# Cross country cyclists busted for riding THROUGH the Grand Canyon



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

Cyclists Fined for Trek

Busted for riding the trails in the canyon instead of going around. This really makes me mad, it's a fricking slap in the face for all those folks who are working really hard on bike advocacy, and especially the issue of getting even basic mtb access to national parks. Frankly I am glad the judge threw the book at them. What makes them so special?


> FLAGSTAFF, ARIZ. -- Three California bicyclists on a trek from Alaska to South America have been banned from national parks for five years, fined and ordered to spend two days in jail for illegally riding across the Grand Canyon.
> 
> Sean Monterastelli, 23, David Yost, 24, and Jacob Thompson, 24, decided to ride through the canyon last month on a hiking trail, camping along the way, according to a U.S. Attorney's Office statement.
> 
> ...


----------



## mtbfool (Sep 1, 2005)

formica said:


> Busted for riding the trails in the canyon instead of going around. This really makes me mad, it's a fricking slap in the face for all those folks who are working really hard on bike advocacy, and especially the issue of getting even basic mtb access to national parks. Frankly I am glad the judge threw the book at them. What makes them so special?


Agreed. There are tons of trails in National Parks we could possibly access some day. This sort of stuff is a set back. One of those names sound familiar to me.


----------



## Gregg K (Jan 12, 2004)

I really want to post how I feel about this subject. But it would divert attention from the original topic of this thread. I will just say this much- millions of cars. Miles of asphalt. Where is the perspective. I think our values as a society are way off. 

A million bicyclists doing their best to cause damage could never in a lifetime compete with one day's worth of what commuters do. Millions of barrels of oil burned. Thousands of acres of forests stripped.


----------



## mtbfool (Sep 1, 2005)

Gregg K said:


> I really want to post how I feel about this subject. But it would divert attention from the original topic of this thread. I will just say this much- millions of cars. Miles of asphalt. Where is the perspective. I think our values as a society are way off.
> 
> A million bicyclists doing their best to cause damage could never in a lifetime compete with one day's worth of what commuters do. Millions of barrels of oil burned. Thousands of acres of forests stripped.


Are you saying this isn't that big of a deal because of the damage done by our reliance on automobiles? That topic and the one posted above are two completely different animals. A story such as this with nationwide coverage could really set back trail access regardless of the lack of physical damage done.


----------



## Lutarious (Feb 8, 2005)

*Link Link*

Can someone link the thread about the guy riding the Arizona Trail? As I recall, he carried his 29 on his back across the canyon, then resumed riding. That, to me, represents a committment to responsible riding and park use. If it's about environmentalism, then lazy defiance won't really help. Sounds to me like a couple of arrogant college kids on a big adventure. They should have impounded the bikes and sent them home to Orange County......


----------



## K'Endo (Dec 23, 2003)

Damn XC types always flaunting the rules. All they ever do is think about themselves!

Kn.

PS: _it's sarcasm, stoopid_


----------



## anchskier (Feb 16, 2007)

*Correction of Link Title*



formica said:


> Anchorage Cyclists Fined for Trek
> 
> Busted for riding the trails in the canyon instead of going around. This really makes me mad, it's a fricking slap in the face for all those folks who are working really hard on bike advocacy, and especially the issue of getting even basic mtb access to national parks. Frankly I am glad the judge threw the book at them. What makes them so special?


Just a minor thing, you link says they were Anchorage bikers, when they were actually from California. They just started their trek in Alaska.


----------



## lidarman (Jan 12, 2004)

So I wonder if it would have been acceptable for them to carry their bike, stay at phantom ranch instead of camping? 

I think the story is funny actually.


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

anchskier said:


> Just a minor thing, you link says they were Anchorage bikers, when they were actually from California. They just started their trek in Alaska.


Correction made, link was from Anchorage Times. (sorry 'bout that!!)


----------



## lidarman (Jan 12, 2004)

K'Endo said:


> Damn XC types always flaunting the rules. All they ever do is think about themselves!


Good thing they weren't free-riders cuz they would have been off the trail.


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

lidarman said:


> So I wonder if it would have been acceptable for them to carry their bike, stay at phantom ranch instead of camping?
> 
> I think the story is funny actually.


There is a guy who did just that, his comments on this incident are on the blog commentary page
http://www.ridingthespine.com/Journey/uncategorized/riding-the-spine-into-a-bit-of-trouble#comments


----------



## Tracerboy (Oct 13, 2002)

formica said:


> Cyclists Fined for Trek
> 
> Busted for riding the trails in the canyon instead of going around. This really makes me mad.


Yeah, makes me mad as well. Why the fock should you get fined for riding thru da canyon? And jail time? Why not just put the fools on death row right away.



> it's a fricking slap in the face for all those folks who are working really hard on bike advocacy, and especially the issue of getting even basic mtb access to national parks.


Oh? Like you mean, "why should we care about granting bikers more access to the wilderness, when they are all just a bunch of criminals?" Those are excuses, and people prone to using excuses will keep it up, whether some guys are trespassing or not.



> Frankly I am glad the judge threw the book at them. What makes them so special?


Well, perhaps the fact that they DARED risking fine and jailtime for a totally awesome biking experience. I lived in Norway for years. (That is on the other side of the atlantic, up north somewhere, 4 all you fellas not familiar with geography beyond US. territory) Enough spectacular wilderness there, but you are allowed to ride (but not litter) pretty much everywhere. Why does US nature need so much more law enforcement, seeing as you bring up "special" as an issue here.


----------



## eric (Jan 22, 2004)

I'll bite on this one...

Norway is pretty devoid of recreating masses. 

I also live in Europe, in a country where mountain biking is slowly being criminalized and as a rider you are being confined to a very small, limited and unconnected network of local trails. Trails which get ridden to sh!t all winter long (people don't think of not riding when it's raining...). Even on designated trails you are shouted by mothers with kids and grandpa's walking their dogs. Insane....

The environmental impact of bikers vs. hikers / equestrians is something that has been beaten to death. The problem is largely the perception of the mountain bikers, and how that perception changes once an area receives increased attention from all kinds of (recreational) users. I suspect that in the US, as much as here, areas are off limits so that the Nat. Park service or whomever doesn't have to deal with constant complaints about bikers from other groups. Legislation and subsequent enforcement are the only way to keep the increased number of trail users from getting riled up constantly.

Conversely, there isn't much of a population in Norway, and the chance of you encountering hikers or other bikers and them being bothered by you being in the way (or vise versa) is pretty small. I can image the opposite being true in the Grand Canyon. Receives a load of visitors....

Personally, I'd like to see every trail everywhere open to everybody. So far I have yet to come across a hiker or equestian that gave me trouble (plenty of bikers, sadly). I figure if you're polite and reasonable there's never a problem or conflict, but half the people on the planet are too ********* dumb, ignorant and/or self-centered for this to work. The 'can't we all just get along' thing just doesn't work. That's why we are over regulated and herded like a flock of sheep.

Happy trails all.


----------



## Tracerboy (Oct 13, 2002)

eric said:


> I
> The environmental impact of bikers vs. hikers / equestrians is something that has been beaten to death. The problem is largely the perception of the mountain bikers, and how that perception changes once an area receives increased attention from all kinds of (recreational) users.
> 
> The 'can't we all just get along' thing just doesn't work. That's why we are over regulated and herded like a flock of sheep.


So true. That's why I personally don't give a damn bout where I am allowed to ride and where not, as conflicts of interest will never wane anyway. You want something, u gotta go and get it!! :thumbsup:

Having said that, slowing down to pretend you care about hikers might beneficial from time to time.


----------



## ridingthespine.com (Feb 26, 2007)

Deleted


----------



## rockman (Jun 18, 2004)

TommyTiger said:


> Yeah, makes me mad as well. Why the fock should you get fined for riding thru da canyon? And jail time? Why not just put the fools on death row right away.
> 
> Oh? Like you mean, "why should we care about granting bikers more access to the wilderness, when they are all just a bunch of criminals?" Those are excuses, and people prone to using excuses will keep it up, whether some guys are trespassing or not.
> 
> Well, perhaps the fact that they DARED risking fine and jailtime for a totally awesome biking experience. I lived in Norway for years. (That is on the other side of the atlantic, up north somewhere, 4 all you fellas not familiar with geography beyond US. territory) Enough spectacular wilderness there, but you are allowed to ride (but not litter) pretty much everywhere. Why does US nature need so much more law enforcement, seeing as you bring up "special" as an issue here.


This is myopic and narrow-minded. National Parks in the U.S. were in part established to preserve wild and scenic areas so that the taxpayers could go enjoy a quality "wilderness" experience. Mountain bikes are defined as mechanized equipment and with few exceptions are not allowed on trails in National Parks.

That being said, the Grand Canyon National Park can hardly be deemed a wilderness setting in that the flow of the river through it is completely regulated by a dam, there are motorized rafts running the rapids, and site-seeing helicopters and planes flying overhead. So, it's not cut and dry but if your going to break the rules cause you can't follow them and happen to think your entitled to, then don't get caught by being stupid enough to brag about your exploits on the internet.


----------



## BillyBob (Jan 29, 2004)

*Beside the point*



TommyTiger said:


> So true. That's why I personally don't give a damn bout where I am allowed to ride and where not, as conflicts of interest will never wane anyway. You want something, u gotta go and get it!! :thumbsup:
> 
> Having said that, slowing down to pretend you care about hikers might beneficial from time to time.


It's not about what's right or fair. As a mountain biker, the harsh reality is that when you break the law on your bike, it provides ammunition for the choads who inexplicably despise our sport. If you care about having access to trails, then you should put aside your pride and personal feelings and play by the rules. To me, it's a small sacrifice.

Breaking the law in as flagrantly as these guys did, in such a high profile area, is ridiculous, selfish and harmful to the sport.


----------



## stucol (Jun 26, 2006)

Thank god i live in Scotland where the Scottish Parliment recently passed legislation promoting free access to all countryside ( with a code of rights and responsibilities).

The only problems it has caused are for some super rich idiots who erect 8 ft high fences round their properties for "security reasons". Of course the fences obstruct legal rights of way which have been established for hundreds of years, never mind the right of passage afforded by the new law.

For a country, which leads the world in knackering the environment, (5mpg, humongous SUV anyone ?) to punish users of virtually zero emission vehicles in this way, shows just how warped the law can be.

One things for sure, the grand canyon will still be about ( though maybe 200ft underwater) long after the last human has shuffled off this mortal coil.


----------



## Tracerboy (Oct 13, 2002)

rockman said:


> This is myopic and narrow-minded. National Parks in the U.S. were in part established to preserve wild and scenic areas so that the taxpayers could go enjoy a quality "wilderness" experience. Mountain bikes are defined as mechanized equipment and with few exceptions are not allowed on trails in National Parks.


And exactly what part of your argument exposes my contribution as an optic disease? Are you assuming I ain't paying my taxes? Why shouldn't I ride my bike and enjoy these scenic areas like every other taxpayer? Because your _definition_ of a mountainbike is incompatible with some sort of moral absolutism?

Yeah it's illegal. So what?


----------



## BillyBob (Jan 29, 2004)

stucol said:


> Thank god i live in Scotland where the Scottish Parliment recently passed legislation promoting free access to all countryside ( with a code of rights and responsibilities).
> 
> The only problems it has caused are for some super rich idiots who erect 8 ft high fences round their properties for "security reasons". Of course the fences obstruct legal rights of way which have been established for hundreds of years, never mind the right of passage afforded by the new law.
> 
> ...


Indeed, thank god you live in Scotland. (Just kidding, dude.)


----------



## Tracerboy (Oct 13, 2002)

BillyBob said:


> It's not about what's right or fair. As a mountain biker, the harsh reality is that when you break the law on your bike, it provides ammunition for the choads who inexplicably despise our sport. If you care about having access to trails, then you should put aside your pride and personal feelings and play by the rules. To me, it's a small sacrifice.
> 
> Breaking the law in as flagrantly as these guys did, in such a high profile area, is ridiculous, selfish and harmful to the sport.


I never said anything about what's right or fair. I am not advocating a philosophical debate here.

Perhaps breaking the law gives bikers in general a negative rep, but I can't see how a positive rep will grant me legal access to Grand Canyon in this lifetime anyway. So let's just break the god damn law.


----------



## Tracerboy (Oct 13, 2002)

stucol said:


> For a country, which leads the world in knackering the environment, (5mpg, humongous SUV anyone ?) to punish users of virtually zero emission vehicles in this way, shows just how warped the law can be.


Not to mention clogging up the health-care systems due to illnesses related to a sedentary lifestyle. But hey, you can make big bucks outta sick people. People should get chronic heart failure and transient ischemic attacks at 30. That way, demand would rise, and more nurses would lower unemployment statistics.


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

ridingthespine.com said:


> And I imagine this opinion will not go far with most people, but when there are people riding the trails that they are not supposed to, there is opportunity for compromise. For Grand Canyon and National Parks, there isn't anything to lose at this point.


That certainly doesn't go for far with me. When riders poach trails it just pisses land managers off and makes them less likely to listen to compromise. It reinforces the concept of mtb-ers as unwilling or uncaring to work with the system, and unwilling to follow the rules, however distasteful. I'm not just blowing smoke here - I am very active with mountain bike advocacy on a local level from city parks to forest service, and I also support national mtb advocacy with my wallet. I spend a good portion of my free time every week in meetings on advocacy issues, and frankly, to say that poaching encourages compromise is laughable.

You are correct in that there is nothing to lose for mountain bikers at GC. However, small gains have been made in some test programs at other NP's.
http://www.imba.com/news/news_releases/01_06/01_04_imba_nps_projects.html


----------



## 29Colossus (Jun 4, 2006)

I wish more people would ride through the Grand Canyon... and wilderness areas... and everywhere else they might want to pedal a XC bike.

It is a freaking joke the legislation in America. Everyone has their nose so far up into other people's business that they can't see the trail for the bureaucracy.


----------



## BillyBob (Jan 29, 2004)

TommyTiger said:


> I never said anything about what's right or fair. I am not advocating a philosophical debate here.
> 
> Perhaps breaking the law gives bikers in general a negative rep, but I can't see how a positive rep will grant me legal access to Grand Canyon in this lifetime anyway. So let's just break the god damn law.


Au contraire, I'm not philosophizing either. Philosophically, I think many of the restrictions placed on mtn bikers are stupid, and the result of fear and general negative reputation of mountain bikers generally.

Which is exactly the point. If you want the laws to change, the only logical approach is by contributing to a more positive, law abiding image of us as a whole. Anyone who claims that breaking trail laws is a good way to get people's attention is fantasizing. In the real world, the only people who give a sh*t about mountain bikers are mountain bikers, and we have to be smart if we want the more influential groups to accommodate our needs.

You are free to break whatever rules you want, but don't ***** when you get in trouble, and don't expect people who advocate for our sport to like what you are doing. If you decide to ride in the Grand Canyon or wherever else is illegal, you are setting the stage for other riders in other places to be banned from their local trails.

For the record, I don't want to give the false impression that I am some huge mountain bike advocate who has done all kinds of amazing things for the sport. But I do try to be a nice guy out there, respect the rules, and do some trail building once in a while. And I'm 100% convinced that if all bikers did the nice part and the rules part, we'd have way more freedom to ride where we want to.


----------



## Tracerboy (Oct 13, 2002)

formica said:


> That certainly doesn't go for far with me. When riders poach trails it just pisses land managers off and makes them less likely to listen to compromise. It reinforces the concept of mtb-ers as unwilling or uncaring to work with the system, and unwilling to follow the rules, however distasteful.


Yeah, too bad. Compromise is no option. I want that Scottish variant. Free to go anywhere you want. So land managers are pissed, who focking cares.


----------



## Dave_schuldt (May 10, 2004)

Morons! If you do something that's not legal don't talk about it on the net. Morons


----------



## mtbfool (Sep 1, 2005)

Dave_schuldt said:


> Morons! If you do something that's not legal don't talk about it on the net. Morons


But dooooooode, we were totally gettin effed up on this big effin spliff. it was at was this cool head shop on the corner of Main and Broadway. It was so rad.


