past her and enjoy my ride. Unbelievable, the nerve!


----------



## avidthrasher (Jan 27, 2016)

J.B. Weld said:


> I met another one of those hostile horsie people on the trail yesterday. She saw me coming and expertly maneuvered her steed about 10 feet off trail, then glared at me with a smile as she told me to go on past her and enjoy my ride. Unbelievable, the nerve!


This. This is the way normal people behave. Now of course the world is full of *******s, hell I'm probably one in some people's mind, but the majority of the time I'm on the trail and run into horse riders it's an exchange of pleasantries and maybe a discussion about how lucky we are to have such a great set of trails for everyone to get out and use and stay in touch with the world. As I've grown out of my teens and twenties I've found myself running into far less contentious interactions over such silly things.


----------



## ImaginaryFriend (Mar 24, 2009)

J.B. Weld said:


> I met another one of those hostile horsie people on the trail yesterday. She saw me coming and expertly maneuvered her steed about 10 feet off trail, then glared at me with a smile as she told me to go on past her and enjoy my ride. Unbelievable, the nerve!


While most of my encounters are close to this one, I still would like for them to clear the trail of their horse's crap. Dog owners get berated for the same behavior, so why do equestrians think it's fine to leave piles of crap in the middle of the trail?


----------



## Alias530 (Apr 1, 2013)

KevinGT said:


> - Horses **** all over the trails. If people or dogs did that, there would be a public outcry to clean it up but it's fine for horses to do it without any recourse to the rider.


I've always thought it was odd nobody seems to care about horse crap even remotely as much as dog crap, even when it's usually 100x as much crap.


----------



## windsurf2xs (Jul 10, 2007)

Interesting coincidence....I just mailed this to the Sierra Club after the most recent issue of the Sierra Magazine came out with a picture of a mountain biker on page 6. 
The article was about the "recreation economy"
(and before someone flames me....we get the magazine because of my mother-in-laws support of the Sierra Club)

========================================
Hey Sierra Club.....




RE: page 6 of Sierra magazine "The Experiential Economy"




So what is the Sierra Club's policy on mountain bikes? Do you support the use of bikes on single track trails?

Should more trails be open to bikes? If not.....why not? 




This is a litmus test for many of us. Bikes have the same environmental "footprint" as hikers, and much less than horses. If the environmental impact is the same, why should bikes be excluded?




I cannot support a Sierra Club that does not support mountain bikes.


----------



## Terranaut (Jun 9, 2014)

Not sure how things are in the US but locally here in Ontario I have been both a horse person and a MTB person and have a few thoughts on some of the previous comments.
1) I have owned 3 horses in my youth( left the farm at 18) and not one of them ever bucked or spooked from their own shadow or from a dog or a hiker for that matter. I never once encountered anyone on a bike on the trail.
2) Horses destroy trails. It's that simple. Off road trucks followed by dirt bikes and then horses are the top 3 trail killers. Hikers and mountain bikers are way behind other than numbers.
3)Horse riders will complain all day about a dirt bike track on the trail but never consider what a mound of horse sh!t means to hikers or bikers and leave it right on the trail because "it's natural"
4)I have never seen a trail maintenance day being held by equestrians.
5)I have seen horses move off the trail for hikers but never once for bikers
6)All of the above groups need to share the same trails and respect them equally. There is no other way.
7) All of the above groups need to respect the other groups. There is no other way.
8)Lastly , everyone needs to learn to respect the trail first and the users after. Lets face it , the trail is the victim of the above groups and not each other.


----------



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

ImaginaryFriend said:


> While most of my encounters are close to this one, I still would like for them to clear the trail of their horse's crap. Dog owners get berated for the same behavior, so why do equestrians think it's fine to leave piles of crap in the middle of the trail?





Alias530 said:


> I've always thought it was odd nobody seems to care about horse crap even remotely as much as dog crap, even when it's usually 100x as much crap.


I don't know how it is in more humid climates but here in the arid western states horse crap dries up and pretty much turns into dirt within a few hours. I guess I'm odd but it's never irritated me in the slightest, just another trail feature.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

J.B. Weld said:


> I don't know how it is in more humid climates but here in the arid western states horse crap dries up and pretty much turns into dirt within a few hours. I guess I'm odd but it's never irritated me in the slightest, just another trail feature.


Wait until you hit a big pile at speed. All over the tires, the downtube and sometimes roosting in the air. Not pleasant.


----------



## Alias530 (Apr 1, 2013)

J.B. Weld said:


> I don't know how it is in more humid climates but here in the arid western states horse crap dries up and pretty much turns into dirt within a few hours. I guess I'm odd but it's never irritated me in the slightest, just another trail feature.


In equal quantities, dog crap is worse to step in, but there's so much more of the horse crap and it isn't even acknowledged as being gross whereas in terms of social taboo, you'd be looked at in the same light as a drunk driver if someone found out you didn't clean up your dogs crap.

It doesn't bother me as much as many other things, I just think it's odd that there's so much more of a taboo with dog crap.


----------



## Singletrackd (May 3, 2015)

Equestrian users are required to feed their horses a very specific diet for each wilderness areas so that the horses feces actually becomes a healthy part of the ecosystem.....neither dogs or humans are required to eat a diet that is made up of local vegitation, so your dog's feces is not healthy for the local ecosystem....it's not about the amount of ****, it's about the quality of the ****!

I understand trail etiquette doesn't exist within the mtbr community but if you want to get any respect from equestrian users than you have to respect then aswell.

If you encounter a equestrian user, you are supposed to dismount your bike and stand off to the side of the trail (always choose the low point). It's hard to understand from behind your keyboards but horses are actually animals that can get very intimidated by people on bikes and equestrian users can be at risk of getting bucked off their horse every time they pass a person sitting on their bikes (especially if their horse is skittish or not used to bikes).....no **** they get pissed off at you guys and have so much malace twords bikers

Isn't this thread about wilderness areas? How many of you that have given me negative rep about this actually live in an area that is affected by wilderness closers ( here is a map of what we are actually talking about Wilderness.net - U.S. National Wilderness Preservation System Map) for example I didn't realize that Ontario had any wilderness areas managed by the US government:madman:

For the people that think the wilderness areas should be locally managed....you understand we are talking about federal land right?


----------



## Alias530 (Apr 1, 2013)

Singletrackd said:


> Equestrian users are required to feed their horses a very specific diet for each wilderness areas so that the horses feces actually becomes a healthy part of the ecosystem.....neither dogs or humans are required to eat a diet that is made up of local vegitation, so your dog's feces is not healthy for the local ecosystem....it's not about the amount of ****, it's about the quality of the ****!
> 
> I understand trail etiquette doesn't exist within the mtbr community but if you want to get any respect from equestrian users than you have to respect then aswell.
> 
> If you encounter a equestrian user, you are supposed to dismount your bike and stand off to the side of the trail (always choose the low point). It's hard to understand from behind your keyboards but horses are actually animals that get very intimidated by people on bikes and *equestrian users are at risk of getting bucked off their horse every time they pass a person sitting on their bikes*.....no **** they get pissed off at you guys and have so much malace twords bikers


Concerning the bolded part, bike riders are at the risk of getting trampled by some idiots untrained horse every time we come across one.

The constant in both situations is the horse-don't take an untrained/skittish horse out on the trails! If they don't want to get bucked, train your horse in a controlled environment before bringing it out.

The same way I'm not going go on a fast Cat 1 group ride and expect everyone to cater to my skill/fitness/etc, horses should not be brought into situations that are dangerous for everyone involved unless they can do it safely without negatively impacting others.


----------



## ImaginaryFriend (Mar 24, 2009)

J.B. Weld said:


> I don't know how it is in more humid climates but here in the arid western states horse crap dries up and pretty much turns into dirt within a few hours. I guess I'm odd but it's never irritated me in the slightest, just another trail feature.


I wish! Here in the east it stays around for days, maybe even longer than that. Our hope is for a good hard rain that washes most of it off the trail, or for enough other bikers to run over it first! 

If I was out west I would still be a bit perturbed, but obviously it wouldn't be the big mess it is over here.


----------



## Singletrackd (May 3, 2015)

Or no one is at any risk at all if you just dismount your bike when you encounter a equestrian user....you realize you have 2 options 1 where you make it safe and actually coexist with other trail users on a multi use trail system(oh my)and the 2nd were you are intentionally making the situation dangerous for both you and the horse rider..so we can either get along or you try and fight to get horses kicked off the trails that you are trying to gain access too

Honest question are any of you east coast riders affected by any of the recent wilderness closers? I always had the understanding that there hasn't been any newly desegnated wilderness areas on the east coast for since the 80s


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Singletrackd said:


> Equestrian users are required to feed their horses a very specific diet for each wilderness areas so that the horses feces actually becomes a healthy part of the ecosystem.....neither dogs or humans are required to eat a diet that is made up of local vegitation, so your dog's feces is not healthy for the local ecosystem....it's not about the amount of ****, it's about the quality of the ****!
> 
> I understand trail etiquette doesn't exist within the mtbr community but if you want to get any respect from equestrian users than you have to respect then aswell.
> 
> ...


 There is lots of trail etiquette within the mt bike community. In my area,( New England) it is the bikers who do lots of trail work. Respect( wait for it) is a two way street. Do Horse users respect the trail when they go out in the mud and leave deep horse prints? Leaving piles of crap all over the trail for others to deal with? If my riding a bike intimidates them, maybe they shouldn't be on the trail. I do encounter horses from time to time. I do pull off and talk to the riders, pass, wait etc. The ISSUE is, if horses are allowed, bikes should be as well. We do far less damage to trails than horses, and have similar impacts as hikers.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

I know how to interact with horses on trails and have actually organized training days between equestrians and bikers. I know the "rules". First, if your horse is skittish or may put the rider in jeopardy, don't take it on a trail. You don't get to put that on me. Second, I will get off my bike to allow the equestrian to pass, or, I will ask if it ok for me to ride past the horse if the trail is wide enough. Third, if I do get off my bike, I will NEVER go downhill from the horse. I am not putting myself in a position to get trampled. It shouldn't matter because you should be in control of your horse, if you're not then I'm in a better position to protect myself. Fourth, I won't remove my helmet either. I have better things to do. See my reasons for the third point.


----------



## Singletrackd (May 3, 2015)

After reading your responses I totally understand why mountain bikers are the least respected trail users. 

What does multi use mean to you guys? Is it just a challenge to be the loudest most obnoxious person on the trail so that people hate you so much that they will avoid you......don't think that's the best way to build bridges and earn respect

I understand that within your mtb clubs you only see representation from mountain bikers on your trail work days but in my 8 years (not kong at all I know) of working on trail crews I have never seen a true funded trail crew on bikes and I have never seen a biker hual lumber into the backcountry for trail building

But my bus ride is over so I'll be back tomorrow to rain on your day


----------



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

leeboh said:


> Wait until you hit a big pile at speed. All over the tires, the downtube and sometimes roosting in the air. Not pleasant.


All the trails I ride these days are multi-use with plenty of horse traffic. If I can't go around the freshies I'll bunny-hop them, if they're dry I don't give a crap.


----------



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

What does any of this horsie business have to do with the wilderness issue?


----------



## Singletrackd (May 3, 2015)

If your so close to the horse tat you can get trampled maybe you should be a little farther off the trail

I understand that its not always possible to lay down your bike and step off the trail but in general equestrian users are not on trails with so much exposer that you will fall off a cliff
*
Honest question are any of you east coast riders affected by any of the recent wilderness closers?*I always had the understanding that there hasn't been any newly desegnated wilderness areas on the east coast for since the 80s(not trying to pick a fight just trying to understand, I know idaho lost tons of rideable single track and Montana Washington are loosing even more as we complain. I just always thought the east coast land rights have been the same for a while since the overpopulation has always been a problem over there)


----------



## Singletrackd (May 3, 2015)

J.B. Weld said:


> What does any of this horsie business have to do with the wilderness issue?


Because we are all children at heart and it always degrades into....well horses destroy the trail so why can't we


----------



## ImaginaryFriend (Mar 24, 2009)

Singletrackd said:


> Equestrian users are required to feed their horses a very specific diet for each wilderness areas so that the horses feces actually becomes a healthy part of the ecosystem.....neither dogs or humans are required to eat a diet that is made up of local vegitation, so your dog's feces is not healthy for the local ecosystem....it's not about the amount of ****, it's about the quality of the ****!...


Quality or not, they could at least shovel it off the trail.


----------



## iceboxsteve (Feb 22, 2012)

Singletrackd said:


> Equestrian users are required to feed their horses a very specific diet for each wilderness areas so that the horses feces actually becomes a healthy part of the ecosystem.....neither dogs or humans are required to eat a diet that is made up of local vegitation, so your dog's feces is not healthy for the local ecosystem....it's not about the amount of ****, it's about the quality of the ****!


And drivers are required to go a certain maximum speed...

Jesus I love watching the forums erode into free fall but really?

You want me to believe that equestrians actually abide by this?

A quick google search gives me this: http://www.nps.gov/pore/learn/management/upload/rps_invasiveplants_and_horsemanure_060718.pdf

So beyond the more power they exert that leads to more erosion of trails, they also introduce invasive species. I'm coming from an environmental science background much less outdoor recreation/trail users.


----------



## Singletrackd (May 3, 2015)

Now I'm just sitting in the street staring at my phone like a crazy person but that is a very interesting post but I'm pretty sure that the diet restrictions for horses only pertain to wilderness areas and the equestrian users are simply required to give them the specific feed for only two weeks prior to traveling through the wilderness areas. I also don't think equestrian users commonly travel accross the country for a day ride so most of the equestrian users on a specific wilderness trail are going to be local to the area

From what I read in that article it was just talking about all national park land not wilderness trails which WAS what this thread was about


----------



## iceboxsteve (Feb 22, 2012)

Singletrackd said:


> Now I'm just sitting in the street staring at my phone like a crazy person but that is a very interesting post but I'm pretty sure that the diet restrictions for horses only pertain to wilderness areas and the equestrian users are simply required to give them the specific feed for only two weeks prior to traveling through the wilderness areas. I also don't think equestrian users commonly travel accross the country for a day ride so most of the equestrian users on a specific wilderness trail are going to be local to the area
> 
> From what I read in that article it was just talking about all national park land not wilderness trails which WAS what this thread was about


That did come off as more of a personal attack, and it shouldn't have.

I just find it laughable people think people will do things because they are required.

Also if you google more some studies show horse manure does not promote invasive growth.

But being a scientist myself, I know that all science is not based on anything but what you (or the person paying) whats it to be.

It is my personal belief that horses contribute something to weed/invasive growth. And something is much worse than nothing when we talk about invasive species.

Also let it be known every horse encounter I've ever had was good.

Anyway, that was more about food for thought.

EDIT: yes this thread is about wilderness, but a study is a study. Land is land. If it happens one place it can happen another.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Singletrackd said:


> If your so close to the horse tat you can get trampled maybe you should be a little farther off the trail
> 
> I understand that its not always possible to lay down your bike and step off the trail but in general equestrian users are not on trails with so much exposer that you will fall off a cliff
> *
> Honest question are any of you east coast riders affected by any of the recent wilderness closers?*I always had the understanding that there hasn't been any newly desegnated wilderness areas on the east coast for since the 80s(not trying to pick a fight just trying to understand, I know idaho lost tons of rideable single track and Montana Washington are loosing even more as we complain. I just always thought the east coast land rights have been the same for a while since the overpopulation has always been a problem over there)


Plenty of wilderness in NH and VT, presently trying to redraw some lines in NC and SC, Pisgah for one.