----------



## AA717driver (Aug 29, 2006)

We live in a country (U.S.) where people will fire up the SUV and drive two blocks to the store. We are overweight and lazy. 

How can we (those of us who are relatively fit) expect to wave a wand and have the vast majority see our viewpoint and grant us access to non-private land? The goal of opening up public land to mtb use will only come as a result of the increasing popularity of mtb'ing.

Continued advocacy and treading lightly (bad pun) where we are allowed to ride is the only way to achieve what we desire. Pace yourselves. TC


----------



## radair (Dec 19, 2002)

I have really mixed feelings on this. I am also very active in advocacy and don't like to see people doing things that will piss off land managers and possibly create a back lash of negativity.

On the other hand, the discrimination against bikes in National Parks and Wilderness areas has no basis, scientific or otherwise. The irony of not being allowed to ride a bicycle on a trail on land owned by the public kills me.

No clear answer for me on this one, other than bragging about a poach, particularly a major one like this, is a very bad idea.


----------



## SHIVER ME TIMBERS (Jan 12, 2004)

how dumb........


----------



## rockman (Jun 18, 2004)

TommyTiger said:


> And exactly what part of your argument exposes my contribution as an optic disease? Are you assuming I ain't paying my taxes? Why shouldn't I ride my bike and enjoy these scenic areas like every other taxpayer? Because your _definition_ of a mountainbike is incompatible with some sort of moral absolutism?
> 
> Yeah it's illegal. So what?


Yeah, myopic. As in near sited. As in all you can see is what's in front of your front tire. I can't have what I want so I'm going to do it anyway.

There's lots of folks working hard for the right to ride mtn bikes in wilderness and national parks. Good thing not everyone has your attitude.


----------



## Sasquatch (Dec 23, 2003)

Riding from Alaska to South America..... Awesome:thumbsup: 
Riding through Grand Canyon........Ballsy:nono: 
Posting evidence online to show off..............Dumb as hellut: 

How did they actually catch you? when did you put your pictures online and how were they discovered and how did they track you down?


----------



## lidarman (Jan 12, 2004)

radair said:


> On the other hand, the discrimination against bikes in National Parks and Wilderness areas has no basis, scientific or otherwise. The irony of not being allowed to ride a bicycle on a trail on land owned by the public kills me.


Live free or die? 

Who wants to plan a moonlight grand canyon critical mass gathering?

Howabout august 12, 2007, lunar eclipse.


----------



## EmanResu (Mar 1, 2007)

OMG some people decided to travel across a bit of Earth!


----------



## mzungo (Sep 14, 2004)

*Ironic*

What I find Ironic is the leaders of "the free world" who spent billions protecting the rights of inocent people to be free of Communism are now rapidly descending into a police state.:thumbsup:


----------



## 4212darren (Nov 15, 2005)

A rational society makes the punishment fit the crime. Or is it punitive punishment?


----------



## heavyg (Dec 15, 2004)

*skatepunks, anyone?*

It is easy to champion the PC idea "let's be nice people and good citizens and then people will give us what we want". I'm not always sure that is historically the fastest/best way to get things done.

The example that springs to mind first for me is skateboarding. I'd bet that nearly every publicly-funded skatepark in the entire country came about as a means to address a bunch of skaters riding in illegal areas.

A bit more of reach, how about the civil rights movement...


----------



## GrantB (Jan 10, 2004)

There's what's right and there's what's thoughtful.

I think these guys had as a much a right to travel through the Grand Canyon as anyone else. Tourists on earth apple dropping mules, anyone? But in terms of how their behavior affects the rest of us, they were entirely thoughtless. 

An inability to recognize our connectedness to each other through our actions is the same trait that would lead someone to refuse to give up their 5mpg SUV or poach trail in one of the world's natural wonders. Not saying it was right or wrong, just (it's already been said here) myopic.


----------



## 29Colossus (Jun 4, 2006)

heavyg said:


> It is easy to champion the PC idea "let's be nice people and good citizens and then people will give us what we want". I'm not always sure that is historically the fastest/best way to get things done.
> 
> The example that springs to mind first for me is skateboarding. I'd bet that nearly every publicly-funded skatepark in the entire country came about as a means to address a bunch of skaters riding in illegal areas.
> 
> A bit more of reach, how about the civil rights movement...


Snowboarders didn't put on suits and ties and get haircuts to get mountain access. We whined and moaned and drug our knuckles and wore pants that hung to the ground and listened to music while we rode and generally told anyone who didn't like it to piss off.

We embraced who we were, and demanded access until we got it. Then, we changed the world of snow sliding forever. We reinvented skiing, and we reinvented the way the mountain was used. It wasn't because we tried to make all the skiers happy. It was because we hated them and felt we were better than they were anyway.

Skibikers on the other hand are limp wristing their efforts for mountain access in America. "We have to be nice and happy and ambassadors for the sport!!" We need to put on fluffy bunny suits and go slow and wave to everyone so they know we are friendly and full of joy!!!" "We are scary to people and we don't want to be scary!!!!" It is pathetic. It is also what monutainbikers do.

Bending over backwards constantly for government boneheads and environmental whackos with some misguided idea that it will create more biking access is what I _HATE_ about mountainbikers. It is the exact OPPOSITE of what should be happening. The way mountainbikers listen to these people's _concerns_ and take it up the sump pump is why trails are being taken away from riders. It is why they hand out these penalties that are meant to be, _taken seriously_ It is why they feel they can legislate... because mountainbikers are generally weak-minded individuals. Sheeple. They are being herded and classed into oblivion... and they believe it is the right way to be.

Mountainbikers always feel they have to apologize for something.

They DON'T. YOU DON'T. WE DON'T.


----------



## JMH (Feb 23, 2005)

Police State... Free World... Discrimination... you guys sound like a buch of high-school Budweiser Philosophers.

What ever happened to respecting sacred and beautiful places? You criticize your fat neighbor who drives a gas-guzzling car to a destination two blocks away, yet you use the same self-absorbed reasoning to question why you aren't allowed to ride on every single square mile of land that you lay your eyes on.

Helicopters, pavement and donky crap are bad. But why do you view this degradation of a beautiful place as validation for riding your bike there? Since everyone else is damaging the natural beauty of the Canyon, why don't the rest of us just jump on in? I am certainly for increased access but I don't agree that it is imperative or desirable that bikes be allowed on every trail. I think it will all be okay if sometimes we are forced to leave the bike behind and walk for a few hours. If you can't enjoy hiking trails that you can't ride, there is something wrong with YOU, not with the NPS.

EDIT: Oh yeah, and to our friend the clueless criminal: You are the worst kind of self-entitled idiot. You trampled on the rights of others in your own self-interest and you think it was kind of clever. Just insert ATV or Hummer and Cel Phone instead of bike and it doesn't sound so heroic. I think you guys got off lightly. To answer your question: YES, you should quit, or find an alternative route.

* "When you are living on your bike and trying to ride dirt all the way to the tip of South America, imagine how many time you have to trespass to camp or get to the next section of the trail? Should we quit the tour and put our bikes on rollers in the safety of our own home so we don't break any laws???"*

JMH


----------



## Township75 (Mar 6, 2004)

ridingthespine.com said:


> For Grand Canyon and National Parks, there isn't anything to lose at this point.
> .........
> Obviously, the publicity sucks and we made some poor choices at the Grand Canyon. And I apologize for the end of it. We ride from the arctic sea to AZ and the media could care less, we get arrested for riding a couple miles in a national park and they have a field day.


There is something to lose, and that is making any progress on getting access to those parks.

In addition most people don't have a freaking clue that mtn bikers due the bulk of trail building and maintence on the trails the public enjoys (at least in my part of the country). Press like this will promote the idea that mtn bikers just destroy it. THe fact that the press only focuses on this part of your journey is all the more reason bikers need to avoid breaking laws/rules that can damage our progress in gaining access to more trails.


----------



## 29Colossus (Jun 4, 2006)

JMH said:


> Police State... Free World... Discrimination... you guys sound like a buch of high-school Budweiser Philosophers.
> 
> What ever happened to respecting sacred and beautiful places? You criticize your fat neighbor who drives a gas-guzzling car to a destination two blocks away, yet you use the same self-absorbed reasoning to question why you aren't allowed to ride on every single square mile of land that you lay your eyes on.
> 
> ...


I can't find the puking smiley. I wish I could find it. Maybe I'll just head to the bathroom instead.


----------



## chuky (Apr 3, 2005)

*Funny how almost very post is about getting what you want...*

...and not about two guys who decided that the law was stupid and that they had the "right" to violate it, no matter who it hurt. When Dean Potter climbed Delicate Arch (which was legal at the time), he accomplished exactly what the ridingthespine guys did -

http://www.outdoornewswire.com/v/cu...52f313134373236353437342672737349643d33353630

He damaged the arch and eliminated access for others:

http://outside.away.com/outside/features/200606/dean-potter-delicate-arch-climb-1.html

Potter's sponsor, Patagonia, initially supported Dean Potter and had no official position on his climb:

http://www.getoutdoors.com/goblog/i...-Dean-Potters-Free-Solo-of-Delicate-Arch.html

But what what really got Potter and Patagonia in trouble was his violation of what many people in the US consider to be sacred ground. Just because someone else doesn't have respect for the Parks, doesn't mean that there aren't millions of people who consider them to be special places:

http://www.slackpacker.com/delicate.html

A month later, they sent out another press release, including a statement from Potter:

http://outside.away.com/outside/features/200606/patagonia-dean-potter-delicate-arch-statement.html

Patagonia and Dean Potter received thousands of letters from people who cared deeply about this matter and this is his statement regarding those communications:

"... I failed to foresee how Delicate Arch, for so many, is also an untouchable symbol of our delicate relationship to nature. It is also a symbol for me, but where I saw it as a chance to commune with the arch through expressing my own art of climbing, others saw it as a violation of what they also feel is sacred."

Dean Potter had no right to make his own descisions regarding what was and wasn't okay regarding that particular national treasure, and neither do the guys who rode through the Grand Canyon.

In my letter to Patagonia, I used this example:

I regularly set up photoshoots with freeriders and dirt jumpers for use in advertising. While I do not believe it would irreparably harm Old Faithful (more likely the crust would crack and we would have some dead and scalded riders), I will not ever schedule a shoot at Yellowstone. I, as an individual, don't have the right to decide the fate of something so important to an entire country.

To the Ridingthespine guys: 
You are selfish. You might as well buy a Humvee, it accomplishes the same thing. Perhaps in yellow? That seems like the right color for you.

Chuky


----------



## rockman (Jun 18, 2004)

JMH said:


> Police State... Free World... Discrimination... you guys sound like a buch of high-school Budweiser Philosophers.
> 
> What ever happened to respecting sacred and beautiful places? You criticize your fat neighbor who drives a gas-guzzling car to a destination two blocks away, yet you use the same self-absorbed reasoning to question why you aren't allowed to ride on every single square mile of land that you lay your eyes on.
> 
> ...


Exactly.


----------



## JMH (Feb 23, 2005)

I like your posts, and think you are one of the few _thoughtfully_ antagonistic voices on MTBR. But in this case I completely disagree with your stance. I think it's short-sighted. Puke if you can't stomach my refusal to participate in this Tragedy of the Commons, but at least think about it.

JMH



29Colossus said:


> I can't find the puking smiley. I wish I could find it. Maybe I'll just head to the bathroom instead.


----------



## Natextr (Aug 8, 2005)

29Colossus said:


> Snowboarders didn't put on suits and ties and get haircuts to get mountain access. We whined and moaned and drug our knuckles and wore pants that hung to the ground and listened to music while we rode and generally told anyone who didn't like it to piss off.
> 
> We embraced who we were, and demanded access until we got it. Then, we changed the world of snow sliding forever. We reinvented skiing, and we reinvented the way the mountain was used. It wasn't because we tried to make all the skiers happy. It was because we hated them and felt we were better than they were anyway.


Not a valid point, as you have to _pay_ to snowboard (at a mountain). Ski areas saw an oppertunity to make $$$$, off of the snowboarders. And as you say, they needed snowboarders more than anything as skiing was dying. I would bet that if skiing was doing better as an industry in 1988, many more mountains would be like Taos Ski Valley. Also, many snowboarders did put on ties (and at least combed their hair ) to lobby mountains (most run on public lands, BTW) to gain access for their sport.

I am positive that if the Grand Canyon was set up as a profit center and made it's money by charging fees to people to go down into the canyon, mountain bikes would be welcomed with open-arms. I have always questioned the wilderness ban, but have always respected it. We are very often considered outlaws, and breaking rules because they seem illogical is very short-sighted.

(By the way, I lived at the Grand Canyon back in the fall of 1993. I rode many of the trails on the rim, but never ventured into the canyon, as it was evident that I would've been caught. It was a shame as it would probably be a blast! BUT, I resisted, because it was not only illegal, but I was just as content to sit on the rim and peer out.)


----------



## chuky (Apr 3, 2005)

I am not apologizing for anything, nor do I feel like I have the right as an individual to decide what is good for the entire country. That is why political movements are important - they reflect the will of the people, not the will of the person. If you can get a majority to agree with you, then the law will change. 

Of course, that means you will have to work for what you believe in, which is a lot harder than breaking the law.

C


----------



## matteus (Mar 27, 2005)

JMH said:


> Puke if you can't stomach my refusal to participate in this Tragedy of the Commons, but at least think about it.


Amen.

This is exactly what it is, and if you don't know what the Tragedy of the Commons is look it up -- everyone should be familiar with it. I do, however, find some of this ironic... the people up in arms about a few mountain bikers when because of their damage to protected areas, when the public lands of this country are being raped by the system that is meant to protect them, and the people are clueless.



29Colossus said:


> ...because we hated them and felt we were better...


And that's just precious, nothing like bigotry eh? I've heard this said about mountain bikers from ATVers, so what gives? Select ATV users feel their better than those sissy mountain bikers with their tight shorts, lets go rip up their trails... so what, we use the same approach towards hiking trails? That is indeed short-sighted.

matt


----------



## 29Colossus (Jun 4, 2006)

JMH said:


> I like your posts, and think you are one of the few _thoughtfully_ antagonistic voices on MTBR. But in this case I completely disagree with your stance. I think it's short-sighted. Puke if you can't stomach my refusal to participate in this Tragedy of the Commons, but at least think about it.
> 
> JMH


Ya know, I WILL think about that. I have for almost 2 decades now.

I will think about it on the slopes on my skibike today. The sun is shining. People will be gaping. There will be a lot of explaining and smiling and communicating done. I am also great for the slope _yard sale_ clean up now and then.

Ambassadors aren't elected in these activities, they just are. I don't make excuses for someone who is afraid when they see me coming at them at 70mph on my skibike. I don't make excuses for pushing my skill level everyday. I don't make excuses for my speed on multi-use trails when I ride my bike either. I control it, and I take responsibility for it. It isn't about the environment... we all know that... or should. 

But then I could spew nonsense all day... that won't help me get a good parking space!

:thumbsup:


----------



## lidarman (Jan 12, 2004)

From riding the spine blog.

Note, this has happened berfore in 1995, and it made the news too.

http://www.ridingthespine.com/Journey/


----------



## chuky (Apr 3, 2005)

Ski bike all you want. You will know it if the owners of the resort don't want you there.

This is about rights and laws. You, as an individual, don't have the right to decide what is best for the parks, just as you don't have the right to decide what is best for the slopes. If the owners of the resort don't want you there, they will have you removed from the property, which is within their rights. If the owners of the National Parks (the people of the US) don't want you there, they also have a right to keep you out. 

I find the use of "ambassador" in your post to be amusing, as that word is directly tied to the word "diplomacy". Poaching isn't diplomacy.

C


----------



## ofg3216 (Sep 1, 2006)

I met these guys at the race, they were pretty cool. I'm pretty sure they were volunteering at the race they were busted at. Nice use of tax dollars by the way, tracking down some criminals, making this country better. :madman: 

I'm leaving nothern california because of the politics associated with biking here. Soon i expect i'll be a citizen of scotland (or sweeden, sorry the women look better there). 