----------



## ImaginaryFriend (Mar 24, 2009)

Singletrackd said:


> ...
> *
> Honest question are any of you east coast riders affected by any of the recent wilderness closers?*...


It's not all about closers. *Gaining* access is desired too.


----------



## Terranaut (Jun 9, 2014)

Maybe we should allow bikes and horses on the trails but ban the humans who use them


----------



## iceboxsteve (Feb 22, 2012)

leeboh said:


> Plenty of wilderness in NH and VT, presently trying to redraw some lines in NC and SC, Pisgah for one.


EDIT:


ImaginaryFriend said:


> It's not all about closers. *Gaining* access is desired too.


Leeboh is correct. But I would say personally as a native New Englander and now a resident of NC, the NC issue is much larger. There is potential for another White Clouds incident, where actual trails being ridden now (and have been ridden for ages) could be lost.

Frankly some of the Wilderness I've hiked in the Whites (NH) is not truly rideable and furthermore so overrun with hikers that I honestly believe it is one of those situations where bikes should stay banned. I don't say that lightly, I am all for STC and bikes in wilderness. But perhaps other wilderness in VT and NH which I have not visited should be honestly considered for multiuse.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Singletrackd said:


> After reading your responses I totally understand why mountain bikers are the least respected trail users.
> 
> What does multi use mean to you guys? Is it just a challenge to be the loudest most obnoxious person on the trail so that people hate you so much that they will avoid you......don't think that's the best way to build bridges and earn respect
> 
> ...


Yikes, maybe paint with not a so large brush and talk what you know about, not guess. New England rider here. We work with who ever shows up at our volunteer trail days, on occasion horse folk, lots of times hikers too. We get our funding from our mt bike group to buy lumber, sometime a grant (THANKS REI). Money from our chapter comes from the dues the members pay. And then volunteer our free weekend time to better the trails around us for all to use. I have helped build 100's of feet of boardwalk. Ever carry a 4x6 x 16' of PT beam? Seems you need to look at a bigger picture. The wilderness is for all to enjoy, not a select few. That's what it is there for.


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

......


----------



## ImaginaryFriend (Mar 24, 2009)

iceboxsteve said:


> ...Frankly some of the Wilderness I've hiked in the Whites (NH) is not truly rideable and furthermore so overrun with hikers that I honestly believe it is one of those situations where bikes should stay banned. ...


I'm a hiker too and have also been on plenty of unrideable trails. Just designate those trails off limits but keep the area accessible. A few unrideable trails shouldn't close off an entire system of trails.


----------



## iceboxsteve (Feb 22, 2012)

ImaginaryFriend said:


> I'm a hiker too and have also been on plenty of unrideable trails. Just designate those trails off limits but keep the area accessible. A few unrideable trails shouldn't close off an entire system of trails.


That is pretty much what I meant. In my personal opinion, very few of the trails in some of those wilderness areas in the NH Whites are worth riding, so they should remain closed. But in this specific situation it would likely just mean the entire wilderness stays closed to riding. Not saying this is the way it should be for ALL wilderness or ALL wilderness in New England, just places like the Pemi (it has a few that may be worth riding) and Great Gulf.


----------



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

leeboh said:


> The wilderness is for all to enjoy, not a select few. That's what it is there for.


^Exactly, and it is available for all to enjoy, however there has to be a line in the sand somewhere as far as what mode of transport is or is not allowed in various situations. Most (but not all) would agree that atv's are not appropriate in certain areas, but that doesn't mean that their _owners_ are excluded from those places. Sometimes you have to adapt.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Singletrackd said:


> After reading your responses I totally understand why mountain bikers are the least respected trail users.
> 
> What does multi use mean to you guys? Is it just a challenge to be the loudest most obnoxious person on the trail so that people hate you so much that they will avoid you......don't think that's the best way to build bridges and earn respect
> 
> ...


Haul lumber in the back country for trail building?

On the east coast, the lumber is right there. You know, trees. I can pack a chainsaw into a backpack and ride into the woods.

And, generally speaking, there are very few trails around here with bridges; I can think of one (1) bridge at my local trail system, across 25-30 rocky, rooty miles. Could we use more, particularly in the colder months, to get across the bigger creeks? Sure. But I'm probably not riding those trails then.

I've lived in my current area for most of two years now. I have never seen an equestrian carrying anything remotely related to trail building or maintenance. Here, or anywhere else, for that matter (I've lived in OR, NY, GA, IL, CO, and now VA).


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

J.B. Weld said:


> What does any of this horsie business have to do with the wilderness issue?


All of the threads pertaining to the wilderness issue quickly go straight to horse vs. mtb. I don't know why.

We all know that horses cause more trail damage than bikers. That's pretty much a given and there's not much more to be said about that.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

iceboxsteve said:


> Frankly some of the Wilderness I've hiked in the Whites (NH) is not truly rideable and furthermore so overrun with hikers that I honestly believe it is one of those situations where bikes should stay banned. I don't say that lightly, I am all for STC and bikes in wilderness. But perhaps other wilderness in VT and NH which I have not visited should be honestly considered for multiuse.


None of this is inconsistent with STC's proposed legislation. I have the same situation here in WA where most of the wilderness trails aren't suitable for bike use due to steepness, etc.

Within the context of STC's proposed legislation, the land manager would simply ban bikes from those trails that are unsuitable for that use. That manager would have discretion to allow bikes on those trails that can support that use.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

leeboh said:


> Nemba for one. We bought land in danger of being developed. Called Vietnam trails. Milford, MA. 47 acres, raised apx. $ 210,000.00 to purchase. It is in middle of a larger conservation area belonging to several towns.


That is really awesome that NEMBA did that. I remember reading about it in Bike many years ago.

However, for most of the country it's largely been hiking/horse groups that have worked hard to establish protected areas (not just wilderness).

It appears that the mountain biking community has been largely absent in efforts to protect land (again, not necessarily wilderness). Unless I'm missing something that I'm not aware of.

I would hope that if the blanket wilderness ban was lifted, that the mountain biking community would then rally to the cause of land protection.


----------



## ImaginaryFriend (Mar 24, 2009)

Curveball said:


> All of the threads pertaining to the wilderness issue quickly go straight to horse vs. mtb. I don't know why.
> 
> We all know that horses cause more trail damage than bikers. That's pretty much a given and there's not much more to be said about that.


Equestrians are allowed access with all their negatives yet bikers are not. It's the basic reaction of "it's not fair".

While we should try to keep the discussion in regards to biking only, it's hard to argue one's point without making comparisons.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

At least the horse people that influence things so greatly are aging out and being replaced by people that have a more balanced view of what and who should be allowed access to public lands. It's only a matter of time.


----------



## avidthrasher (Jan 27, 2016)

ImaginaryFriend said:


> Equestrians are allowed access with all their negatives yet bikers are not. It's the basic reaction of "it's not fair".
> 
> While we should try to keep the discussion in regards to biking only, it's hard to argue one's point without making comparisons.


The point is "it's not fair" bickering between equestrians and mtbers isn't the point. And unless you can't see the greater point, which is greater trail access for all users and preventing loss of usable trails to the 'wilderness' tagging, then such bickering is cutting off your nose to spite your face. Simple and short. Be mature. There's no reason equestrians and mtbers can't and shouldn't be able to use the same trail systems if they're suitable trails. The whole anti-equestrian sentiment in the MTB world is grossly blown out of proportion by douche bags that feel like any time they have a negative experience in anything it's a ****ing world shattering experience that the rest of the world needs to jump on their bandwagon about. So a few horse riders have been shitty to you. I promise you that there are just as many equestrians who have had MTBers be shitty to them. It's all a stupid cycle that people are turning this discussion into while the true issue continues mowing along and taking access from people all over the country.