I agree we should be following the example of skateboarders and snowboarders. And a critical mass ride would be great, i'd be there.

Bikes are banned from trails because some eco-freak lumped them into an ancient description of "mechanized", as if they do the same damage as a Humvee. I honestly don't care if you get trails "legal" in 2040, i'm trying to enjoy life now. How many miles of fire road have been opened in the east bay compared to all the singletrack that is still illegal? You're not getting anywhere.

As for using the number of users as an excuse for lack of access...
Colorado has the same problem, they solve it by allowing bikes on odd (or even, i can't remember) days only. why that wouldn't work here escapes me. (less people overall there, but more of them are in health enough to use the trails)

as for "destroying" the enviorment, I'd send that to myth busters. I'd bet horses and hikers are worse, not to mentionthe 8' wide "trails" that turn into rutted messes every rainy season.

there are alot of bikers, why is their desired usage of public land any less important than everyone elses?

F#$k this place.


----------



## Evil4bc (Apr 13, 2004)

This isn't the first time the people who run the GrandCaynon have gone after bike riders , remeber when we didn't have a Budget for the country a few years back and all government employees were "supposed" to take a few days off until the new budget passed ???

Some MTB's thought this would be the perfect time to take a quick run through the Grand Canyon , only to be stopped by Government goon squads in helicopters and another crew waiting for them with guns pulled at the end of their ride .

these guys ended up in jain and pain HUGE fines !!

I have been to the Grand Canyon and THEY NEED SIGNS !! it's pretty easy to decent into the canyon and never see anytime f sign telling not to ride your bike there .

Oh and how does a mule cause less orison then a bike ????


----------



## rockman (Jun 18, 2004)

Evil4bc said:


> This isn't the first time the people who run the GrandCaynon have gone after bike riders , remeber when we didn't have a Budget for the country a few years back and all government employees were "supposed" to take a few days off until the new budget passed ???
> 
> Some MTB's thought this would be the perfect time to take a quick run through the Grand Canyon , only to be stopped by Government goon squads in helicopters and another crew waiting for them with guns pulled at the end of their ride .
> 
> ...


This is just crap. At least get the facts straight. The Sedona 5 jammed down the north Kaibab (which is for the most part rideable) in the dark while the park was closed over the xmass holidays because of budget cuts in 1995. They made it to the bottom and instead of quietly continuing on their way, celebrated with a mushroom and ganga induced party on the bridge. They woke up the only ranger on duty (there might have been two but the rest of Phantom Ranch was vacated) who arrested them They were dealt with just like river runners they catch rafting on the river without a permit.

And it says clearly on the brochures they hand you at the kiosk when you enter the park that there is no mtn biking on the inter-canyon trails.


----------



## mtbfool (Sep 1, 2005)

ofg3216 said:


> I honestly don't care if you get trails "legal" in 2040, i'm trying to enjoy life now. How many miles of fire road have been opened in the east bay compared to all the singletrack that is still illegal? You're not getting anywhere.
> 
> As for using the number of users as an excuse for lack of access...
> Colorado has the same problem, they solve it by allowing bikes on odd (or even, i can't remember) days only. why that wouldn't work here escapes me. (less people overall there, but more of them are in health enough to use the trails)


So short sited. You SHOULD care about the future of the sport regardless of whether or not you'll be riding in that future. When did mountain bikers become so self-absorbed?

As far as the odd/even day thing here in Colorado. There are only a few parks that have that. Some of us feel that the on/off days are the first step to banning us completely.


----------



## Evil4bc (Apr 13, 2004)

rockman said:


> This is just crap. At least get the facts straight. The Sedona 5 jammed down the north Kaibab (which is for the most part rideable) in the dark while the park was closed over the xmass holidays because of budget cuts in 1995. They made it to the bottom and instead of quietly continuing on their way, celebrated with a mushroom and ganga induced party on the bridge. They woke up the only ranger on duty (there might have been two but the rest of Phantom Ranch was vacated) who arrested them They were dealt with just like river runners they catch rafting on the river without a permit.
> 
> And it says clearly on the brochures they hand you at the kiosk when you enter the park that there is no mtn biking on the inter-canyon trails.


Sorry I didn't give your crew credit for this but see BIKE mag article and it doesn't say nothing about the Sedona 5 doing mushroom's on christmas in the canyon LOL , all it talks about is a group a guys who rode the canyon during the day and got seriously busted for it by gun toting rangers .
Sorry 1995 was allot time ago and ride stories can get crossed .

And I have NEVER seen a sign on the section of the canyon I sent to saying no MTB's


----------



## lidarman (Jan 12, 2004)

mtbfool said:


> So short sited. You SHOULD care about the future of the sport regardless of whether or not you'll be riding in that future. When did mountain bikers become so self-absorbed?


Didn't you know the second coming is happening soon? We just need to take care of the world long enough to make it! At least according to James G. Watt. ;-)

"My responsibility is to follow the Scriptures which call upon us to occupy the land until Jesus returns." -- James G. Watt, _The Washington Post_, May 24, 1981

I think (and am kinda scared that) many people follow Watt's philosophy these days.


----------



## pimpbot (Dec 31, 2003)

*That's not true*



TommyTiger said:


> ... as conflicts of interest will never wane anyway.


We've had bunches of trails re-opened here in the SF Bay Area due to good positive advocacy through the local groups such as BTCEB, ROMP, IMBA, etc. Not to mention whole parks such as China Camp and Tamarancho.


----------



## Jerk_Chicken (Oct 13, 2005)

On both sides of the fence, mountain bikers have tons of recreation area everywhere in the world, especially in the US. It's simply some take "you can't ride here, but you can have everything around here, just keep this area off of your list" as a stepwise loss of biking areas. 
Everyone wants something. Bicyclists want to be able to ride everywhere and anywhere, but can't take it when one area is off limits. The bike organizations want these areas for themselves. It never ends. Sometimes they'll advocate their type of riding and villify freeriding in order to make themselves look better. In short, mountainbikers in general think they're more important than any other group of user whereever they are.


----------



## mtbfool (Sep 1, 2005)

lidarman said:


> Didn't you know the second coming is happening soon? We just need to take care of the world just enough to make it! Least according to James G. Watt. ;-)
> 
> "My responsibility is to follow the Scriptures which call upon us to occupy the land until Jesus returns." -- James G. Watt, _The Washington Post_, May 24, 1981
> 
> I think (and kinda scared that) many people follow Watt's philosphy these days.


Lately I can tell I'm getting old. I've been thinking, "people are so selfish these days."

I would say most people currently follow that philosophy.


----------



## mtbfool (Sep 1, 2005)

Jerk_Chicken said:


> On both sides of the fence, mountain bikers have tons of recreation area everywhere in the world, especially in the US. It's simply some take "you can't ride here, but you can have everything around here, just keep this area off of your list" as a stepwise loss of biking areas.
> Everyone wants something. Bicyclists want to be able to ride everywhere and anywhere, but can't take it when one area is off limits. The bike organizations want these areas for themselves. It never ends. Sometimes they'll advocate their type of riding and villify freeriding in order to make themselves look better. In short, mountainbikers in general think they're more important than any other group of user whereever they are.


This is one of my moral dilemma's with advocacy groups. IMBA fights any and every attempt at wilderness designation (or so it seems that way). I definitely believe in wilderness designations. If you spend any time backpacking through these areas, you understand. However, where do you draw the line? If mountain bikers have had access to a certain trail network for years or decades, is it fair to tell us we can't ride in that area anymore? Where does it stop if you don't fight every attempt at a ban? Maybe that area really needs some environmental protection (I'm not saying mountain bikes are bad for the environment, but wilderness designations definitely reduce traffic as a whole).

One thing I've learned in my political studies (that was a long time ago) is that each and every interest group pretty much has to fight for the extremes of their view in order to achieve moderate advances for their interest. I guess that is a good argument for both sides of the coin here.


----------



## Tracerboy (Oct 13, 2002)

mtbfool said:


> Lately I can tell I'm getting old. I've been thinking, "people are so selfish these days."
> 
> I would say most people currently follow that philosophy.


No, no no.. I just follow what I believe to be right. Except the fact that I don't believe there is anything which can be stated to be objectively right, lol. Such assumptions are made more on emotional ground than anything else.

Your nice altruistic attitude simply means that I won't be able to see a lot of great nature and for what? Just because people don't like the fact that I ride a bike? Just because the of legislation? Because of some assumed moral absolutism? Because it is "wrong" to break laws? Because allegedly, mtb biking would be made illegal in 50 years?

Here's what. The only one who can look after your own interests is yourself. Agree with ofg3216, why wait until 2040? It is not like you have given me any good reason NOT to ride in Grand Canyon mtbfool, so if you can't think of anything else than using negative terms like "selfish," I doubt I would change my view on this.


----------



## mtbfool (Sep 1, 2005)

TommyTiger said:


> No, no no.. I just follow what I believe to be right. Except the fact that I don't believe there is anything which can be stated to be objectively right, lol. Such assumptions are made more on emotional ground than anything else.
> 
> Your nice altruistic attitude simply means that I won't be able to see a lot of great nature and for what? Just because people don't like the fact that I ride a bike? Just because the of legislation? Because of some assumed moral absolutism? Because it is "wrong" to break laws? Because allegedly, mtb biking would be made illegal in 50 years?
> 
> Here's what. The only one who can look after your own interests is yourself. Agree with ofg3216, why wait until 2040? It is not like you have given me any good reason NOT to ride in Grand Canyon mtbfool, so if you can't think of anything else than using negative terms like "selfish," I doubt I would change my view on this.


You aren't going to bait me. My statement actually had nothing to do with this thread as much as it had to do with Lidarman's comment making me think of what I think every day mostly outside the world of mountain biking. It was meant to be humorous. Kind of like, "these kids today. they don't know how good they got it."

As far as giving you a good reason, I don't see any reason at attempting that. You clearly have your mind made up. I'll save my attempts for those that can possibly be persuaded.


----------



## Jerk_Chicken (Oct 13, 2005)

In my eyes, there's plenty of riding everywhere. Some places are off limits, but we all want the choice of riding everything, something like an attenuated version of those BASE jumpers that see a jump in anything and everything. It's natural to see something we want to ride, but federal law is law and I'm not risking my future for that.

I partly see their point in traversing continents, but still, things are not legal.

On another side, the sky is not falling, as advocacy groups make it out to be. There are more trails available for people to ride than ever. It's just that people want more choices.


----------



## Tracerboy (Oct 13, 2002)

mtbfool said:


> You aren't going to bait me. My statement actually had nothing to do with this thread as much as it had to do with Lidarman's comment making me think of what I think every day mostly outside the world of mountain biking. It was meant to be humorous. Kind of like, "these kids today. they don't know how good they got it."
> 
> As far as giving you a good reason, I don't see any reason at attempting that. You clearly have your mind made up. I'll save my attempts for those that can possibly be persuaded.


Or we could just conclude that you have no reason, no arguments whatsoever. Just preferences. You prefer to make compromises as regards your riding so people will think of you as a nice guy. Oh, a nice non-selfish guy.

Your own interests are ALWAYS selfish. It is a case of balancing your interests against the interests of others. Why are hikers' interests so much more important, than bikers'?


----------



## mtbfool (Sep 1, 2005)

TommyTiger said:


> Or we could just conclude that you have no reason, no arguments whatsoever. Just preferences. You prefer to make compromises as regards your riding so people will think of you as a nice guy. Oh, a nice non-selfish guy.
> 
> Your own interests are ALWAYS selfish. It is a case of balancing your interests against the interests of others. Why are hikers' interests so much more important, than bikers'?


If that is your conclusion, so be it. It's one thing to be antagonistic for the sake of discussion. It's another to be argumentative for the sake of argument.

There are several people that would classify me as the opposite of a nice, non-selfish guy. I incessantly raise hell at work.


----------



## Thrice (Feb 9, 2007)

I thought I would chime in here with the wilderness act. To give you an idea as to why no bikes are allowed in most park todays and as to why no bikes will be allowed in the future. Many parks have designated wilderness areas some parks are largely designated wilderness.
It's these wilderness areas that bikes will never go. And now for some highlights of the wilderness act of 1964.

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

* DEFINITION OF WILDERNESS*

A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of *life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor *who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this chapter an area of undeveloped Federal land *retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation*, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.


----------



## Gregg K (Jan 12, 2004)

Does anyone really think that bicycles are a threat to the Grand Canyon? I mean, come on.


----------



## Thrice (Feb 9, 2007)

Where is my post?

mtbr member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 28

I thought I would chime in here with the wilderness act. To give you an idea as to why no bikes are allowed in most park todays and as to why no bikes will be allowed in the future. Many parks have designated wilderness areas some parks are largely designated wilderness.
It's these wilderness areas that bikes will never go. And now for some highlights of the wilderness act of 1964.

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

DEFINITION OF WILDERNESS

A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this chapter an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.


----------



## Jerk_Chicken (Oct 13, 2005)

One isn't. Many are. Personally, I'd love to ride the Grand Canyon, but I agree it's a national treasure and should be protected.

We don't need to be everywhere.


----------



## Snake Muesl (Apr 17, 2005)

Sasquatch said:


> Riding from Alaska to South America..... Awesome:thumbsup:
> Riding through Grand Canyon........Ballsy:nono:
> Posting evidence online to show off..............Dumb as hellut:
> 
> How did they actually catch you? when did you put your pictures online and how were they discovered and how did they track you down?


 Tracked 'em down at the 24 Hrs of the Old Pueblo near Tucson and served a summons.

http://www.ridingthespine.com/Journey/uncategorized/riding-the-spine-into-a-bit-of-trouble


----------



## 9.8m/s/s (Sep 26, 2005)

29Colossus said:


> Snowboarders didn't put on suits and ties and get haircuts to get mountain access. We whined and moaned and drug our knuckles and wore pants that hung to the ground and listened to music while we rode and generally told anyone who didn't like it to piss off.
> 
> We embraced who we were, and demanded access until we got it. Then, we changed the world of snow sliding forever. We reinvented skiing, and we reinvented the way the mountain was used. It wasn't because we tried to make all the skiers happy. It was because we hated them and felt we were better than they were anyway.


 The snowbaording "outsider" mystique never existed. It was invented to bring young people back to the mountains as skiing was dying by that time. You got sold a bunch of marketing hype, hope you at least got a free Mountain Dew. Extreme!!!1


----------



## flowtron (Nov 17, 2006)

9.8m/s/s said:


> The snowbaording "outsider" mystique never existed. It was invented to bring young people back to the mountains as skiing was dying by that time. You got sold a bunch of marketing hype, hope you at least got a free Mountain Dew. Extreme!!!1


BWaaaahhhhhhhh! Gold!

This is moot now anyhow. Hes moved on to ski bikes. They are way more edgy.

As far as the original post is concerned....riding into the canyon was kind of a dumb move on this trip....but dumber was blathering about it on the interweb before you left the country...if at all. You guys f-ing made it...then you blew it.:bluefrown:


----------



## 29Colossus (Jun 4, 2006)

9.8m/s/s said:


> The snowbaording "outsider" mystique never existed. It was invented to bring young people back to the mountains as skiing was dying by that time. You got sold a bunch of marketing hype, hope you at least got a free Mountain Dew. Extreme!!!1


Yeah.... riiiggghhhttt. 

I _still_ get free dew, dude!

:thumbsup:


----------



## lidarman (Jan 12, 2004)

9.8m/s/s said:


> The snowbaording "outsider" mystique never existed. It was invented to bring young people back to the mountains as skiing was dying by that time. You got sold a bunch of marketing hype, hope you at least got a free Mountain Dew. Extreme!!!1


That is so cynical!

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/cool/view/


----------



## Soloracer (Jan 26, 2004)

Lutarious said:


> Can someone link the thread about the guy riding the Arizona Trail? /QUOTE]
> 
> Is name is Scott and his website is www.topofusion.com On MTBR his screen name is Krein so a search should find the original posting in the endurance race forum.


----------



## MtbRN (Jun 8, 2006)

TommyTiger said:


> Your nice altruistic attitude simply means that I won't be able to see a lot of great nature and for what? Just because people don't like the fact that I ride a bike?


No one is stopping you from seeing "a lot of great nature". Go and see it on foot.


----------



## Evel Knievel (Mar 28, 2004)

Can't help but think the justice system is completely out of it's fuxing mind. When an idiot driving in an SUV killed a cyclist while text messaging, got probation. Not one day day in jail for killing a person while being dangerous. Now some cyclist could have fallen on a phantom hiker, or hurt themselves, warrents jail and fines. Fuc those in charge, time for Anarchy is now. Break those cyclists free. Kill the judges that do this world injustice.


----------



## PhillyPhil (Apr 30, 2006)

Im with you, Evel Knievel!!! Im gonna email Dubya and tell him to open up them trails...he's a mountain biker, after all :thumbsup:


----------



## Fast Eddy (Dec 30, 2003)

Someone post the route they took that allowed them to ride through and not get caught until they posted the pictures and story.

Free the Sedona Five!


----------



## Krein (Jul 3, 2004)

I just noticed this thread.



Fast Eddy said:


> Someone post the route they took that allowed them to ride through and not get caught until they posted the pictures and story.
> 
> Free the Sedona Five!


They didn't ride much at all. They hiked all their gear (in two trips) up the south rim. The route was simply the main corridor trails.

It is legal to have a mountain bike in the canyon, but you can't ride it or roll it.


----------



## K'Endo (Dec 23, 2003)

lidarman said:


> Good thing they weren't free-riders cuz they would have been off the trail.


Freeriders is bad peoples ...

Kn.


----------



## Krein (Jul 3, 2004)

formica said:


> You are correct in that there is nothing to lose for mountain bikers at GC.


Incorrect -- bikes are currently allowed in the canyon, you just can't ride or roll them. This makes an unsupported traverse of the Arizona Trail possible for mountain bikers.

Also, several miles of Arizona Trail (even some singletrack) are open to _riding_ bikes on the North Rim (within the park boundaries).

So, yes there is much to lose.

People seem to think this is an environmental issue (due to poor reporting, I guess). It's not. This isn't a bikes in wilderness issue, either.

Riding bikes is not allowed on the corridor canyon trails for safety reasons. I agree 100% with the rule that bikes should not be ridden on these trails. Mountain bikers would kill themselves, scare hikers, spook mules, et cetera. The trails are narrow and extremely dangerous. Plus they are often very crowded.

To repeat, bikes are not banned from the Grand Canyon because the sierra club thinks bikes cause erosion or don't belong in God's great wilderness. They are banned because people would lose their lives.

So I find the ridingthespine defense of guerilla "change for bike access" dubious at best. If they were riding a wilderness area that they felt shouldn't be wilderness, or where bikes should be allowed, I might buy it. But riding bikes on the corridor trails of the Grand Canyon should never be allowed. There's nothing to be fought for, only current access to be lost.

But I agree with other comments that the government has better things to worry about, car usage, et cetera. Doesn't justify what they did (and posting about it was beyond stupid), though.

One good thing about this trip is that it has forced the NPS folks to officially declare the policy for bikes in the canyon. Before I crossed the first time it was very difficult to get a straight answer about the rules. We finally had to go all the way to the top to get the official "wheels cannot touch the ground" rule. Hopefully some good has come from this.

Negative publicity for cyclists always sucks, though. Calling these guys "environmentalists" and saying they broke an "environmental" rule is even worse, and not even accurate. Oh well.


----------



## Dwight Moody (Jan 10, 2004)

Dave_schuldt said:


> Morons! If you do something that's not legal don't talk about it on the net. Morons


They didn't just talk, they posted pictures. Never take a picture of yourself breaking the law.


----------



## Dwight Moody (Jan 10, 2004)

mtbfool said:


> This is one of my moral dilemma's with advocacy groups. IMBA fights any and every attempt at wilderness designation (or so it seems that way). I definitely believe in wilderness designations.


They don't really. They support or stay out of a lot of Wilderness debates. There's one in Washington they're staying out of right now because it doesn't impact any existing MTB trails. The people behind the bill made sure their boundaries stayed away from established users of all kinds.


----------



## Krein (Jul 3, 2004)

rockman said:


> And it says clearly on the brochures they hand you at the kiosk when you enter the park that there is no mtn biking on the inter-canyon trails.


Not everyone enters the park via the kiosk (i. e. in a car). Not everyone gets a brochure. Not everyone READS that brochure.

I find it ridiculous that there isn't a single sign at Bright Angel that says that bikes aren't allowed on the trail. Pretty pathetic given how strictly they enforce the rule. There is a "no bikes" sign on the North Rim, but even that isn't technically correct, since bikes are allowed -- just not the riding or rolling of them.

So I agree with the poster above -- that they badly need signs, and better communication about what is and isn't allowed.

Doesn't have anything to do with the 'spine guys, of course. They read my account of crossing the canyon and clearly knew it was illegal to do anything but carry your bike.


----------



## Dwight Moody (Jan 10, 2004)

29Colossus said:


> Snowboarders didn't put on suits and ties and get haircuts to get mountain access. We whined and moaned and drug our knuckles and wore pants that hung to the ground and listened to music while we rode and generally told anyone who didn't like it to piss off.


And eventually got large enough numbers that the PRIVATE CORPORATIONS that run ski mountains decided you represented enough TICKET SALES to give a rat's ass about. Public lands run on a different set of rules.


----------



## JUNGLEKID5 (May 1, 2006)

LET THEM RIDE!!!! screw the seara clubs


----------



## mtbfool (Sep 1, 2005)

JUNGLEKID5 said:


> LET THEM RIDE!!!! screw the seara clubs


The Sierra Club has changed it's stance with regards to mountain biking. They are now working closely with mountain bike advocacy groups.


----------



## Sasquatch (Dec 23, 2003)

lidarman said:


> That is so cynical!
> 
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/cool/view/


Great documentary. Frontline is the best. Too it's on same time as Stephen Colbert

After watching that, I have little hope for the future.


----------



## salimoneus (Oct 12, 2004)

if you go at least bring a rental or a junker


----------



## Krein (Jul 3, 2004)

mtbfool said:


> The Sierra Club has changed it's stance with regards to mountain biking. They are now working closely with mountain bike advocacy groups.


Really? Cool. Sorry I mentioned them.

Obviously JUNGLEKID5 didn't understand what I wrote, because that is absolutely not what this is about.

For the third time, bikes are *NOT* banned from the trails the ridingthespine guys rode due to erosion, environmental concerns, bad bike politics, et cetera. They are banned because people would die, just like it's not legal to drive 125 mph on neighborhood roads. People would die.

I think bikes should be allowed in (many) wilderness areas. I don't think they belong on the corridor Grand Canyon trails. People would die, plain and simple.


----------



## Gregg K (Jan 12, 2004)

Krein,
Thanks for the info on why bikes aren't allowed. And it makes sense now. And it makes sense from a safety perspective.


----------



## rockman (Jun 18, 2004)

Krein said:


> For the third time, bikes are *NOT* banned from the trails the ridingthespine guys rode due to erosion, environmental concerns, bad bike politics, et cetera. They are banned because people would die, just like it's not legal to drive 125 mph on neighborhood roads. People would die.
> 
> I think bikes should be allowed in (many) wilderness areas. I don't think they belong on the corridor Grand Canyon trails. People would die, plain and simple.


Perhaps that's why there are no signs at the trialhead regarding bikes. Until recently, the parkies had no idea that mtbrs would be that stupid. And really, the only trails that won't result in a 100% casualty rate are the Kaibab and Bright Angel. The rest are way too steep and technical. There's a high enough death rate with hikers alone.

I also agree with the Krein's 2nd statement.


----------



## JUNGLEKID5 (May 1, 2006)

so if they are nuts enogh to do it so be it.. let some die and then no one will hit it


----------



## TeleMang (May 22, 2006)

TommyTiger said:


> Or we could just conclude that you have no reason, no arguments whatsoever. Just preferences. You prefer to make compromises as regards your riding so people will think of you as a nice guy. Oh, a nice non-selfish guy.
> 
> Your own interests are ALWAYS selfish. It is a case of balancing your interests against the interests of others. Why are hikers' interests so much more important, than bikers'?


Then you have no basis to complain when a rogue farmer cuts off your dingleberries for trespassing on his land. Afterall, right and wrong is just a matter of perspective-- rules/laws be damned! Whether you like his actions or not, you can't blame the guy for doing what he thought was right.

If you don't compromise then don't expect others to either.


----------



## dobbs (Jan 12, 2004)

29Colossus said:


> Snowboarders didn't put on suits and ties and get haircuts to get mountain access. We whined and moaned and drug our knuckles and wore pants that hung to the ground and listened to music while we rode and generally told anyone who didn't like it to piss off.
> 
> We embraced who we were, and demanded access until we got it. Then, we changed the world of snow sliding forever. We reinvented skiing, and we reinvented the way the mountain was used. It wasn't because we tried to make all the skiers happy. It was because we hated them and felt we were better than they were anyway.


That only happened because of how much money we spend to snowboard. Big motivator there. Not so much with mountain biking.

I don't think I elected the ridethespine guys to be my representatives for the sport. I'd prefer somebody with a little professionalism.


----------



## Krein (Jul 3, 2004)

JUNGLEKID5 said:


> so if they are nuts enogh to do it so be it.. let some die and then no one will hit it


Why do we have speed limits? To prevent people from driving fast and killing themselves?

Or is it to prevent them from killing innocent people? (!!)

These trails are often crammed with people (like you would not believe), and mules can be spooked even by someone carrying a bike (or so I'm told). When I had mine on my back the wranglers had me move off to the side, face the mules, talk, et cetera.

To the their credit (ridingthespine) they rode only empty trails (not much going on at the north rim during the winter) so they only endangered themselves. But that doesn't mean we should rewrite the laws so that it's OK to speed as long as no one is around. It's still not legal and still not a good idea.


----------



## ridingthespine.com (Feb 26, 2007)

Deleted


----------



## Thrice (Feb 9, 2007)

Ignorance is no excuse! It's your responsibility to know the laws.


----------



## chad1433 (Apr 5, 2004)

Gregg K said:


> I really want to post how I feel about this subject. But it would divert attention from the original topic of this thread. I will just say this much- millions of cars. Miles of asphalt. Where is the perspective. I think our values as a society are way off.
> 
> A million bicyclists doing their best to cause damage could never in a lifetime compete with one day's worth of what commuters do. Millions of barrels of oil burned. Thousands of acres of forests stripped.


I'm with you here. They should follow the rules and I, like many, wish we could ride one the thousands of miles of trails in the Nation's parks, but really, no harm, no foul - there are bigger fish to fry. Did they upset the environment? Did the SAR have to go looking for them? Is it really more dangerous for bikers than hikers or is this "percieved"?

Either way, it's all just dumb.


----------



## Krein (Jul 3, 2004)

Thrice said:


> Ignorance is no excuse! It's your responsibility to know the laws.


They weren't using it as an excuse, it was just a hypothetical. They knew what they were doing and have already admitted as much.


----------



## ridingthespine.com (Feb 26, 2007)

Deleted


----------



## Krein (Jul 3, 2004)

ridingthespine.com said:


> Wanted to clarify that our actions were not intended to be a gesture of civil disobedience or guerrilla activism. It seemed that everyone else was using this event to discuss trail advocacy so I thought I would chime in as well. Just don't see any amount of advocacy ever getting access to ride the Grand Canyon, nor do I see thousands of cyclists lining up to ride down those trails and backpack their bike back up.


OK, thanks for clarifying this and sorry for taking it the wrong way.


----------



## ACree (Sep 8, 2004)

Krein said:


> Why do we have speed limits? To prevent people from driving fast and killing themselves?
> 
> Or is it to prevent them from killing innocent people? (!!)


Or to raise revenue through tickets? (though I think it started as public safety)



Krein said:


> These trails are often crammed with people (like you would not believe), and mules can be spooked even by someone carrying a bike (or so I'm told). When I had mine on my back the wranglers had me move off to the side, face the mules, talk, et cetera.
> 
> To the their credit (ridingthespine) they rode only empty trails (not much going on at the north rim during the winter) so they only endangered themselves. But that doesn't mean we should rewrite the laws so that it's OK to speed as long as no one is around. It's still not legal and still not a good idea.


This has been an interesting thread. Seems like a lot of dumbness on all parts - the riders in this case, the feds for prosecution that vastly outweighs the 'crime', and National Parks, for what ought to be a crime in excluding mtn bikers from so many trails that should be open (I'm NOT saying that they all should be, just that each should be objectively considered on its own merits - just like Wilderness IMO).

It's too bad drivers who kill cyclists aren't prosecuted as enthusiastically as these mtn bikers were.


----------



## rockman (Jun 18, 2004)

Krein said:


> Not everyone enters the park via the kiosk (i. e. in a car). Not everyone gets a brochure. Not everyone READS that brochure.
> 
> I find it ridiculous that there isn't a single sign at Bright Angel that says that bikes aren't allowed on the trail. Pretty pathetic given how strictly they enforce the rule. There is a "no bikes" sign on the North Rim, but even that isn't technically correct, since bikes are allowed -- just not the riding or rolling of them.
> 
> So I agree with the poster above -- that they badly need signs, and better communication about what is and isn't allowed.


I just had a chat with the Wilderness Coordinator for Grand Canyon National Park about the lack of signage. Her response was, "I guess we'll have to post signs prohibiting firearms, roller blading, and base-jumping as well". And they do provide lots of information on the designated trails and roads where they do allow mtn biking. She also said that when they approved bike use on the Arizona trail and roads that are currently closed to motorized vehicles on the north rim, it was challenged by environmental groups. Probably the Sierra Club or Southwest Wilderness Alliance but I'm not sure.

Also, the cross-canyon corridor (incl. the Bright Angel and Kaibab trails) is considered "non-wilderness" because it's part of a developed area. The ban on bikes is at the Superintendent's discretion.


----------



## Thrice (Feb 9, 2007)

Wilderness areas are not like other areas. They are there to be primitive, bikes are not primitive. A bike is a mechanized device. Mechanization has no place in wilderness.
I am an avid hiker and becoming an avid Mtbiker. Wilderness areas are for hiking and more importantly for me an escape from the modern world. There are plenty of areas to ride your bike that are not wilderness. Mtbiking is not wrong bringing mechanization into the wilderness is.

This is an important line in the wilderness act.
"has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; "

This is another one.
"there shall be no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any such area."
Ride anywhere you like as far as I'm concerned just not in the wilderness.


----------



## glenzx (Dec 19, 2003)

Thrice said:


> This is an important line in the wilderness act.
> "has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; "


That's the idea and intent of the original act



Thrice said:


> "there shall be no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of _*mechanical transport*_, and no structure or installation within any such area."


This is the mangled after-thought that doomed cyclists - as later noted & refined in some more language in 1984 (as noted below by Lidarman).

For me, the most relevant language in the wilderness act language pertains to *human-powered*. Skis, snowshoes, bicycles and so on ought to be allowed (some are, obviously). Mule trains or packs of horses and hunters and so on laden with all the latest and greatest "outdoor gear" that the pack animals can haul, while in the historic spirit of the wilderness act and some silly wild-west notion, seem very out of place - especially considering the tremendous trail destruction I've seen - in and out of wilderness areas.

Anyhow - thanks for all the great insight from the folks who've kept this sort of civil - especially Krein.


----------



## lidarman (Jan 12, 2004)

Thrice said:


> Mechanization has no place in wilderness.


This is really besides the point since safety is the real reason in the G.C. but..."mechanized" is a grey area that was intepreted incorrectly and not originally the intent of the wilderness act. XC skiis are mechanized but allowed in wilderness.