Let's for once decide not to be devisive cry babies who think our feelings are the most important and realize that there are larger causes out there than our own personal feelings. This bickering over nothing ******** is ****ing ridiculous and the land is disappearing as people shout about **** that doesn't matter.


----------



## iceboxsteve (Feb 22, 2012)

Curveball said:


> None of this is inconsistent with STC's proposed legislation. I have the same situation here in WA where most of the wilderness trails aren't suitable for bike use due to steepness, etc.
> 
> Within the context of STC's proposed legislation, the land manager would simply ban bikes from those trails that are unsuitable for that use. That manager would have discretion to allow bikes on those trails that can support that use.


Agreed. I was only talking about east coast wilderness, this comment was in regards to someones question about whether wilderness affected us onthe wast coast. My personal experience as a native New Englander is simply _"not as much as it seems to affect those out west"._

I am 100% behind STC and their mission and believe I understand it fairly well.


----------



## ImaginaryFriend (Mar 24, 2009)

avidthrasher said:


> The point is "it's not fair" bickering between equestrians and mtbers isn't the point. And unless you can't see the greater point, which is greater trail access for all users and preventing loss of usable trails to the 'wilderness' tagging, then such bickering is cutting off your nose to spite your face. Simple and short. Be mature. There's no reason equestrians and mtbers can't and shouldn't be able to use the same trail systems if they're suitable trails. The whole anti-equestrian sentiment in the MTB world is grossly blown out of proportion by douche bags that feel like any time they have a negative experience in anything it's a ****ing world shattering experience that the rest of the world needs to jump on their bandwagon about. So a few horse riders have been shitty to you. I promise you that there are just as many equestrians who have had MTBers be shitty to them. It's all a stupid cycle that people are turning this discussion into while the true issue continues mowing along and taking access from people all over the country.
> 
> Let's for once decide not to be devisive cry babies who think our feelings are the most important and realize that there are larger causes out there than our own personal feelings. This bickering over nothing ******** is ****ing ridiculous and the land is disappearing as people shout about **** that doesn't matter.


I for one have never said we shouldn't share trails or have been negative to equestrians. I just want their crap off the trail.  I hope your response was to bikers in general.

And it's not bickering to point out unfair practices.


----------



## avidthrasher (Jan 27, 2016)

ImaginaryFriend said:


> I for one have never said we shouldn't share trails or have been negative to equestrians. I just want their crap off the trail.  I hope your response was to bikers in general.
> 
> And it's not bickering to point out unfair practices.


It was to bikers in general because there is a negative attitude towards equestrians among certain groups. Not that the same doesn't exist from the other side. It would just be nice for once to not have the wilderness issue devolve into a horses vs. bikes issue as seems to be par for the course on the interwebz.


----------



## Terranaut (Jun 9, 2014)

Equestrians
If your horse isn't good around people on bikes, don't go to places where bikes are common. If your horse craps on the trail, stop and remove it for the sake of other trail users. If the trail is soft , come back another day so you don't destroy it for others. If you meet hikers or bikers on the trail, share the path and be polite to others who share your passion for the outdoors.
Hikers
If you hate bikes or horses, don't go to places where bikes or horses are common. If you drop crap on the trail, stop and remove it for the sake of other trail users. If the trail is soft , come back another day so you don't destroy it for others. If you meet equestrians or bikers on the trail, share the path and be polite to others who share your passion for the outdoors.
Bikers
If you hate hikers or horses, don't go to places where hikers or horses are common. If you drop gel wrappers on the trail, stop and remove it for the sake of other trail users. If the trail is soft , come back another day so you don't destroy it for others. If you meet equestrians or hikers on the trail, share the path and be polite to others who share your passion for the outdoors.


Why is this so hard for all 3 groups?


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

Terranaut said:


> Equestrians
> If your horse isn't good around people on bikes, don't go to places where bikes are common. If your horse craps on the trail, stop and remove it for the sake of other trail users. If the trail is soft , come back another day so you don't destroy it for others. If you meet hikers or bikers on the trail, share the path and be polite to others who share your passion for the outdoors.
> Hikers
> If you hate bikes or horses, don't go to places where bikes or horses are common. If you drop crap on the trail, stop and remove it for the sake of other trail users. If the trail is soft , come back another day so you don't destroy it for others. If you meet equestrians or bikers on the trail, share the path and be polite to others who share your passion for the outdoors.
> ...


What if the biker releases his or her bowels onto the path? is there a duty to remove it?


----------



## avidthrasher (Jan 27, 2016)

Crankout said:


> What if the biker releases his or her bowels onto the path? is there a duty to remove it?


In my limited experience with this scenario I have found I am far more worried about cleaning the poo off myself and the bike. Sorry to be selfish guys!


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

In my area, the equestrians seem to PREFER using the trails when the FS sign says "Please use another trail today".

I have to drive past the parking lot for the trail system in question in order to get to school every day. If it rained last night, there's a very high likelihood that there are 3 or more big horse trailers parked in the parking lot.

I'm actually going to start recording this with photographs and phone screenshots of current and recent precipitation every day, as I usually have to stop for a while at that intersection. I don't think the Forest Service will actually care about the fact that the horses are absolutely destroying the trails, though.


----------



## avidthrasher (Jan 27, 2016)

Le Duke said:


> In my area, the equestrians seem to PREFER using the trails when the FS sign says "Please use another trail today".
> 
> I have to drive past the parking lot for the trail system in question in order to get to school every day. If it rained last night, there's a very high likelihood that there are 3 or more big horse trailers parked in the parking lot.
> 
> I'm actually going to start recording this with photographs and phone screenshots of current and recent precipitation every day, as I usually have to stop for a while at that intersection. I don't think the Forest Service will actually care about the fact that the horses are absolutely destroying the trails, though.


Ya, I have also noticed this trend. I think they see it as an opportunity to get the trails to themselves. It's a rather shitty and selfish thing to do, but some people are like that. I've even bothered to stop and mention it to folks who I saw in the lot with their trailers a few times. As someone who spends a lot of time volunteering to work on trails for the benefit of everyone it really irked me in these few times I've bothered to say something. The general reply is what you would expect in these cases with the exception being a younger gal that thanked me for letting her know the trail was closed due to the conditions and she took off. Everyone once in a while you're reminded that not everyone in the world is a douche, lol.


----------



## Terranaut (Jun 9, 2014)

Crankout said:


> What if the biker releases his or her bowels onto the path? is there a duty to remove it?


There always has to be that 1 guy!

But

Yes!!100% without a doubt!


----------



## avidthrasher (Jan 27, 2016)

Terranaut said:


> There always has to be that 1 guy!
> 
> But
> 
> Yes!!100% without a doubt!


Yes everyone do their duty and clean up the doody! Sorry, I just couldn't...


----------



## Terranaut (Jun 9, 2014)

Funny!!!
The only problem I have with trail rules is the part about dismounting when near a horse. If I take my dog to a trail and the dog freaks out near bikes should I expect the rider to dismount as I pass? Obviously not. I should know my dog and if my dog is spooked around bikes it is up to me to either walk it elsewhere or control it as a bike goes by. Why in hell would we expect a biker to "be careful" around horses? Sure we should share trail and be courteous but to stop and dismount should not be my responsibility. I will not feel responsible if you get bucked upon sight of me on a bike. Not my fault your horse is dangerous same as it's not yours if my dog ran off. I trail rode my horses for years and never once had an issue with a Jeep, quad, mtb or hiker. Not up to the biker to be mindful of the horse, it's up to the rider to know their horse and to know where to ride it safely.