From IMBA website:

But why did bicycles ever become embroiled in the Wilderness debate? Note that bicycling is not mentioned in the Wilderness Act. The key provision often debated is in Section 4(b), which prohibits in Wilderness all motorized travel and equipment and allows "no other form of mechanical transport." 
What does the term "mechanical transport" mean? In 1965, shortly after the Congressional action, the Forest Service wrote formal regulations to implement the Wilderness Act and defined "mechanical transport" to mean a cart, sled or other wheeled vehicle that is "powered by a non-living power source." As of the year 2005, that definition is still law. However, nineteen years after the passage of the Wilderness Act, during the early days of mountain bicycling, the agency added a regulation that prohibits "Possessing or using a hang glider or bicycle." That 1984 action was one of the first to ban bicycling on public lands and by eliminating riding on approximately 25 million acres, it was also certainly the largest. 
Unfortunately, most Americans are not aware that bicycles are banned from Wilderness. This can create the impression that bicycles cause more harm to the environment than do hikers or horses. In fact, science has shown that bicycles generally cause about the same amount of damage as hikers and less damage than horses. IMBA has summarized the findings of this research, available at: imba.com/resources/science/impact_summary.html.


----------



## dir-T (Jan 20, 2004)

Thrice said:


> Wilderness areas are not like other areas. They are there to be primitive, *bikes are not primitive*.


Neither is Phantom Ranch or the swimming pool that used to be there. If they're dis-allowing bikes based on the primitive argument they should remove the ranch as well.


----------



## lidarman (Jan 12, 2004)

dir-T said:


> Neither is Phantom Ranch or the swimming pool that used to be there. If they're dis-allowing bikes based on the primitive argument they should remove the ranch as well.


Can someone even verify is the Grand Canyon is "wilderness" I know it's a national park within Kaibab National forest, but I don't think there is wilderness area within it. Park rules apply here.











That said, I have hiked to Havasupai but does anyone know if you can ride down to their city in the canyon?


----------



## cazloco (Apr 6, 2005)

where should we draw the line, before or after motorcycle access? seems to me if some mtbers think they have a right to national parks well then who doesn't? 

caz


----------



## Tracerboy (Oct 13, 2002)

Thrice said:


> Wilderness areas are not like other areas. They are there to be primitive, bikes are not primitive. A bike is a mechanized device. Mechanization has no place in wilderness.
> 
> Mtbiking is not wrong bringing mechanization into the wilderness is.


Your _opinion_. I disagree. Do you have any reasoning to back up your dogmas, apart from protecting your own interests as a hiker?


----------



## glenzx (Dec 19, 2003)

cazloco said:


> where should we draw the line, before or after motorcycle access? seems to me if some mtbers think they have a right to national parks well then who doesn't?
> 
> caz


human powered / self propelled is all that need be said.


----------



## Tracerboy (Oct 13, 2002)

cazloco said:


> where should we draw the line, before or after motorcycle access? seems to me if some mtbers think they have a right to national parks well then who doesn't?
> 
> caz


That is not a question I need to ask myself. I am not in a position to decide, I can only decide for myself, and I want to ride in the canyon. Period. I don't have a right to do it, I grab the right and take control. My interests against your interests. There is no such thing as a rightful line-drawing here.

There will be motorcycles in the canyon if enough ppl support it.


----------



## rockman (Jun 18, 2004)

Lidarman, the Grand Canyon at this time is not officially designated Wildnerness but there is a Wilderness Proposal on the table. This is especially a big deal for the commerical river running industry because of the possible elimination of motorized rafting. The Kaibab/Bright Angel trails are part of the "cross-canyon corridor" which is considered a developed area and was excluded from the wilderness proposal. The decision to ban bikes is at the Superintendent's discretion, otherwise known as Superintendent's Compendium in NPS speak.

For those that prefer advocacy rather than the TommyTiger-it's-all-about-me approach, the Backcountry Management process for GCNP is getting reviewed in 6 or 8 months and current uses that are prohibited in the park will come up for consideration.


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

rockman said:


> Lidarman, the Grand Canyon at this time is not officially designated Wildnerness but there is a Wilderness Proposal on the table. This is especially a big deal for the commerical river running industry because of the possible elimination of motorized rafting.


does that mean they'd get rid of the helicopters too?:thumbsup:


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

ridingthespine.com said:


> Wanted to clarify that our actions were not intended to be a gesture of civil disobedience or guerrilla activism.


Oh really? You could have fooled me...


ridingthespine.com said:


> With any kind of advocacy there are many different approaches. Whether it is civil rights or bike trails, the powers that be are more inclined to listen to the legitimate groups when there is direct action.





ridingthespine.com said:


> Maybe you ride through a wilderness area unknowingly, post pictures of the beautiful area on your blog (obviously ridingspine situation is different, but bear with me) then a couple days later an undercover federal agent stops you and arrests you because somebody been checking out your blog and notices where you were riding. All of a sudden you're in a federal court and do not get the option of a jury trial because your offense is just a small misdemeanor, but you are still looking at possible penalties of up to 6 months and jail, 5000 in fines, and 5 years probation. Not only is the United States of America against you, but then so are hundreds of cyclists bored out of their minds at work typing away at their keyboards because, of course, that would never happen to them. Is this something we really want to encourage?


You are just being silly now. I doubt there are very few riders who_ unknowingly_ enter wilderness areas. There are wilderness area poachers I have no doubt, but unknowingly?


----------



## Thrice (Feb 9, 2007)

TommyTiger said:


> Your _opinion_. I disagree. Do you have any reasoning to back up your dogmas, apart from protecting your own interests as a hiker?


No it's not an opinion it's part of the wilderness act. In fact it's the first line.
http://www.wilderness.net/NWPS/documents/publiclaws/88-577.pdf

Now lets define machine
ma·chine 
-noun
1.	an apparatus consisting of interrelated parts with separate functions, used in the performance of some kind of work: a sewing machine.
2.	a mechanical apparatus or contrivance; mechanism.
3.	Mechanics.
a device that transmits or modifies force or motion.
4.	Older Use.
a.	an automobile or airplane.
b.	a typewriter.
5.	*a bicycle* or motorcycle.
6.	a vending machine: a cigarette machine.
7.	any complex agency or operating system: the machine of government.
8.	an organized group of persons that conducts or controls the activities of a political party or organization: He heads the Democratic machine in our city.
9.	a person or thing that acts in a mechanical or automatic manner: Routine work had turned her into a machine.
10.	any of various contrivances, esp. those formerly used in theater, for producing stage effects
Dictionary.com
However my Argument was about designated wilderness. I have only spent time around the grand canyon as a child and assumed that it was designated wilderness due the talk in this thread. Now it has come to light that the grand canyon is not wilderness so my argument holds no sway.
There are few that defend designated wilderness these days it seems everyone wants a piece, from logggers, to miners, to developers, and even to sport enthusiasts, from hunters, motorcycle riders, and yes even mtbikers. None of these groups thinks they should be shut out from wilderness but if they were let in it would no longer be wilderness.
designated wilderness land accounts for 4.71% of the total land of the country; however, 54% of wilderness is in Alaska, and only 2.58% of the continental United States is designated as wilderness. YOU HAVE PLENTY OF OTHER AREAS TO RIDE!


----------



## Horus (Oct 21, 2006)

TommyTiger said:


> I don't have a right to do it, I grab the right and take control. My interests against your interests. There is no such thing as a rightful line-drawing here.


You continue to show only your ability to convince yourself that your own whims and personal desires are more important than anything in the universe. How quaint. Using your defense, it is just as easy to "justify" rape, homicide, suicide bombing, genocide, wanton environmental destruction, anything you want. There are clinical terms to describe this delusional psychosis. I'll bet AC's gradeschool approach "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." makes your nipples stand at attention. And what a lovely sentiment it is, if not totally bound to self-annhilation. See, unfortunately for you, once you start living your life like that, the people around you find that they can either do the same, or continue living by societies obtuse, stodgy, outdated dogmas. In either case, you're boned.

If they live like you, and hey, decide they want what you have, you become a corpse, and your sh!t is now thiers.

If they look five minutes down the road, and realize that methodology doesn't work once you apply your idealistic definition of freedom to everyone, they may keep on with those lame dogmas of rights and responsibilities. When they do this, they just never seem to appreciate someone else being all-powerful and beyond causality, and they reach out to pull you down. If they're civilized abou tit, they'll put you in jail, if not, give you a lesson in humility the old fashioned way.

Either way, yes, we would all love to live like we're above reproach. However, usually by the time we're oh, say, six or seven, we've figured out that lo, sadly, there ARE other people in the world, and our actions affect them as much as theirs affect us, and the only way to keep 6 billion people from slaughtering each other like pigs is to look beyond our egomaniacal desires and assume that one persons rights end where they infringe on someone elses in a notably negative way.

Now, the fact that your post count, post history, and signup date coincides entirely with this thread indicates that you are merely trolling, and what a fine diligent job of that you are doing. If you were actually as megalomaniacal and ignorant as your posts make you out to be, you wouldn't be worth a response. Nice job.


----------



## carnage (Nov 17, 2005)

Im amazed the guys didn't kill themselves. Back when I hiked it a year or so ago it was bumpy and eroded as hell, think stair steps for miles and miles. I admit I have always wanted to do that though .
Still, they did deserve a bop on the head for doin it.


----------



## lidarman (Jan 12, 2004)

Thrice said:


> No it's not an opinion it's part of the wilderness act. In fact it's the first line.
> http://www.wilderness.net/NWPS/documents/publiclaws/88-577.pdf
> 
> Now lets define machine
> ...


Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt .

So by definition 3, XC skiis are a machine. They currently are allowed in wilderness.

Definition 7: "Welcome my son, welcome to the machine" --pink floyd, 1976


----------



## rippling over canyons (Jun 11, 2004)

Thrice said:


> Wilderness areas are not like other areas. They are there to be primitive, bikes are not primitive. A bike is a mechanized device. Mechanization has no place in wilderness.
> I am an avid hiker and becoming an avid Mtbiker. Wilderness areas are for hiking and more importantly for me an escape from the modern world. There are plenty of areas to ride your bike that are not wilderness. Mtbiking is not wrong bringing mechanization into the wilderness is.


I respect your opinion, but I couldn't disagree with you more. Saddles and walking sticks could be considered "mechanized devices" given enough lobbying and public relations time and money. Therefore, should we also ban hiking and horseback riding from wilderness areas? I think not. I believe mountain bikes were originally banned from wilderness areas because we were the new recreation at the time, and it was just easier to exclude our legitimate use rather than accommodate an unknown recreation (mountain biking).


----------



## rippling over canyons (Jun 11, 2004)

Thrice said:


> designated wilderness land accounts for 4.71% of the total land of the country; however, 54% of wilderness is in Alaska, and only 2.58% of the continental United States is designated as wilderness. YOU HAVE PLENTY OF OTHER AREAS TO RIDE!


True, but I want to ride in nice places I choose to ride in. Not just the leftover tablescraps.
I'm not going to chop down all the trees, or leave behind cyanide tailings; I just want to ride my bike. This should not be a problem, just like hiking a trail should not be a problem.


----------



## Thrice (Feb 9, 2007)

lidarman said:


> Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt .
> 
> So by definition 3, XC skiis are a machine. They currently are allowed in wilderness.
> 
> Definition 7: "Welcome my son, welcome to the machine" --pink floyd, 1976


Ski's are primitive bikes are not.
Also You would be hard pressed to convince most people that a ski is a machine You are stretching the definition greatly.


----------



## Horus (Oct 21, 2006)

rippling over canyons said:


> I believe mountain bikes were originally banned from wilderness areas because we were the new recreation at the time, and it was just easier to exclude our legitimate use rather than accommodate an unknown recreation (mountain biking).


Actually, you're at least partially correct in this. In the early days especially, anywhere land managers were faced with the decision of whether or not to allow bike access, they were facing an unknown with MTB's, and most wisely took a cautionary approach, starting with a ban, while they waited to see what kind of wear and tear we'd put on someone elses land first. After time, some found that the erosion, conflicts, and litter from the increased traffic on other trails was acceptably low enough to open their own trails to us. Many didn't. I'm thankful for those that did, and respectful of those that didn't. It's their land, whether by purchase or commitee appointment, and their call.


----------



## lidarman (Jan 12, 2004)

Maybe we should diverge from this and talk about the proposal last year to sell off forest land deemed to fund rural schools, which was shot down. But in this years budget, snuck back into a new Bush plan that will eliminate many exisiting trail systems on those parcels.

The original plan: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0210-04.htm

well it's back for 2008

http://www.fs.fed.us/land/staff/rural_schools.shtml

Those tricky people.


----------



## lidarman (Jan 12, 2004)

Thrice said:


> Ski's are primitive bikes are not.
> Also You would be hard pressed to convince most people that a ski is a machine You are stretching the definition greatly.


LMAO...you, my friend are the one who got anal and posted the dictionary...to apparently support your views on wilderness, which really doesn't apply here, as you already admitted yourself!

Your backtracking is hilarious!


----------



## Thrice (Feb 9, 2007)

rippling over canyons said:


> I respect your opinion, but I couldn't disagree with you more. Saddles and walking sticks could be considered "mechanized devices" given enough lobbying and public relations time and money. Therefore, should we also ban hiking and horseback riding from wilderness areas? I think not. I believe mountain bikes were originally banned from wilderness areas because we were the new recreation at the time, and it was just easier to exclude our legitimate use rather than accommodate an unknown recreation (mountain biking).


A walking stick is not a machine neither is a saddle. See definition. 
Mtbiking was banned because it's a modern recreation you hit the nail on the head. Modern recreations have no place in pristine primeval wilderness. The speed involved alone IMHO is enough to keep them out.


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

and mountain bikes weren't even invented at the time of the original wilderness bill!!


----------



## Thrice (Feb 9, 2007)

rippling over canyons said:


> True, but I want to ride in nice places I choose to ride in. Not just the leftover tablescraps.
> I'm not going to chop down all the trees, or leave behind cyanide tailings; I just want to ride my bike. This should not be a problem, just like hiking a trail should not be a problem.


Thats great get your people together and lobby to have the government set aside land for mtbiking. Wilderness land was not intended for it, it was set aside for preservation.
Preservation is something the majority of MTbikers do not seemed to be concerned with.


----------



## Horus (Oct 21, 2006)

Thrice said:


> Preservation is something the majority of MTbikers do not seemed to be concerned with.


Or even familiar with the concept of...


----------



## salimoneus (Oct 12, 2004)

oh please, you people on your conservationalist high horses. does anyone honestly believe that a few people on bicycles are the biggest threat to preserving nature? this planet is going to hell in a handbasket regardless, better start getting used to that concept


----------



## Horus (Oct 21, 2006)

salimoneus said:


> oh please, you people on your conservationalist high horses. does anyone honestly believe that a few people on bicycles are the biggest threat to preserving nature? this planet is going to hell in a handbasket regardless, better start getting used to that concept


You're an idiot.

No, that wasn't nice. I'm sorry. You're not dumb. You just lack the appropriate knowledge and perspective. Considering that you're a grown adult, and you've obviously made it this far without comprehending basic science, maybe we should start by a more visual illustration. I'll bring a backhoe, and tommy tiger over and tear up your yard. You will have nothing to say about it, because you are used to the fact that the planet is going to hell in a handbasket, so what does it matter, really... if you should try to rebuild it, Tommy will just bulldoze it under again. If you attempt to tell Tommy where he can and can't take his backhoe, you will find that you have nothing but an outdated dogma to defend, and you will simply have to step aside and let him wreck it further.

In the end, who cares right? We are above nature! We don't need it, and if it is of no use to us, then it has no business being.

If you don't value something and treat it with respect, you have no business utilizing it.


----------



## Sasquatch (Dec 23, 2003)

Thrice said:


> A walking stick is not a machine neither is a saddle. See definition.
> Mtbiking was banned because it's a modern recreation you hit the nail on the head. Modern recreations have no place in pristine primeval wilderness. The speed involved alone IMHO is enough to keep them out.


Why don't they ban the use of Ipods, radios, GPS units, high tech fabrics, stoves, and other common camping items?

Plenty of Wilderness areas being proposed nowadays are far from "pristine or primeval." Roads, power lines, air strips, clearcut scars and mining detritus all litter newer wilderness areas.

I am a strong supporter of Wilderness, and have spent many nights in true wilderness, designated and not. Where the term fits, apply it, and protect it with passion. Sometimes, when the main goal is to protect an area from resource extraction or development, the use of other forms of protection may be in order. Congress needs to be more creative than slapping down blanket wilderness designation.


----------



## Thrice (Feb 9, 2007)

salimoneus said:


> oh please, you people on your conservationalist high horses. does anyone honestly believe that a few people on bicycles are the biggest threat to preserving nature? this planet is going to hell in a handbasket regardless, better start getting used to that concept


I am not a* conservationist*, I am a National Park Ranger, Backcountry Climbing Ranger, Olympic National Park if you want my official title. The Park service has enough trouble already with budget cuts, under staffing , and the decrease of volunteer applicants in the last 5 years. The War has hit The Park Service especially hard (all that money has to come from somewhere).Since the war started I have seen my subdistrict shrink form 27 personnel to 7 total including volunteers. We barely have the man power to simply maintain the area and contact visitors as is.


----------



## rockman (Jun 18, 2004)

Horus said:


> You're an idiot.
> 
> No, that wasn't nice. I'm sorry. You're not dumb. You just lack the appropriate knowledge and perspective. Considering that you're a grown adult, and you've obviously made it this far without comprehending basic science, maybe we should start by a more visual illustration. I'll bring a backhoe, and tommy tiger over and tear up your yard. You will have nothing to say about it, because you are used to the fact that the planet is going to hell in a handbasket, so what does it matter, really... if you should try to rebuild it, Tommy will just bulldoze it under again. If you attempt to tell Tommy where he can and can't take his backhoe, you will find that you have nothing but an outdated dogma to defend, and you will simply have to step aside and let him wreck it further.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the visual. Good stuff.


----------



## ACree (Sep 8, 2004)

Thrice said:


> I am not a* conservationist*, I am a National Park Ranger, Backcountry Climbing Ranger, Olympic National Park if you want my official title. The Park service has enough trouble already with budget cuts, under staffing , and the decrease of volunteer applicants in the last 5 years. The War has hit The Park Service especially hard (all that money has to come from somewhere).Since the war started I have seen my subdistrict shrink form 27 personnel to 7 total including volunteers. We barely have the man power to simply maintain the area and contact visitors as is.


The last article I saw was lamenting the decrease in National Park visitors over the past decade or so, and projecting that decline to continue. Don't you think that if National Parks were receptive to more used, they might get more visitors, and subsequently, more support from the public? Volunteers usually step if something is important to them, sounds like national parks aren't resonating the way they used to.


----------



## ridingthespine.com (Feb 26, 2007)

Deleted


----------



## Sasquatch (Dec 23, 2003)

ACree said:


> The last article I saw was lamenting the decrease in National Park visitors over the past decade or so, and projecting that decline to continue. Don't you think that if National Parks were receptive to more used, they might get more visitors, and subsequently, more support from the public? Volunteers usually step if something is important to them, sounds like national parks aren't resonating the way they used to.


I don't think you can blame the overworked NPS staff for the shrinking visitor population. Blame gas prices, pop culture, sedentary lifestyles, video games & the internet, loss of connection with nature, busier lives, less vacations, etc.


----------



## ACree (Sep 8, 2004)

Sasquatch said:


> I don't think you can blame the overworked NPS staff for the shrinking visitor population. Blame gas prices, pop culture, sedentary lifestyles, video games & the internet, loss of connection with nature, busier lives, less vacations, etc.


In large part, I agree. However I don't think parks are being managed for the larger population, and I think they, and we, suffer for it.


----------



## Horus (Oct 21, 2006)

ridingthespine.com said:


> BICYCLING IS NOT A CRIME.
> Why should cyclists of all people be so inclined to agree with the powers that be that when somebody rides their bikes somewhere that they are criminals.


You're not very bright, are you?

No, no, that wasn't nice. I'm sorry. Rather, you lack the appropriate... I dunno, sense? "Bicycling is not a crime." Not most of the time it's not, but in your case, it obviously was. If you still haven't figured that out, let me try:

Shooting a gun is not a crime. Shooting a gun at someones unwilling head or property (or pretty much anything, really) IS a crime, unless you've been appointed by the greater good to do so. Riding a bicycle is not a crime, unless you do it on someones unwilling head, or property, or unless you've been duly appointed to do so. Riding a bicycle at a thing is a lot nicer of a thing to do than shooting a gun at a thing. However, the laws still apply, and common sense *should* tell you that whether on a bike or not, trespassing is trespassing, and it's not winning us any friends in high places.

Don't be dumb. If you were persued by police, served a court order, found guilty, prosecuted, and you're out washing dishes or something to pay off your fines, chances are very good that what you did was indeed a crime.

Now, the world is a big complicated place, but this is a pretty simple lesson. Figure it out.


----------



## ridingthespine.com (Feb 26, 2007)

Deleted


----------



## Horus (Oct 21, 2006)

ridingthespine.com said:


> Horus- Somebody posted a comment on our site that i thought you would like.
> 
> "My view, and that of scores others involved in trail advocacy, is that 99% on the environmental damage was committed by those who built the trails. After that, it's pretty much negligible in terms of further impacts."


Not that it has anything at all to do with the issue at hand, but that particularly idealistic view definitely rings true in some places. However, not all places, and I'd venture a guess that it's not even most places. Every year, we spend thousands of man hours on maintentance days to fix the collective damage to the local trails and parks. If we don't, we have what happened in the early 90's when we didn't, which was the trails eroding to a grey, rocky blight through the forest within a season, and we lose our trail for ten years. Denying that trail use has an impact on the trail or its ecosystem is ridiculously stupid. It's whether you give a sh!t or not is what is debatable.

If you had any sense at all, you would probably just stop talking at this point and cut your losses. Or hey, just keep on diggin that hole, I certainly wouldn't want to be the first person to... tell you what to do.


----------



## ridingthespine.com (Feb 26, 2007)

Deleted


----------



## Horus (Oct 21, 2006)

ridingthespine.com said:


> That's great logic Horus... I'm sure it would have worked real swell during times of slavery.
> If you were lynched by a bunch of police officers wearing white hoods, then you must have done something that was indeed a crime. Is that how it goes?


No. Not even close. Being a slave wasn't a crime. Trespassing is.

I can't believe you've been through all this and still lack the ability to comprehend what happened to you. I'll spell it out for you:

If it's illegal to do something, then doing it is a crime, whether or not you think what you're doing is just fine by your own standards. If you lack the appropriate sense to discern this for yourself, we have a set of laws as a backup, to guide you in the acceptable direction. See, it's really not your standards that anybody but you actually cares about, because, there are six billion people around, and you don't really stand out as having an opinion that stands out as being anything other than mere self-gratification. Sure, selfishness is all the rage, but it's got some severe shortcomings when applied on a large scale. It isn't sustainable. No, it's the opinion of everyone else who has an equal say that counts, which in this case, is the land manager, or in this case more specifically, the country as a whole, and all the people they elected, and all the ecologists, biologists, geologists, and other people who actually know a thing or two more than the average shmoe about how nature works and how important parts of it are for various reasons, and all the people they appointed to decision making roles, that doggedly wrote the rules that may or may not appeal to your personal, individual greedy little desires, but are agreed upon by all involved as being the best rules to achieve the goals of the parks, which are pretty decent and modest goals for parks to have. It's not a perfect system, but citing it's imperfections as justifications for running completely against them is foolish at best.


----------



## Natextr (Aug 8, 2005)

Thrice said:


> Ski's are primitive bikes are not.
> Also You would be hard pressed to convince most people that a ski is a machine You are stretching the definition greatly.


+1. You also forgot to mention that skis leave NO trace. Once the snow is gone, all evidence of their even being there is erased.

This topic really is a slippery slope. If they allow bikes, then the ATV guys say that they should come in too. Soon enough, our wilderness areas would look like a supercross track. I'd rather not ride in wilderness areas than have them opened to all comers.


----------



## TeleMang (May 22, 2006)

My take home message with just about everything in life: quit whining about things you don't like and do something to change them. Whining will get you nowhere (especially on a mountain bike forum). If you can't do anything about it, then why whine (it will do no good-- no one likes a pity party)? If you can do something about it, then why whine (go do something you lazy turd!)?

There are laws everyone thinks are unfair, but they are there whether you like it or not. If you think these laws are unjust you can either disobey them or lobby to change them-- the high road and low road if you will. If you disobey them, be prepared to face the consequences (which it sounds like our friends at riding the spine did with grace-- I am loving your blog by the way).


----------



## Sasquatch (Dec 23, 2003)

Natextr said:


> +1. You also forgot to mention that skis leave NO trace. Once the snow is gone, all evidence of their even being there is erased.
> 
> This topic really is a slippery slope. If they allow bikes, then the ATV guys say that they should come in too. Soon enough, our wilderness areas would look like a supercross track. I'd rather not ride in wilderness areas than have them opened to all comers.


Following your logic, why aren't snowmobiles allowed in wilderness? They "leave no trace" like skis, and if skis are allowed, the slippery slope logic should also allow snowmobiles since they both slide.

It's more complicated than logic. Bikes were banned out of fears for future problems, not because they aren't "traditional travel methods" or they are "mechanized"

Most wilderness areas I've visited would be miserable to bike in. Many steps, and obstacles, including lotsa downed trees. But, where there are nice smooth trails that are well built, I'm not sure what problems would arise from responsible use by respectful riders.

As it has been said before, any trail that allows horses or pack animals should consider allowing bikes.


----------



## glenzx (Dec 19, 2003)

Thrice said:


> .... The Park service has enough trouble already with budget cuts, under staffing , and the decrease of volunteer applicants in the last 5 years.


Ah! Good thing we'd not want to enlist a large segment of the active outdoor community to help, work with, and befriend as fellow outdoors enthusiasts, advocates, (possibly) new buddies!

:thumbsup:

This thread is a lot of fun - and all the fine folks who think cycling access begets motorized access ought to just drop that nonsense.

To mangle some of the stuff kicking around here, it'd be like saying that allowing XC ski access begets snowmobile access. (funny - lot's of great XC ski areas in the NF system are groomed by snowmobiles and other gas-powered machines...).

The quote about 95% of trail damage occurs when the trail is built is fantastic, and so true.

Lastly - by definition, isn't a gun a machine, or should I say a complicated assembly of inter-related parts that work together to perform a function? I'd say my P345 is as elegant and machine like as my Yeti...

It really is silly that cyclists are not allowed on a lot of trails that are in wilderness areas. It's also silly to state cyclists be allowed acces to everything - as there are areas that ought not to have ANY intrusion by man - on foot, horse, skis, hangglider, climbing gear, bike - or with a gun.


----------



## RobW (Jan 18, 2004)

Thrice said:


> I thought I would chime in here with the wilderness act. To give you an idea as to why no bikes are allowed in most park todays and as to why no bikes will be allowed in the future. Many parks have designated wilderness areas some parks are largely designated wilderness.
> It's these wilderness areas that bikes will never go. And now for some highlights of the wilderness act of 1964.
> 
> In order to assure that an increasing population, accompanied by expanding settlement and *growing mechanization*, does not occupy and modify all areas within the United States and its possessions, leaving no lands designated for preservation and protection in their natural condition, it is hereby declared to be the policy of the Congress to secure for the American people of present and future generations the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness. For this purpose there is hereby established a National Wilderness Preservation System to be composed of federally owned areas designated by Congress as "wilderness areas", and these shall be administered for the use and enjoyment of the American people in such manner as will leave them* unimpaired for future use as wilderness,* and so as to provide for the protection of these areas, the preservation of their wilderness character, and for the gathering and dissemination of information regarding their use and enjoyment as wilderness.
> ...


Exactly why I oppose any new wilderness designations (and write my congressman and senators to urge them to do the same).


----------



## KONA_in_SB (May 20, 2004)

Ah man i did it. I responsed to this post. Is anyone still reading this? Anyway the way i see, I support the riders who did it. I don't mean i'd give them money or help out in any way really, but if i saw them in the bar i'd buy them a beer and give them a pat on the back. 

So far the only arguemnt i see for why riding in the GC is a bad idea is the safety issue, narrow trails with other users could be bad. I have never bee in the canyon or on the North Rim but isn't the North Rim pretty isolated. Why can't bikers bike there. Or how about a permit system like with backpackers and river runners? Why not something like that? 


As for the whole wilderness thing I think bikes can and should be allowed to be ridden in the wilderness areas (of course with certian obviuos restrictions such as narrow and dangerous trails). The mechanized definition is bad. Telemarking (sp?) ski's could be considered mechanized but they are allowed and some kayaks that have a foot pedal rutter could also be considered mechanized. What's wrong with a definition like human powered travel? And biking wouldn't take away from the experience of other users (hikers) any more then another hiker would. 
Just my thoughts.


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

> Or how about a permit system like with backpackers and river runners? Why not something like that?


 Now you are talking. It's only an 11 year wait for a river permit, and that's if you've been on the list for 10 years already.....


----------



## RobW (Jan 18, 2004)

To sum it up, biking in one of the biggest erosion ditches in the world is illegal. Got it?


----------



## Tracerboy (Oct 13, 2002)

*Canyon riding and rape!!!!*



Horus said:


> You continue to show only your ability to convince yourself that your own whims and personal desires are more important than anything in the universe. How quaint. Using your defense, it is just as easy to "justify" rape, homicide, suicide bombing, genocide, wanton environmental destruction, anything you want.


I haven't justified anything. I am simply not talking about justice. You change my arguments a little, then you push the idea to an extreme generally considered bad, short-circuiting the argumentation. When did I say I wanted to be a rapist, murderer or suicide bomber? Do you have to go out raping someone, just because you don't advocate moral absolutism from a philosophical point of view?



Horus said:


> There are clinical terms to describe this delusional psychosis.


Nice. Thank you.



Horus said:


> I'll bet AC's gradeschool approach "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."


I hope you didn't place money on that bet.



Horus said:


> If they look five minutes down the road, and realize that methodology doesn't work once you apply your idealistic definition of freedom to everyone, they may keep on with those lame dogmas of rights and responsibilities.


I can't seem to make any sense of what you are writing. How did you get the impression that I have an idealistic definition of freedom that I apply to everyone? For a psychiatric talent like yourself, emphasizing classifications of mental disturbances and such, it is strange to be mis-interpreted like that. Freedom is a typical word that often conceals a lot of delusion. You did not hear me talking about freedom.



Horus said:


> When they do this, they just never seem to appreciate someone else being all-powerful and beyond causality, and they reach out to pull you down. If they're civilized abou tit, they'll put you in jail, if not, give you a lesson in humility the old fashioned way.


When who does what?



> ...the only way to keep 6 billion people from slaughtering each other like pigs is to look beyond our egomaniacal desires and assume that one persons rights end where they infringe on someone elses in a notably negative way.


I am pretty sure that people don't slaughter each other like pigs in general, even when fear of prosecution is low. I don't know the theory behind it, and I have no idea what you mean by "looking beyond our egomaniacal desires."



> Now, the fact that your post count, post history, and signup date coincides entirely with this thread indicates that you are merely trolling, and what a fine diligent job of that you are doing. If you were actually as megalomaniacal and ignorant as your posts make you out to be, you wouldn't be worth a response. Nice job.


Sherlock focking Holmes.. I like that argument. If you can't stick to facts, pretend that I have a hidden agenda to reduce the credibility. Toss in a few ad hominems, standard procedure. So common in every job with a little bit of elbows. Don't bother arguing clean when people in general are more prone to be reached when their feelings are properly manipulated. Doesn't matter if you know what megalomaniacal acutally means, as long as you can hit a home run. Textbook, way to go. :thumbsup:


----------



## Tracerboy (Oct 13, 2002)

*Too simple*



TeleMang said:


> Then you have no basis to complain when a rogue farmer cuts off your dingleberries for trespassing on his land. Afterall, right and wrong is just a matter of perspective-- rules/laws be damned! Whether you like his actions or not, you can't blame the guy for doing what he thought was right.