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Singletrackd said:


> Or no one is at any risk at all if you just dismount your bike when you encounter a equestrian user....you realize you have 2 options 1 where you make it safe and actually coexist with other trail users on a multi use trail system(oh my)and the 2nd were you are intentionally making the situation dangerous for both you and the horse rider..so we can either get along or you try and fight to get horses kicked off the trails that you are trying to gain access too
> 
> Honest question are any of you east coast riders affected by any of the recent wilderness closers? I always had the understanding that there hasn't been any newly desegnated wilderness areas on the east coast for since the 80s


Intentionally making the situation dangerous?

A person knowingly taking a skittish horse out onto public land? I'd argue that they're the individual making the situation dangerous.

Just like taking an untrained dog out onto public land. If your horse or dog freaks out after I yield, that's on you, not me.


----------



## Alias530 (Apr 1, 2013)

Terranaut said:


> Funny!!!
> The only problem I have with trail rules is the part about dismounting when near a horse. If I take my dog to a trail and the dog freaks out near bikes should I expect the rider to dismount as I pass? Obviously not. I should know my dog and if my dog is spooked around bikes it is up to me to either walk it elsewhere or control it as a bike goes by. Why in hell would we expect a biker to "be careful" around horses? Sure we should share trail and be courteous but to stop and dismount should not be my responsibility. I will not feel responsible if you get bucked upon sight of me on a bike. Not my fault your horse is dangerous same as it's not yours if my dog ran off. I trail rode my horses for years and never once had an issue with a Jeep, quad, mtb or hiker.* Not up to the biker to be mindful of the horse, it's up to the rider to know their horse and to know where to ride it safely.*
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk


Bolded part--EXACTLY. I have no idea if a horse knows how to behave or not. The owner shouldn't bring it out if it can't behave! Train it in a controlled environment and THEN bring it around things that could spook it.


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

J.B. Weld said:


> I don't know how it is in more humid climates but here in the arid western states horse crap dries up and pretty much turns into dirt within a few hours. I guess I'm odd but it's never irritated me in the slightest, just another trail feature.


No it doesn't. I ride in Northern California and it stays wet and stinky for at least 5 days. That whole theory your horse people throw out is such a damn lie.

Yes you are odd, there are websites for people like you though, so you can feel less odd. Check them out, not form work though


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

Singletrackd said:


> Or no one is at any risk at all if you just dismount your bike when you encounter a equestrian user....you realize you have 2 options 1 where you make it safe and actually coexist with other trail users on a multi use trail system(oh my)and the 2nd were you are intentionally making the situation dangerous for both you and the horse rider..so we can either get along or you try and fight to get horses kicked off the trails that you are trying to gain access too
> 
> Honest question are any of you east coast riders affected by any of the recent wilderness closers? I always had the understanding that there hasn't been any newly desegnated wilderness areas on the east coast for since the 80s


If your horse is scared of bikes, get off your skittish sh!t machine when you see one. It is your problem not mine. Get off your horse or don't bring it around people, or bikes, or paper bags, or wind or any other thing that spooks it.

I will yield to you, that means stopping or slowing until you go by, that is it.


----------



## pdxmark (Aug 7, 2013)

Silentfoe said:


> The butthurt is strong with this one. I appreciate you letting me know that I've always been going to fake wilderness areas, as opposed to the "real" wilderness areas. Just so you're in the know, myself and most bikers will NEVER support wilderness, not as long as it bans bikes. That's probably a good reason you don't see us out fighting for it.


Damn, pretentious!

BTW; Wyoming has a really awesome AND BIG MTB park, along with regulations that do not allow a trail to be for any single user group if it's "public land". Wyoming dictates that public space is shared. With your attitude, it's no wonder that MTB riders don't want to work on trails you are anywhere near, that and, If they have to share all trails in Wyoming public space, then MTB riders can't make a trail worth putting tire on because your horses will destroy it!


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

pdxmark said:


> Damn, pretentious!
> 
> BTW; Wyoming has a really awesome AND BIG MTB park, along with regulations that do not allow a trail to be for any single user group if it's "public land". Wyoming dictates that public space is shared. With your attitude, it's no wonder that MTB riders don't want to work on trails you are anywhere near, that and, If they have to share all trails in Wyoming public space, then MTB riders can't make a trail worth putting tire on because your horses will destroy it!


Uh, either you quoted the wrong person or your reading comprehension needs work.


----------



## avidthrasher (Jan 27, 2016)

pdxmark said:


> Damn, pretentious!
> 
> BTW; Wyoming has a really awesome AND BIG MTB park, along with regulations that do not allow a trail to be for any single user group if it's "public land". Wyoming dictates that public space is shared. With your attitude, it's no wonder that MTB riders don't want to work on trails you are anywhere near, that and, If they have to share all trails in Wyoming public space, then MTB riders can't make a trail worth putting tire on because your horses will destroy it!


This is great. Wyoming is a pretty awesome state when it comes to most things outdoors related, but it is irrelevant unfortunately. When it comes to the "Wilderness" issue Federal regulation and statutes will trump any state's rights as they apply to what becomes "Wilderness" lands.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

What about people training their kids? Or the people (adults) they're out walking/hiking/running with?

Know how many times I've slowed down to pass, let someone know I'm about to pass with my bell and verbally, with a nice, "On your left, ma'am/sir/guys.", only to have half the party jump across the trail at the last second? Hundreds of times. 

It will probably, no, almost certainly happen to me in the next two hours. All because some humans can't control their humans.


----------



## ACree (Sep 8, 2004)

J.B. Weld said:


> I don't know how it is in more humid climates but here in the arid western states horse crap dries up and pretty much turns into dirt within a few hours. I guess I'm odd but it's never irritated me in the slightest, just another trail feature.


That's true on trails. I've pulled into numerous trailheads and at least campsite where equestrians regularly emptied the sh!t out of their trailers by sweeping it out on the ground. That is not cool, and no other user group would get away with it.


----------



## ACree (Sep 8, 2004)

Singletrackd said:


> I love how willing the "probikes in wilderness area" people are to speak up for the anti wilderness bike crowd. I can think of plenty of reasons that bikes will create negative impacts on wilderness areas. Just the increased amount of traffic alone is a reason to keep bikes out of wilderness areas....that plus the fact that any popular mountain bike trail i have ever been on is riddled with side features that were never originally part of the trails design.
> 
> Then someone who has zero wilderness trail buliding experience will pop up and talk about how bikes can revolutionize wilderness trail maintenance. Nope that's what we have horses and pack mules for.
> 
> It just frustrates me that the pro bikes in Wilderness crowd is drowning out everyone else just by talking the loudest. I feel like every article I have read has a section about how all mountain bikers support this cause....when I, a mountain biker living in colorado(a state with plenty of designated wilderness areas) would love to keep mountain bikers out of our precious wilderness areas


As long as you're also willing to keep your Wilderness areas off of currently open to bike trails.

I wouldn't worry about the probike crowd, there is always at least one Wilderness nazi that starts out by saying they're a mtn biker too, but they love them more W designation.. and anyway, they think we have plenty of areas to ride out bikes.


----------



## ACree (Sep 8, 2004)

ImaginaryFriend said:


> I'm a hiker too and have also been on plenty of unrideable trails. Just designate those trails off limits but keep the area accessible. A few unrideable trails shouldn't close off an entire system of trails.


Exactly. You're both describing what STC wants, the ability for local USFS to open or close trails on a trail by trail basis. Getting rid of a blanket closure does not automatically result in blanket openings.


----------



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

Good Lord, _still_ more horse crap? Y'all sound like a bunch of gd whiney b*tches- me, me, me, me! "Those horsies ruin *my* trail", "They kill my buzz!". "I got horse poo on my new carbon" etc., etc........