Course I can blame him. Humans are emotional beings. I don't care if that farmer has aggression issues due to some frontal lobe dysfunction. I don't care if he was right to cut my dingles off. I would still focking consider him an a$$hole. That is the only natural way to feel!! If you don't feel someone is an a$$hole when they cut your balls off, or make excuses on their behalf on psychological grounds, you are either severely victimized or sport a behavior not very supportive of reproducing yourself.



> If you don't compromise then don't expect others to either.


I do compromise. Even canyon riding is a compromise between risk and fun.


----------



## lucifer (Sep 27, 2004)

ofg3216 said:


> I met these guys at the race, they were pretty cool. I'm pretty sure they were volunteering at the race they were busted at. Nice use of tax dollars by the way, tracking down some criminals, making this country better. :madman:
> 
> I'm leaving nothern california because of the politics associated with biking here. Soon i expect i'll be a citizen of scotland (or sweeden, sorry the women look better there).
> 
> ...


Oddly enough I actually wrote a paper on this very subject for an environmental studies class in college. The conclusion I came to was that the average mountain biker was less destructive to trails than some hikers and all horses. So basically if horses or burros carrying 200lb tourists are allowed there then we should be too. the bulk of my supporting evidence was based on weights of the users and the size of the "footprint" that each leaves. Of course this assumes that you won't be riding off trail, skidding etc...:thumbsup:


----------



## KONA_in_SB (May 20, 2004)

formica said:


> Now you are talking. It's only an 11 year wait for a river permit, and that's if you've been on the list for 10 years already.....


Damn, that does suck, but at least it is a legal way to have access other than by walking Don't get me worng, I am not a strong supporting of a permit system, it was just a thought for those who think biking should be banned altogether. No easy solutions I guess.


----------



## ramajon (Mar 7, 2007)

*the voice of experience*

We did this ride more than a decade ago. We created quite a stir back then as the sedona5. I'd have to say that our mtn bike advocacy groups have failed us. How many miles of quality single track have been opened in National Parks to mtn bike over the last decade??? As far as I can remember, we pay taxes that represent a large part of the National Park's budget, but we are still treated as second class citizens. It is wrong to ride in closed areas that are closed for environmental reasons, but it should be considered an act of Patriatism to ride in areas that are closed for political reasons. Remember that segregation on the busses in the south only changed through individuals acting. Rather than choosing sides, perhaps we need to get together and start changing things rather than just sitting back and arguing over personal opinions.


----------



## mtbfool (Sep 1, 2005)

ramajon said:


> We did this ride more than a decade ago. We created quite a stir back then as the sedona5. I'd have to say that our mtn bike advocacy groups have failed us. How many miles of quality single track have been opened in National Parks to mtn bike over the last decade??? As far as I can remember, we pay taxes that represent a large part of the National Park's budget, but we are still treated as second class citizens. It is wrong to ride in closed areas that are closed for environmental reasons, but it should be considered an act of Patriatism to ride in areas that are closed for political reasons. Remember that segregation on the busses in the south only changed through individuals acting. Rather than choosing sides, perhaps we need to get together and start changing things rather than just sitting back and arguing over personal opinions.


To compare this issue to the Civil Rights movement is absolutely ridiculous. You need to study up on analogies.


----------



## glenzx (Dec 19, 2003)

*Bad Logic*



ramajon said:


> we pay taxes that represent a large part of the National Park's budget, but we are still treated as second class citizens.


I know with 1 whole post at this point, we may not hear back - but your argument here would be the same for motorized users, lumber companies, oil & gas companies, and so on. So - try again.

mtbfool pointed out the other absurdity above .


----------



## KONA_in_SB (May 20, 2004)

ramajon said:


> We did this ride more than a decade ago. We created quite a stir back then as the sedona5. I'd have to say that our mtn bike advocacy groups have failed us. How many miles of quality single track have been opened in National Parks to mtn bike over the last decade??? As far as I can remember, we pay taxes that represent a large part of the National Park's budget, but we are still treated as second class citizens. It is wrong to ride in closed areas that are closed for environmental reasons, but it should be considered an act of Patriatism to ride in areas that are closed for political reasons. Remember that segregation on the busses in the south only changed through individuals acting. Rather than choosing sides, perhaps we need to get together and start changing things rather than just sitting back and arguing over personal opinions.


Actually i was thiking the same thing. Using the Civivl Right analogy might offend some people though. I think the Civil Right movement was more important and effects more people than than this issue but the spirit is the same and the saem techniques could be used to bring able chance. Mountain bikers are a minority that are being denied rigths that others have. To some of us MTB defines who we are, its not just a hobby. It may sound shallow to others but its true. Sitting back and waiting for something to happen isn't working so some people made a decsicion to take action. They understood the risk when they did it but they did it anyways. They didn't hurt anyone in the process and their actions brought the issue to the attention of (at least) the mountaining public and now we are having an 7 page and counting dialogue. I would have thoguht that the MTB community would support this idea but appearently not. I guess there is a lot more work to do if things are going to change. If mountian biker themselves can't get behind this what is the chance we can change the public opnion at large?

I actually aviod going to National Parks when I go on road trips simply because i can't ride my bike and explore the park. I camped outside of Zion last fall and roade every day. Although I was within a few miles of the park I never set foot in it because all i would be able to ride was the paved road. I know that was my chioce and i could have walked around the park, but why should I have to make that choice in the first place? Why do they discriminate against people who want to ride their bikes and experience a beautiful place?


----------



## KONA_in_SB (May 20, 2004)

glenzx said:


> I know with 1 whole post at this point, we may not hear back - but your argument here would be the same for motorized users, lumber companies, oil & gas companies, and so on. So - try again.
> 
> mtbfool pointed out the other absurdity above .


If you can't draw the distinction between a person riding a bike and person on a motrized vehicle or a person cutting down trees I don't know what to say. That distinction is pretty clear to most of us (i think). For one there is the pollution issue natural experience issue as outlined in the Wilderness Act (whihch is VERY clear on this issue). Motorized vehilces cause both air and sound pollution, not to mention accelerated trail damage. As for logging and natural gas companies, you are way out on limb here, remvong resources from a place for monetary gains versus riuding a bike to expereince the natural baeuty of the place, you actually believe these are similar? I ride many trails and that oil companies can't drill on and it has never been an issue I have heard of.. So maybe you should 'try again'.


----------



## mtbfool (Sep 1, 2005)

KONA_in_SB said:


> Actually i was thiking the same thing. Using the Civivl Right analogy might offend some people though. I think the Civil Right movement was more important and effects more people than than this issue but the spirit is the same and the saem techniques could be used to bring able chance. Mountain bikers are a minority that are being denied rigths that others have.


I suggest you go back and study the Civil Rights Movement a little more thoroughly. The social climate at the time encouraged civil disobedience as an appropriate form of protest. That social climate we have with trail access for mountain biking doesn't even come close to the importance and awareness of the Civil Rights Movement. Quite frankly, we don't have the sympathizers those people had. Their civil disobedience made people think, "good for them. It's time for change, and we need it." Civil disobedience by mountain bikers makes everyone but mountain bikers think, "what is wrong with those people."



> They understood the risk when they did it but they did it anyways. They didn't hurt anyone in the process and their actions brought the issue to the attention of (at least) the mountaining public and now we are having an 7 page and counting dialogue.


See above. Mountain bikers are having a 7 page discussion. Everyone else couldn't care less. If they do care, it's not the way we want them to care.



> I actually aviod going to National Parks when I go on road trips simply because i can't ride my bike and explore the park. I camped outside of Zion last fall and roade every day. Although I was within a few miles of the park I never set foot in it because all i would be able to ride was the paved road. I know that was my chioce and i could have walked around the park, but why should I have to make that choice in the first place? Why do they discriminate against people who want to ride their bikes and experience a beautiful place?


There are lots of things to do in National Parks besides ride your mountain bike. They are beautiful places.


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

KONA_in_SB said:


> Damn, that does suck, but at least it is a legal way to have access other than by walking Don't get me worng, I am not a strong supporting of a permit system, it was just a thought for those who think biking should be banned altogether. No easy solutions I guess.


Don't get me going on the outfitter quotas vs the private party quotas. It's the classic case of he who can pay the most gets to go soonest.


----------



## MtbRN (Jun 8, 2006)

I'm mountain biker. I love singletrack. And I think it is perfectly ok for there to be places that I can't ride my bike. Just like I think it is perfectly ok for there to be places I can't drive my car. If I really want to go and see those places, I'll put on my hiking boots and walk to them. No one is keeping you out of those places, they just regulate how you get there. I'm sure most of us wouldn't want to see trails paved just so drivers could enjoy them in the way _they_ prefer?

Try hiking. You might even enjoy it. Personally, I never envision myself riding every trail that is open to me on National Forest land before I die. Why do I NEED to be able to ride in the National Parks, or in wilderness areas? Why does anyone need to?

By the way, Horus, nice job! You said most of what I was thinking while reading through this thread, only better than I could. The fact that TommyT couldn't/wouldn't understand it doesn't mean no one else could. And I even know what "megalomaniac" means. Without looking it up in a dictionary. Go figure.


----------



## NJMX835 (Oct 17, 2006)

9.8m/s/s said:


> The snowbaording "outsider" mystique never existed. It was invented to bring young people back to the mountains as skiing was dying by that time. You got sold a bunch of marketing hype, hope you at least got a free Mountain Dew. Extreme!!!1


I was around for all that, I remember how we were treated by skiers and how only some mountains grudging let us ride there.

Now snowboarders are the majority and the mountains cater to us.

Oh, and I'll ride anywhere i damn well feel like it.

When did everyone fall so in love with being under the thumb of the government and appeasing people who really don't like you?

We're not here for a long time, we're here for a good time.

I plan to have a good time, you can call that selfish and that's fine by me :thumbsup:


----------



## glenzx (Dec 19, 2003)

KONA_in_SB said:


> So maybe you should 'try again'.


Please read my previous posts in this very thread regarding the issue you think you are clarifying for me . My ability to draw distictions, and posit a clear point of view ought to be readily apparent - especially about the motorized vs. non-motorized issue.

I was responding to the (faulty) logic of _[gonna paraphrase here, hang in there]:

_*"We're (all) entitled, because we (all) pay". *

Simply - with no concern of context (in this case, any specific user group) - a conclusion that can be drawn from the quoted statement. So, you get to try again - this time know where I'm coming from before assuming or making erroneous conclusions based on erroneous assumptions.

The easiest thing to do, without sifting through the whole thread - is with a fresh perspective and an open mind - reread the post you are responding to; first the quoted section, then my 'response'.


----------



## glenzx (Dec 19, 2003)

NJMX835 said:


> Oh, and I'll ride anywhere i damn well feel like it.


Really??? Taos, Alta, or Mad River?

Uh huh...


----------



## Pilot (Mar 1, 2004)

glenzx said:


> Please read my previous posts in this very thread regarding the issue you think you are clarifying for me . My ability to draw distictions, and posit a clear point of view ought to be readily apparent - especially about the motorized vs. non-motorized issue.
> 
> I was responding to the (faulty) logic of _[gonna paraphrase here, hang in there]:
> 
> ...


Maybe only having one post in here isn't such a bad idea, because it sounds to me like you are getting aggravated, and maybe you are the one not getting what the poster was trying to say. It is clear from your past posts that you dislike it when the issue of allowing bikes in wilderness is conflated into allowing motorized access. Yet, you are doing the same thing by saying that the civil rights analogy could be conflated into allowing access to motorized rec., resource extraction, etc.

The original poster that made an analogy between the civil rights movement and this issue was very clear that he was concerned about environmental considerations. The poster acknowledged that evironmental concerns might outweigh a persons 'right' to ride a bike in certain areas, much less motorized access and resource extraction. But he was making a very specific point. The question was, why are we condemning those who break these unfounded bike restrictions, when a decade of MTB advocacy has opened precious few trails.

I am not sure I agree with this line of reasoning, but maybe we should address it, rather than putting words in the mouth of the original poster or acting like it's a stupid question because you don't like the analogy.


----------



## KONA_in_SB (May 20, 2004)

If you really want me to know where you are coming from write book. I probably wouldn't read it but that would be a start. Maybe we could grab a beer together and then we both could both understand where each other are coming from. I can't possibly began to understand where you are coming from with a few posts on an MTB forum but I will try and I will try to better clarify my point of view. Keep in mind it will be incomplete and probably inconsistent, as with yours and everyone elses.

I never said that we are all entitled to use the park in anyway we see fit simply because we pay taxes (perhaps I should have read Ramajon's post more carefully maybe that is waht he is argueing, but a doubt it). But when a piece of public land is set aside for a purpose and MTB lies within that purpose then, yes we should be treated as every other user group who pays for that park. This is a thread about mountian biking in national parks, that is the context of the arguement used here. You are the one talking about motorcycles, and oil and logging companies. These things are clearly not part of the mission of a national park system and are not what is being debated here. 
Granted i did not go through and read this whole post again so I don't know the oroiginal context of your succient statement so maybe you covered this. And if you want people to be more open minded try not dimissing their arguements with satements like 'so - try again'. It comes across as a little arrogant on the internet and doesn't do much to further the discussion.



glenzx said:


> Please read my previous posts in this very thread regarding the issue you think you are clarifying for me . My ability to draw distictions, and posit a clear point of view ought to be readily apparent - especially about the motorized vs. non-motorized issue.
> 
> I was responding to the (faulty) logic of _[gonna paraphrase here, hang in there]:
> 
> ...


----------



## glenzx (Dec 19, 2003)

KONA_in_SB said:


> Maybe we could grab a beer together and then we both could both understand where each other are coming from.


Amen! Now we're talkin'. The whole discussion would be far more civil - and likely more clear, if we'd all be discussing it face-to-face. It's a whopper to try and cover online!



KONA_in_SB said:


> 'so - try again'. It comes across as a little arrogant on the internet and doesn't do much to further the discussion.


True - I was in a crappy mood, and didn't mean it to come off like such an ass-hat! It's the result of too many hit-and-run posts where someone throws a nugget out there only never to be heard from again - after a number of pertinent responses have been posted & discussed.

In fact - is it beer-thirty now? I think so!


----------



## KONA_in_SB (May 20, 2004)

glenzx said:


> Amen! Now we're talkin'. The whole discussion would be far more civil - and likely more clear, if we'd all be discussing it face-to-face. It's a whopper to try and cover online!
> 
> True - I was in a crappy mood, and didn't mean it to come off like such an ass-hat! It's the result of too many hit-and-run posts where someone throws a nugget out there only never to be heard from again - after a number of pertinent responses have been posted & discussed.
> 
> In fact - is it beer-thirty now? I think so!


Good on ya man, beer can truelly solve all these problems. I have a few hours to go though.


----------



## rockman (Jun 18, 2004)

formica said:


> Don't get me going on the outfitter quotas vs the private party quotas. It's the classic case of he who can pay the most gets to go soonest.


The park has gone to a lottery system (finally) so once your entered you stand a much better chance of going on a private river trip....next month even.


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

rockman said:


> The park has gone to a lottery system (finally) so once your entered you stand a much better chance of going on a private river trip....next month even.


Right. There are only a few slots for the lottery as there is a backlog of permit holders, probably numbering into thousands, that take priority over a lottery slot. Chances may improve for a lottery slot as the backlog of folks that have already been on the list clears out, but I wouldn't hold my breath. You'd have to be mega-millions kind of lucky to get one of those slots.

Outfitters still have about 90% of the spring and summer launch dates. Sure, NPS has added winter launch dates to the permit system, but who wants to do that?

We've been on the list since the early 90's. What they instituted for people like us that have been on the list for 8-10 years is that we had the option of combining permits with other folks who have been on the list for about that long, to fill up the permit so to speak. Three of us who have been on the list for years combined our families onto one permit and our launch date is 2011. This is for a 16 person permit. This is the park service's idea of how to clear out the backlog,

Like, I said, if you want to get on a boat anytime soon on the canyon, you can shell out the bucks for an outfitter.


----------



## rockman (Jun 18, 2004)

formica said:


> Right. There are only a few slots for the lottery as there is a backlog of permit holders, probably numbering into thousands, that take priority over a lottery slot. Chances may improve for a lottery slot as the backlog of folks that have already been on the list clears out, but I wouldn't hold my breath. You'd have to be mega-millions kind of lucky to get one of those slots.
> 
> Outfitters still have about 90% of the spring and summer launch dates. Sure, NPS has added winter launch dates to the permit system, but who wants to do that?
> 
> ...


If your flexible you could probably pick up a cancellation this year. I think the NPS has instituted a far better system than the waiting list. I'm not sure what would be better, except cutting into the commercial outfitter user days. There really shouldn't be more people down there than there is already. IMO. The decrease in campsites and carrying capacity is rather alarming. Sorry for the thread drift.


----------



## ACree (Sep 8, 2004)

Sasquatch said:


> As it has been said before, any trail that allows horses or pack animals should consider allowing bikes.


Well said. I'd add that trail access should be considered on a trail by trail basis, using fair and objective standards and reasoning, and users shouldn't be excluded because of arbitrary lines on a map.


----------



## fr-rider (May 19, 2004)

"U.S. Magistrate Judge Mark E. Aspey sentenced them to 48 hours in jail, a $500 penalty to be paid to a search and rescue group and five years probation. They are banned from national parks during their probation." -- adn.com


A bit excessive...drunken drivers who cause accidents get less than this...:madman: :madman:


----------



## lidarman (Jan 12, 2004)

I am so glad I was not *busted* riding the grand canyon two weeks ago, giving I was there with my bike then!...whew, lucky me.

The time in jail is one thing, but the chatter on mtbr is another.


----------



## mtbfool (Sep 1, 2005)

fr-rider said:


> "U.S. Magistrate Judge Mark E. Aspey sentenced them to 48 hours in jail, a $500 penalty to be paid to a search and rescue group and five years probation. They are banned from national parks during their probation." -- adn.com
> 
> A bit excessive...drunken drivers who cause accidents get less than this...:madman: :madman:


If you get less than that in New Mexico for drinking and driving, it doesn't make this punishment inappropriate. It makes New Mexico's drinking and driving penalties insufficient.


----------



## glenzx (Dec 19, 2003)

*OT but worth it*



mtbfool said:


> It makes New Mexico's drinking and driving penalties insufficient.


One cannot overstate the absurdity of the lack of Drinking and Driving penalties here. NM seems to have an odd love affair with getting snockered and heading up/down on I-25 and mowing down whole families in one shot. Every single D+D accident / story here is followed with "The suspect had 3,4,5,6 (as many as 14!!!) priors..."

Sickening.

Perhaps it's some sort of tradition, or state past time. It's the one thing that makes me want to vomit here. The sort of macho _I-can-drive-my-crappy-open-pipe-pickup-truck-even-though-I'm-hammered_ mentality is the lamest display of idiot "bravdo" or something. It truly is embarrasing.


----------



## mtbfool (Sep 1, 2005)

glenzx said:


> Perhaps it's some sort of tradition, or state past time. It's the one thing that makes me want to vomit here. The sort of macho _I-can-drive-my-crappy-open-pipe-pickup-truck-even-though-I'm-hammered_ mentality is the lamest display of idiot "bravdo" or something. It truly is embarrasing.


Stop. You are making me homesick.


----------



## rockman (Jun 18, 2004)

glenzx said:


> One cannot overstate the absurdity of the lack of Drinking and Driving penalties here. NM seems to have an odd love affair with getting snockered and heading up/down on I-25 and mowing down whole families in one shot. Every single D+D accident / story here is followed with "The suspect had 3,4,5,6 (as many as 14!!!) priors..."
> 
> Sickening.
> 
> Perhaps it's some sort of tradition, or state past time. It's the one thing that makes me want to vomit here. The sort of macho _I-can-drive-my-crappy-open-pipe-pickup-truck-even-though-I'm-hammered_ mentality is the lamest display of idiot "bravdo" or something. It truly is embarrasing.


I understand your frustration but most problem drinkers don't start the day thinking about how macho it would be to get hammered and careen down the highway. Sure, they may be thinking about where and when they're going to get a drink but not harming anyone. Once started, rational thinking goes out the window. Unless you or someone you know is an alcoholic I would't expect you to fully understand. As you allude to, much of the problem rests with state law. I'm not sure about New Mexico but in Flagstaff getting a pint of vodka is as easy as pulling in and filling up the car with gas. You can buy it from a window. Flagstaff is 3rd or 4th in the nation in DUI arrests. It's too easy and there are very few state funded facilities for problem drinkers to turn to if you can't afford counseling, etc. You think you are embarassed, well so are most alcohol-dependent people. They need help not your scorn. That's not gonna change anything.

Back to the thread, it is ludicrous that the Spine guys are banned from National Parks for 5 years.


----------



## BillyBob (Jan 29, 2004)

Seeing as how ridingthespine.com has *deleted *all of his posts on the subject, I believe that officially disqualifies his actions from being compared to the civil rights movement, or any other cause where people actually stood up for what they believed, in the face of opposition.

If there's a real cause to be won here, surely a few days in jail, a slap on the wrist, and some internet criticism won't halt the good fight!


----------



## HarryCallahan (Nov 2, 2004)

rockman said:


> Back to the thread, it is ludicrous that the Spine guys are banned from National Parks for 5 years.


No, it is not. If you read their blog and saw their posts here before they deleted them, they basically decided that the rules didn't apply to them, as they interferred with their goals. They then posted that same rational as a justification for trespassing or ignoring any other laws as they saw fit in pursuit of their trip.


----------



## shredder111 (Jul 8, 2005)

That is the most ******* stupid crap I have heard in my life. They think the canyon will fall because of 3 mountain bikers? Stupid environmentalist wackos. I think being an environmentalist is good, but to a certain point. This is just rediculous. 


Shredder111=)


----------



## link7881 (May 27, 2009)

formica said:


> Cyclists Fined for Trek
> 
> Busted for riding the trails in the canyon instead of going around. This really makes me mad, it's a fricking slap in the face for all those folks who are working really hard on bike advocacy, and especially the issue of getting even basic mtb access to national parks. Frankly I am glad the judge threw the book at them. What makes them so special?


New to the forum and was looking for the introduction thread but can't find it. Anyway, I totally agree with you moderator. There are many trails in National Parks where we could possibly access some day.


----------



## primoz (Jun 7, 2006)

This thing is one of most idiotic things I have read. Yes let's accuse mtb riders for everything. Last time I have read we (actually you guys on other side of ocean) are responsible for premature snow melting, tomorrow we will be accused we caused global warming, and in between we destroyed Grand Canyon. For god sake, wouldn't it be better to look for some issues elsewhere?
On their (changed) web it states:


> In 2004, there were 1,336,505 vehicles counted at the South Rim alone.


Am I the onlyone who thinks that 1.3 million of cars make "a bit" more damage then if every single biker on World would come to GC and ride through it? Next to that... I was in GC few years back, went down and somehow I have feeling there wouldn't be all that much of people who would ride through it, even if it would be allowed. Not to mention how much damage mules and/or helicopters make daily, carrying fat turists up and down. 
But yes, let's start protecting nature with idiotic things like this. MTB riders are afterall worse threat for nature. For now, I'm really glad I'm leaving on European side of ocean... at least we don't have such idiotic limitations... yet.


----------



## Bends But Doesn't Break (Jun 23, 2008)

primoz said:


> For now, I'm really glad I'm leaving on European side of ocean... at least we don't have such idiotic limitations... yet.


The most trash-laden, worn down, and even graffiti-marred "wilderness" trails I have ever been on have been all in Europe.


----------



## sxotty (Nov 4, 2005)

formica said:


> Oh really? You could have fooled me...
> 
> You are just being silly now. I doubt there are very few riders who_ unknowingly_ enter wilderness areas. There are wilderness area poachers I have no doubt, but unknowingly?


I have done that (accidentally) certainly in the past, though I did not take photos and post about it and stuff. I was a kid at the time and there were no signs posted on the trail I used. Wilderness areas are completely stupid now days. Many have double track roads made with bulldozers in them, but a bike is just too terrible. The first wilderness areas actually made sense, but as they try to get more and more areas protected the designation loses value, and many of the new areas are not truly wilderness to begin with. Nor is there any rational reason to say that non-motorized vehicles could not be used in wilderness areas.

A glider is not a cesna, a mtb is not a motorcycle. Rationality is just too much to ask for though I suppose.

edit: And I do not mind areas being excluded from MTB use, it is fine, I do mind the wilderness area designation being used on areas that are not wilderness as it devalues the designation and ultimately the entire purpose of the act IMO. My response is part of that, when you walk into a wilderness area and walk for miles on a bulldozed road it just makes you shake your head that bikes are forbidden.


----------



## jcr23 (Oct 6, 2005)

Since this is back...



rockman said:


> National Parks in the U.S. were in part established to preserve wild and scenic areas so that the taxpayers could go enjoy a quality "wilderness" experience. Mountain bikes are defined as mechanized equipment and with few exceptions are not allowed on trails in National Parks.


This is the point. It's the way the parks are managed for a certain type of experience, not necessarily the damage done, the safety, the parks being anti-bike, etc. Now, like sxotty brings up, whether the management is done correctly or even correct to begin with is another discussion entirely.


----------



## bigpedaler (Jan 29, 2007)

Oh, the cliches that abound here....

How does a mule cause less erosion than a bike? Irrelevant.
Some national parks/wilderness are closed to mtb for political reasons. Who are you to decide that? Your opinion is not fact.
It's illegal. So what? That it's illegal IS the point. Some folks don't catch the basics of Civics 101; this is a society of laws, for better or worse, because we need a set of rules and laws to define what EVERYBODY can & can't do so we can all get along. Your rights stop when they limit mine, and vice versa. None of us can decide what laws to follow and to break, without bearing at least the chance of consequences. People speed in their cars all the time, get pulled over, and while the cop is writing the ticket, holler, "Why you stopping me instead of busting drug dealers?" BECAUSE YOU BROKE THE LAW, STUPID.

You don't have to agree with the limits put on you by the gov't. But you do have to abide by them. Or you can move. I hear Scotland has some new laws that some folks like.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Holy dead discussion resurrection, batman.


----------



## osmarandsara (Jun 26, 2006)

Well I hope someday they do allow mountain biking in the canyon...... a sweet route would be hermit's rest down the hermit trail. You would then connect with the Tonto trail, which would be an awesome sweeping single-track ride until you connect again with the Bright Angel trail. At that point you would ride/HAb back to the lodge and enjoy some cold ones......I've hiked this route over the course o 4 days, on a bike you could probably do it in 2 days.....


----------



## HotBlack (Feb 9, 2008)

pshaw, this thread is so last year...

or older.


----------



## 006_007 (Jan 12, 2004)

NateHawk said:


> Holy dead discussion resurrection, batman.


Ya, GREAT effort for a first post


----------



## Jcurl (May 7, 2009)

You could just, you know...follow the law, there are plenty of places to have fun and ride.


----------



## chickenlegs (Feb 2, 2004)

BillyBob said:


> It's not about what's right or fair. As a mountain biker, the harsh reality is that when you break the law on your bike, it provides ammunition for the choads who inexplicably despise our sport. If you care about having access to trails, then you should put aside your pride and personal feelings and play by the rules.


That's one school of thought. Another goes like this: actions like these can draw attention to the issues and push the debate forward. Why the hell shouldn't bikes be allowed on certain trails? Let's get it on.


----------



## HotBlack (Feb 9, 2008)

chickenlegs said:


> Why the hell shouldn't bikes be allowed on certain trails?


If you really wanted to know, you would look it up, and then you'd know. ...but then you wouldn't be asking.

A debate with ill-informed debaters isn't a debate, it's a petty and easily dismissable argument.


----------



## chickenlegs (Feb 2, 2004)

Thrice said:


> Wilderness areas are not like other areas. They are there to be primitive, *bikes are not primitive*.


Ditto modern hiking boots, moisture wicking clothing, fanny packs, cell phones, hydration packs, sunblock, etc.


----------



## sxotty (Nov 4, 2005)

Wagons are primitive so are wheel barrows, yet they are not allowed.

It doesn't matter anyway, but I think they need a new designation that just says no motorized vehicles. Instead of turning everything they don't want motorized vehicles on into wilderness, or "buffer zones" that continually expand...


----------



## HotBlack (Feb 9, 2008)

sxotty said:


> they need a new designation that just says no motorized vehicles. Instead of turning everything they don't want motorized vehicles on into wilderness, or "buffer zones" that continually expand...


Well, they could come up with that designation, but then if they were going to be that specific, they'd also come up with one that said "foot traffic only", which they'd slap on it instead, and we'd still be where we are. Motors or not, what they don't want are fast moving things with knobby tires shredding deep into the wilderness.

When you limit it to foot traffic, you still have the freedom to get back in there, but it requires more of your hiker, and in effect filters out the problem users, by keeping the majority of casual traffic from going too deep in, which in turn keeps the wear & tear & litter & habitat encroachment, and cost of maintaining it all, to a minimum.

The expanding wilderness area is fighting the expanding development of every scrap of land into a soon-to-be disused strip mall and tract housing project. You don't have that extreme without the other, and well, we have that extreme.

This is a two year old thread. There have been much better and more relevant ones on the subject in the time since.


----------



## eastspur (Jan 25, 2009)

So if we all stop smoking pot.... they will legalize it?


----------



## Jorgemonkey (Mar 10, 2004)

eastspur said:


> So if we all stop smoking pot.... they will legalize it?


Only when people start riding with their pit bulls off leash armed with a concealed weapon, with ipod blasting in both ears and no helmet.


----------



## sxotty (Nov 4, 2005)

HotBlack said:


> Well, they could come up with that designation, but then if they were going to be that specific, they'd also come up with one that said "foot traffic only", which they'd slap on it instead, and we'd still be where we are. Motors or not, what they don't want are fast moving things with knobby tires shredding deep into the wilderness.
> 
> When you limit it to foot traffic, you still have the freedom to get back in there, but it requires more of your hiker, and in effect filters out the problem users, by keeping the majority of casual traffic from going too deep in, which in turn keeps the wear & tear & litter & habitat encroachment, and cost of maintaining it all, to a minimum.
> 
> ...


You are wrong. They are not building strip malls in national forest service land. They are changing national forest land that already has roads into wilderness areas. They are creating buffers around wilderness areas where mechanized vehicles are banned, this area is not about to turn into a shopping mall, it is usually a campground at the trailhead for entering the wilderness. And there are plenty of places in the "wilderness areas" that are heavily used and show the use of man with trash strewn about thanks to hikers alone that are far less pristine than non-wilderness areas. If you simply get farther away from paved roads you get more pristine, and likewise as you get away from roads all together.

The NFS already has the ability to ban bikes on trails and they use it. They do not need an area to be designated as wilderness to ban bikes, or ban motorized vehicles specifically and leave bikes. They can and do both those things. That is a far better decision IMO b/c then you do not close vast tracks of land, instead you close specific trails that could be troublesome and leave alternate routes open to differing traffic types. They can even alternate the days for horses and bikes if they want.


----------



## HotBlack (Feb 9, 2008)

1. Not the point I was making.
2. Too specific.
3. Yes I know.
4. Tough cookies.


----------



## traildoc (Mar 5, 2007)

mtbfool said:


> A story such as this with nationwide coverage could really set back trail access regardless of the lack of physical damage done.


fool:

Where do you come up with this logic? Is there proof anywhere that your statement has any reality to it. Do you have specific examples of where illegal riding in a National Park where no physical damage was done has created a trail access issue somewhere in the US.

Please provide some specific evidence where your statement is factual, so I don' have to ask this question again when I hear the same old BS.

TD


----------



## smittie61984 (Aug 26, 2004)

lidarman said:


> Good thing they weren't free-riders cuz they would have been off the trail.


I would have ran from the rangers, jumped off the cliff with my bike, and parachuted down to the river and float to Mexico. That's just me though.


----------