Do you ever stop to ponder the meaning of shared multi-use trails? That maybe you might be intruding on someone _else's_ fun? That maybe you shredding the gnar is just as intrusive to them as hoof prints are to you? If sharing a trail is that much of a pita then perhaps one should consider traveling to an area that has exclusive trails so as not to risk encounters with any outsiders.



Terranaut said:


> Why in hell would we expect a biker to "be careful" around horses?


Because maybe if you're not you could get someone killed? Because common courtesy? Not the same as a dog running off.



sfgiantsfan said:


> No it doesn't. I ride in Northern California and it stays wet and stinky for at least 5 days. That whole theory your horse people throw out is such a damn lie.


I'm talking about the arid desert SW, I saw a horse poop 300 yards in front of me yesterday and it was blowing away before I got to it. Now get back to enjoying that dank nor-cal hippie lettuce!


----------



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

And your inability to stay on point will be your demise. Wilderness?


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

The best kind of trail sign:


----------



## pdxmark (Aug 7, 2013)

Silentfoe said:


> Uh, either you quoted the wrong person or your reading comprehension needs work.


Ouch. Yeah, I did quote the wrong person. Damn embarrassing!


----------



## Terranaut (Jun 9, 2014)

J.B. Weld said:


> Because maybe if you're not you could get someone killed? Because common courtesy? Not the same as a dog running off.


It is not up to the public to protect people from their own animals. It's up to the animal owner, no matter what animal that is. If your animal is not safe around other people, leave it at home. It s exactly the same as a non social dog. Do not bring it to the shared trail. This is common sense ( no insult to you personally )

I am not saying to get horse people hikers or bikers off the trail. On a multi use trail you have as much right to be there as I do BUT don't damage the trail, poo on it,litter or bring potentially dangerous animals to mingle with the other users. If you feel poo/litter on the trail is ok or that you have some right to put all around you in danger then please go to a single use trail that is strictly for your interest. All 3 interests have such trails.

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

J.B. Weld said:


> Good Lord, _still_ more horse crap? Y'all sound like a bunch of gd whiney b*tches- me, me, me, me! "Those horsies ruin *my* trail", "They kill my buzz!". "I got horse poo on my new carbon" etc., etc........
> 
> Do you ever stop to ponder the meaning of shared multi-use trails? That maybe you might be intruding on someone _else's_ fun? That maybe you shredding the gnar is just as intrusive to them as hoof prints are to you? If sharing a trail is that much of a pita then perhaps one should consider traveling to an area that has exclusive trails so as not to risk encounters with any outsiders.
> 
> ...


Do you realize you are talking about horse **** on trails? Do you ponder the meaning of shared multi use trails? It is ****, on trails, that are used by others. I don't care if you love ****, eat it, smoke it, stick your ugly face in it. I don't like it. keep it off the trails.


----------



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

^There's dirt on the trails too, also sharp pointy things. Probably best to just avoid unsanitary environments like the woods altogether.

And please leave my looks out of this discussion, I'm very sensitive about my appearance and words can hurt. Now I gotta start my daily affirmation all over.


----------



## avidthrasher (Jan 27, 2016)

sfgiantsfan said:


> Do you realize you are talking about horse **** on trails? Do you ponder the meaning of shared multi use trails? It is ****, on trails, that are used by others. I don't care if you love ****, eat it, smoke it, stick your ugly face in it. I don't like it. keep it off the trails.


So because of your fecalphobia the Wilderness should be a debate about horse ****? That makes perfect sense!!! This issue is all about you after all!


----------



## misterbill (Aug 13, 2014)

Terranaut said:


> Funny!!!
> The only problem I have with trail rules is the part about dismounting when near a horse.


Because there is a strong likelihood that the horse will not understand what it is they are seeing. The rider could end up dead. I am not exaggerating.


----------



## Terranaut (Jun 9, 2014)

misterbill said:


> Because there is a strong likelihood that the horse will not understand what it is they are seeing. The rider could end up dead. I am not exaggerating.


If you are riding on a public trail on an animal that is not safe in this environment the responsibility is yours and yours alone. If this same horse bucked you and kicked me while I was waiting on my bike for you to pass I would sue. You alone are responsible for the actions of your animal. If you take the risk of riding a skittish animal you alone are to blame if it reacts negatively to seeing me on my bike. You are also responsible to keep the public safe which is why most equestrians have liability insurance. Horses are considered live stock. I suggest you look up laws pertaining to live stock. Like I said before I had horses growing up. I would never have considered riding any of them off our property if I wasn't sure they would behave nice around strangers. I have winter ridden and met up with snow mobiles and yet am still alive, why? Because I rode calm horses that were safe to ride in public. I would never have thought to impose on others using the trails. I chose to be there and I was responsible for my own safety as well as theirs.


----------



## Jasondenney (Feb 11, 2013)

If they ban the mountain bikers who will maintain all those trails for everybody?....


----------



## avidthrasher (Jan 27, 2016)

Terranaut said:


> If you are riding on a public trail on an animal that is not safe in this environment the responsibility is yours and yours alone. If this same horse bucked you and kicked me while I was waiting on my bike for you to pass I would sue. You alone are responsible for the actions of your animal. If you take the risk of riding a skittish animal you alone are to blame if it reacts negatively to seeing me on my bike. You are also responsible to keep the public safe which is why most equestrians have liability insurance. Horses are considered live stock. I suggest you look up laws pertaining to live stock. Like I said before I had horses growing up. I would never have considered riding any of them off our property if I wasn't sure they would behave nice around strangers. I have winter ridden and met up with snow mobiles and yet am still alive, why? Because I rode calm horses that were safe to ride in public. I would never have thought to impose on others using the trails. I chose to be there and I was responsible for my own safety as well as theirs.


People needing to be responsible for their animals is not a good excuse to be discourteous to anyone. Why is it a bigger deal for you to slow for a person on a horse than it is for someone hiking? Or do you blow past pedestrians at break neck speed? Are you so hardcore that whenever you're on your bike you're always pushing PR's and can't afford the 2.5 seconds that slowing down 3-5mph for 20 feet will cost you? Or even in the case of horses hopping off your ride and walking it for a few seconds?

The reality of the matter is that the world is full of unknown to us individually (like is this guy on the horse an anti-biking nut that's gonna pull out a pistol because I clipped his hooves at little too high of a speed). Never underestimate crazy is a good rule of thumb to live by. I've been shot with rock salt by crazy hicks multiple times while on my bicycle because they think that public land is their private property.


----------



## Terranaut (Jun 9, 2014)

avidthrasher said:


> People needing to be responsible for their animals is not a good excuse to be discourteous to anyone. Why is it a bigger deal for you to slow for a person on a horse than it is for someone hiking? Or do you blow past pedestrians at break neck speed? Are you so hardcore that whenever you're on your bike you're always pushing PR's and can't afford the 2.5 seconds that slowing down 3-5mph for 20 feet will cost you? Or even in the case of horses hopping off your ride and walking it for a few seconds?
> 
> The reality of the matter is that the world is full of unknown to us individually (like is this guy on the horse an anti-biking nut that's gonna pull out a pistol because I clipped his hooves at little too high of a speed). Never underestimate crazy is a good rule of thumb to live by. I've been shot with rock salt by crazy hicks multiple times while on my bicycle because they think that public land is their private property.


Really? Not only are you assuming I am a trail hog but you also missed the part where I said "dismount" No I do not blast by anyone (you may wish to brush up on reading ). I have repeatedly suggested in this thread that people share the trail. So please stop assuming my behavior. Not feeling the need to dismount because someone's animal is out of control has nothing to do with being "hardcore" Please...I am 45 not 15.
Your rock salt incidents have nothing to do with the above quote of mine. I sure hope you charged them for shooting you on public land.


----------



## avidthrasher (Jan 27, 2016)

You're right, and I apologize as not all of that was really directed at you. I understand this is a contentious subject and tire of all the horse vs. bike thing when in reality that's not what this discussion should be about. 

This discussion SHOULD be about how we can contact our representative legislature to make it known where there are existing trails in use, be it by horse, hiker, cyclist, whatever, in order to help prevent those being tagged as "Wilderness" lands and prevent the government from stealing free public access to public lands. THIS is what should be discussed. Not how to ride past a horse or how 13 people dislike horse poop on their trails. 

Regardless, my comments should not have been aimed solely or particularly at you.

I also grew up with horses and would never take a testy or jumpy animal out on public trails either, but unfortunately the world is full of dummies and/or other people who aren't conscientious of other trail users, and like most things we just kinda have to deal with it. Anywho, I do apologize for being a bit abrasive and overbearing, hehe.


----------



## Terranaut (Jun 9, 2014)

No worries. It is a touchy subject and tensions will be raised. I appreciate the apology. Not many would have bothered.


----------



## Mrwhlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Horses are a liability. I can decide if I'm going to run someone with my bike just for sport.


----------



## avidthrasher (Jan 27, 2016)

Mrwhlr said:


> Horses are a liability. I can decide if I'm going to run someone with my bike just for sport.


Lol, I suppose this is true. No fun trying to buzz someone's heals if you're risking a trampling/kick, right?


----------



## LaloKera (Jul 31, 2015)

I hiked Mt. Tam a couple months ago. 
What i noticed that there was trail to every bush, rock ,tree in sight. 
bikers wouldn't do that. Point to point no pulling over every second.
Why are they banned? Looks like they might cause less damage in some cases.


----------



## AKamp (Jan 26, 2004)

Can you be in a wheelchair or hand bike in wilderness? If not that is discriminatory


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

The ADA has broad and sweeping guideline for access. For all kinds of mobility devices. My friend uses a Boma electric wheel chair. It has 4 wheel independent, coil suspension, 20" wheels front and 24" wheels back. This thing is awesome, just needs to be on somewhat wider, smoother trails. No issues going anywhere.


----------



## 29ger (Jan 1, 2011)

Part 2:
Banned in the USA: Part 2 - Pinkbike


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

This op-ed in HCN is probably relevant:

https://www.hcn.org/articles/its-inevitable-there-will-be-bikes-in-wilderness


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

That is a very well written piece. The comments are priceless, and beyond frustrating.


----------



## tims5377 (Oct 20, 2010)

I love this website but I am very disappointed in a large number of you.

First off, let's play a game. Raise your hand if you contribute to IMBA, raise your hand if you contribute to STC, raise your hand if you advocate on behalf of our community, raise your hand if you volunteer for trail work. If your hand isn't in the air, then you need to take a step back from this debate and ask yourself why you are concerned about trail access when you aren't even concerned about supporting your own community.

Good. Onward.

This is not a question of trail etiquette. Yes, in a perfect world bikers, hikers, and equestrians would all love each other and have favorable interactions. However, this is not a perfect world. The thing is that all of these user groups are people. People can be d***s. People get mad at each other just walking down the street. This is an overarching rule of our species. Trail access will not change it. Let's remove the etiquette aspect from this discussion.

I have done considerable reading on the whole wilderness debate and quite frankly I didn't know who to support. Why? Because they both have good strategies for achieving an end goal of having mountain bike trails available for all of us. Yes, there are two groups fighting to have trails available to US. Would they be more successful if they combined their efforts? Maybe. Will they ultimately win? Who knows. Do WE ultimately win by having these groups fighting for us? Yes. We all should support our biking community in one way or another. If you can afford to donate, donate. If you can't, volunteer. If you see a user on the trail, advocate for us. Regardless of if you support IMBA or STC or neither we all need to support our biking community and stop arguing.

I was tossing this around in my head when I came to a realization. The largest impact that I can have on my community it to support my local IMBA chapter. I renewed my membership today and will be hitting trail work parties as often as I can. 

We are all in this together. We will not win by being at odds with other users. We will win by our combined support.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

I do lots of local trail work, as we all should. I f you have time to ride, you have time to dig. Doesn't take that much to pitch in, 3-4 hrs 4-6 times per year. At a minimum.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Silentfoe said:


> That is a very well written piece. The comments are priceless, and beyond frustrating.


One of the comments made specific reference to a couple of biking films that depict bikers hurtling down hillsides with roosts of dirt.

Unfortunately, such films play right into the oft-repeated narrative of a biker skidding down a mountain at full speed while potentially running over hikers and destroying the trail.

Although we bikers recognize the differences between the free-riding shown in countless films and the reality of backcountry biking, it will be a tough task to counter those images.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

tims5377 said:


> I love this website but I am very disappointed in a large number of you.
> 
> First off, let's play a game. Raise your hand if you contribute to IMBA, raise your hand if you contribute to STC, raise your hand if you advocate on behalf of our community, raise your hand if you volunteer for trail work. If your hand isn't in the air, then you need to take a step back from this debate and ask yourself why you are concerned about trail access when you aren't even concerned about supporting your own community.


I've been an IMBA member for years. Donated to the STC this year and written letters to my Senator and Congresswoman on its behalf. I am on my city Parks and Recreation council. I've done over 200 hours of documented trail work last year. I design trail systems for local municipalities. I'm a Utah High School mtb coach and also a guide. I even teach a Mountain bike touring and camping course for the University of Utah. Do I meet the minimum cut off in your dick measuring contest? Everyone, even if they don't bike, has a right to an opinion and even a vote on this matter. Thanks for trying to suppress ideas.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

Curveball said:


> One of the comments made specific reference to a couple of biking films that depict bikers hurtling down hillsides with roosts of dirt.
> 
> Unfortunately, such films play right into the oft-repeated narrative of a biker skidding down a mountain at full speed while potentially running over hikers and destroying the trail.
> 
> Although we bikers recognize the differences between the free-riding shown in countless films and the reality of backcountry biking, it will be a tough task to counter those images.


I saw that too. It bears pointing out that films like unReal represent the way most people ride about as well as a TGR, Sherpas, or Sweetgrass film represents cross country skiing. Not that it'll make a difference to people opposed to bikes.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

tims5377 said:


> I love this website but I am very disappointed in a large number of you.
> 
> First off, let's play a game. Raise your hand if you contribute to IMBA, raise your hand if you contribute to STC, raise your hand if you advocate on behalf of our community, raise your hand if you volunteer for trail work. If your hand isn't in the air, then you need to take a step back from this debate and ask yourself why you are concerned about trail access when you aren't even concerned about supporting your own community.
> 
> ...


The IMBA sold many of us out, no way I'm supporting them. You do your thing, I'll do mine.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

evasive said:


> I saw that too. It bears pointing out that films like unReal represent the way most people ride about as well as a TGR, Sherpas, or Sweetgrass film represents cross country skiing. Not that it'll make a difference to people opposed to bikes.


It could be a real nightmare if unReal were shown during a congressional hearing on STC's proposed legislation. I doubt that very many outside of the sport could make any sort of a distinction between the images of the film and actual backcountry riding.


----------



## BeanMan (Jul 6, 2006)

In Wilderness in Colorado cattle do much more damage than horses do to trails. part of the Wilderness Act I'm afraid.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

Curveball said:


> It could be a real nightmare if unReal were shown during a congressional hearing on STC's proposed legislation. I doubt that very many outside of the sport could make any sort of a distinction between the images of the film and actual backcountry riding.


Maybe-to-probably, but I think the handwringing over it (e.g. the recent Singletracks "identity crisis" column) makes that link ourselves and does the opposition's work for them. It makes it sound like we have a dirty secret we're trying to hide. Instead of bemoaning the image, we should be dismissing it as irrelevant to the discussion. Because it is.

That said, I would love to see more meditative backcountry exploration productions. I can think of several, but they're mostly focused on back roads, not backcountry trails.


----------



## tims5377 (Oct 20, 2010)

Silentfoe said:


> I've been an IMBA member for years. Donated to the STC this year and written letters to my Senator and Congresswoman on its behalf. I am on my city Parks and Recreation council. I've done over 200 hours of documented trail work last year. I design trail systems for local municipalities. I'm a Utah High School mtb coach and also a guide. I even teach a Mountain bike touring and camping course for the University of Utah. Do I meet the minimum cut off in your dick measuring contest? Everyone, even if they don't bike, has a right to an opinion and even a vote on this matter. Thanks for trying to suppress ideas.


Lol way to take something extremely personally that was not an attack on anyone. Another example of a good way to derail this whole conversation! Good for you for supporting our community! Seriously, good job.

Did I say anything along the lines of "if you don't support XXX you can't have an opinion"? No. What I did say is that all of us need to be helping OUR community in one way or another. The only wrong thing to do is to do nothing.


----------



## bakerjw (Oct 8, 2014)

ImaginaryFriend said:


> I'm a hiker too and have also been on plenty of unrideable trails. Just designate those trails off limits but keep the area accessible. A few unrideable trails shouldn't close off an entire system of trails.


We only have a few wilderness areas here in the Cherokee and Pisgah national forests. The trails that run through them are unrideable. There are also trails that are not in wilderness areas that are unridable and are clearly marked as hiking use only.

I think that there is a happy medium somewhere. What has really gotten this issue rolling is taking clearly rideable trails and designating them as wilderness areas. What are mountainbikers or cross country bike packers supposed to do? Roll over and be content as smug "Sierra Club" types get their way?


----------



## Terranaut (Jun 9, 2014)

tims5377 said:


> Lol way to take something extremely personally that was not an attack on anyone. Another example of a good way to derail this whole conversation! Good for you for supporting our community! Seriously, good job.
> 
> Did I say anything along the lines of "if you don't support XXX you can't have an opinion"? No. What I did say is that all of us need to be helping OUR community in one way or another. The only wrong thing to do is to do nothing.


Well you did say to "take a step back from this debate" which to me means if I didn't have a hand up I should not voice my opinion. Of course some would take that personally. What did you think the reaction would be?


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

Terranaut said:


> Well you did say to "take a step back from this debate" which to me means if I didn't have a hand up I should not voice my opinion. Of course some would take that personally. What did you think the reaction would be?


Exactly


----------



## LocoToo (Jan 1, 2004)

evasive said:


> I saw that too. It bears pointing out that films like unReal represent the way most people ride about as well as a TGR, Sherpas, or Sweetgrass film represents cross country skiing. Not that it'll make a difference to people opposed to bikes.


Your last sentence is the key here. People opposed to bikes on trails whether it be in wilderness or not will use these images to rally others against bikes. The mountain bike media of late with all the roosts of dirt, skidding, and sliding is going to do more to hurt our cause than help.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

I think people, MTBers included, take a bunch of rocks way to seriously. Yes, the trillions upon trillions of rocks per trail, a few will shift around, and in 100 years the Earth won't care a bit. I've seen fights almost break out on trails because a novice swerved around the dangerous obstacle. That's stupid.

I bike in Texas where I've never seen a horse on a trail (or hardly anywhere else). It's not like when I loved in SoCal and people rode their horses to the local saloon (seriously).

I want people to get out and enjoy their stuff and generally don't agree with limiting their options. And in many cases that includes motorized options.

That said, I am so incredibly sick of riding over people's dog CHIT that is all over the trails here in Austin. Inconsiderate bastards. I stopped to adjust my suspension and take a drink from my water bottle on Saturday only to find dog crap flung all over my water bottle, my bike, my toolbox, and 1 glove.

Dog owners are similar to cigarette smokers, they are so use to their own dirty habit that they don't recognize that it's disgusting to normal people.


----------



## hak (Dec 12, 2011)

Curveball said:


> I really love Vernon Felton's writing and can't fault anything that he said in that article.
> 
> Here's something to consider though that I haven't really seen mentioned anywhere yet; who lobbies for land protections in the first place?
> 
> ...


good question. which is why i just donated to FIX AMERICA?S TRAIL SYSTEM - no affiliation with them.

i'm on the board of an off road car/truck club. we maintain some forest service/nat'l forest trails, we go yearly to the ranger chainsaw safetly classes, and i know that's nat'l forest and not wilderness like this article, but i'm just talking about keeping access open. every bike club should try to 'adopt a trail' and then see if this new group can undo the blanket ban and let local managers decide for their trail, then the local relationships and sweat equity can pay off.

unless one is involved, one loses the right to b1tch, i say


----------



## Mrwhlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Suns_PSD said:


> I think people, MTBers included, take a bunch of rocks way to seriously. Yes, the trillions upon trillions of rocks per trail, a few will shift around, and in 100 years the Earth won't care a bit. I've seen fights almost break out on trails because a novice swerved around the dangerous obstacle. That's stupid.
> 
> I bike in Texas where I've never seen a horse on a trail (or hardly anywhere else). It's not like when I loved in SoCal and people rode their horses to the local saloon (seriously).


The Earth cares just as much if a sanitizer catches a well deserved beating for destroying obstacles on illegal trail they had no part in building.


----------



## Ecurb_ATX840 (Feb 27, 2014)

Is there something different going on in Florida from a lot of these other places? Back 10 years ago in central Fl I used to ride my dirt bike and hiked everywhere without any issues. Heck people even drove trucks all over the place out there. Florida has a large population and I think relatively small natural areas, so I'm not sure how that worked out.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Mrwhlr said:


> The Earth cares just as much if a sanitizer catches a well deserved beating for destroying obstacles on illegal trail they had no part in building.


Well, no, they are actively participating in its construction. Perhaps in the hope of getting it sanctioned as a legal trail. Until it's legal, it's just a rock in the woods.

And, are you really going to administer a "well deserved beating" to me if I move a rock on your illegal trail?

This borders on the absurd.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Ecurb_ATX840 said:


> Is there something different going on in Florida from a lot of these other places? Back 10 years ago in central Fl I used to ride my dirt bike and hiked everywhere without any issues. Heck people even drove trucks all over the place out there. Florida has a large population and I think relatively small natural areas, so I'm not sure how that worked out.


The discussion here relates to Federally-designated wilderness areas. Designated wilderness is the highest level of land protection in the US.

I very much doubt that there is any designated wilderness areas in Florida, except perhaps within the Everglades NP. Most wilderness areas are in the western US.


----------



## pdxmark (Aug 7, 2013)

> Leave your mechanical transport, spandex and bike helmet at the trailhead. Enter the Wilderness area on foot or horseback and experience the forest at nature's pace.


Most people don't even know they are stupid! :madmax:



> I am not sure how one gets around the idea of what biking is, but "mechanical transport" is precisely what biking amounts to and precisely what the Wilderness Act was meant to address. Biking is people being moved around by machines


People will go as far as redefining the law for their own opinion, for their personal bias. Regardless if an entity called the US Congress contemplated and researched the idea for years before making a law that was to protect the Wilderness areas. --"Most people don't even know how their cellphone plans work!"

To end this rant; even if you had 40+ years of empirical evidence showing that the damages done to trails are equal between hikers and bikers, peoples biased and uneducated opinions will still rule and lead them away from compromise. As many people see compromise as a lose.

Then we have the issue of biased people with expendable cash, a whole other issue.


----------

