# Patagonia and Mike Ferrentino: bikes in wilderness



## unrooted (Jul 31, 2007)

https://www.patagonia.com/stories/why-wilderness-matters-more-than-you/story-90114.html?utm_source=em&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=091220_TCL_unfenced

I'd say I would strongly disagree with Mike Ferintino's take on riding bikes in the wilderness, and will stop buying anything with a Patagonia label on it.


----------



## juan_speeder (May 11, 2008)

Why? Bikes cause no more trail erosion than hiking boots, and less than horses. Boots cause erosion of g-outs, while bikes don’t, but bikes create braking bumps.


----------



## downcountry (Apr 27, 2019)

unrooted said:


> https://www.patagonia.com/stories/why-wilderness-matters-more-than-you/story-90114.html?utm_source=em&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=091220_TCL_unfenced
> 
> I'd say I would strongly disagree with Mike Ferintino's take on riding bikes in the wilderness, and will stop buying anything with a Patagonia label on it.


He comes off like an over - zealous ex- smoker. 
Do as I say, not as I do(did). 
We actually have a wilderness area in 
Hoosier National Forest in southern IN,
and I have never poached it, never even really considered it, simply because I follow the law/ rules whether they seem just or not. 
I don't need to be shamed into being law-abiding. 
On the other hand, if the local land manager
thinks there is a way to allow mtb in wilderness, I'm all for it. 
It's not like we are demanding all-access
everywhere.


----------



## Catmandoo (Dec 20, 2018)

juan_speeder said:


> Why? Bikes cause no more trail erosion than hiking boots, and less than horses. Boots cause erosion of g-outs, while bikes don't, but bikes create braking bumps.


When a cyclist rides a trail that is designed for mt. biking AND is making a conscious effort to not cause trail damage - maybe.

Not hard to find a gazillion YT videos of bikes ridden in such a way as to cause significant damage, far more than any hiker can do.

I think the mt. bike community and the thousands of very pro-active clubs have done a remarkable job over the 30 years I've been mt. biking to develop trail systems that can withstand damage, but I don't agree that the damage is less or equal to a passing hiking boot.

As well, factor in the coming deluge of Class 1 e-bikes as well as all the Class 2 & 3 that people will use, disregarding the law in the process, and I can better understand why the need to keep mechanized vehicles out of wilderness area's.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

juan_speeder said:


> Bikes cause no more trail erosion than hiking boots


That's not really true.


----------



## juan_speeder (May 11, 2008)

You neglected to speak to horses.


----------



## juan_speeder (May 11, 2008)

Based on?


----------



## jestep (Jul 23, 2004)

I've been hiking in 2 wilderness areas in CO just in the past 3 weeks. The thought of allowing bikes on these trails, which would both have been ride-able, makes me sick to my stomach. You know where it sucks to hike? On single track shared with mountain bikers.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Catmandoo said:


> As well, factor in the coming deluge of Class 1 e-bikes as well as all the Class 2 & 3 that people will use, disregarding the law in the process, and I can better understand why the need to keep mechanized vehicles out of wilderness area's.


This is what changed my perspective on it. I was in favor of wilderness access until e-bikes started becoming so prevalent that I couldn't see any way that they could be kept out of wilderness while allowing regular bikes.


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

jestep said:


> I've been hiking in 2 wilderness areas in CO just in the past 3 weeks. The thought of allowing bikes on these trails, which would both have been ride-able, makes me sick to my stomach. You know where it sucks to hike? On single track shared with mountain bikers.


Agreed.
=sParty

P.S. People will chime in on this thread to say things like, "Well they let horses in Wilderness and horses destroy trails worse than bikes do." While this is true, such statements miss the point entirely. Just because something is wrong doesn't mean it's okay for anyone/everyone else to make things even worse.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

jestep said:


> I've been hiking in 2 wilderness areas in CO just in the past 3 weeks. The thought of allowing bikes on these trails, which would both have been ride-able, makes me sick to my stomach. You know where it sucks to hike? On single track shared with mountain bikers.


Agree. I spend about as much time in Designated Wilderness on foot as I do on a bike (on bike trails that is) and I would hate to see all kinds of a-lines, b-lines, trail sanitation, and all the other stuff that comes with biking nowadays. There will be a few bikepacking type guys who say they don't ride like that and even if they're being truthful you KNOW there will be way more people out there to send it and shred. That hasn't even factored in the ebike crowd, which you also know would take advantage. Then there's the massive increase in new mountain bikers as a whole who've just taken up the sport during the pandemic and haven't yet learned the least bit of trail etiquette.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

I get what y'all are saying, but what I can't stomach is when people use Wilderness designations specifically to exclude mountain bikes from trails they've had access to for years or even decades. Some cranky old hikers told me specifically that they support Wilderness designation specifically to exclude mountain bikes.

I would be fine if not a single mile of trail in Wilderness changes status, but that the trail access decisions were given to the specific land manager rather than being a blanket top-down mandate in order to remove the use of Wilderness designations as a weapon against mountain bikers.

Bonus points if trails that had historic access to mountain bikes were reopened to bikes on top of it.

Because wouldn't it suck if we lost access to all quiet backcountry trails, and only kept access to increasingly-crowded frontcountry parks?

The trail damage comparisons, as far as I'm concerned, are moot. I see little overall difference between popular trails for mountain bikers and popular trails for hikers. The details differ, but the overall impact isn't really different. Horse use is widely permitted, but generally pretty light, so even though one horse impacts the trail more than one bike or one pair of boots, the overall impact of all horse riding is a lot lower locally.

There is quite a lot of Wilderness acreage locally, and I'm good with not having access to ride any of the trails there. Mountain bikers have access to lots of trail miles here right now, and AFAIK, have never had access to the trails in the Wilderness areas in the area. There ARE a couple areas, though, where there are current mtb trails and some folks want there to be new Wilderness designation. As long as it's possible for that change to kick bikes off of trails, I won't support it. When a new Wilderness designation won't kick bikes off, then we'll talk.

I think Ferrentino both misses the mark AND hits the nail on the head. His last sentence is spot on:



> Not that we shouldn't enter; we should just do so carefully, with respect and awe and leaving as few footprints as we're able, letting nature exist in a state of hopeful grace.


Where he misses is by ignoring the fact that it IS possible to do those things on a bike. He's been a part of the mountain bike media for a long time and is probably inundated with the enduro-brah get rad mentality that's not helping mountain bikers here. Maybe he's unable to see other types of bike riding from his perspective, but bikepacking absolutely fits with this general philosophy. Sure, riding in Wilderness should neither be easy, nor especially accessible. It shouldn't be conducive to short day loops or downhill shuttles.

He also misses the point by saying that it seems to be a form of entitlement. It's not that, either. Concentrating more and more riders onto ever smaller chunks of land is actually the wrong track to take if you want to promote the mentality of going more lightly upon the land. People need to be doing that more everywhere, frankly. Riders shortcutting turns because it's faster. Removing obstacles because people can't be bothered to walk something hard. Riding off trail to find a technical side line. Schralping and roosting and drifting and otherwise displacing soil that contributes to erosion. Hikers shortcutting switchbacks (gave a guy hell about that last weekend, in fact). Leaving trash behind. Graffiti. Carving into trees. Improper backcountry hygiene. The list is practically infinite of the ways people behave badly and disrespect our public lands. Excluding mountain bikes from Wilderness areas isn't going to magically make a difference on these issues, either, because hikers suffer the same faults.


----------



## Catmandoo (Dec 20, 2018)

juan_speeder said:


> You neglected to speak to horses.


No point really. Telling many western outdoorsman that they can't ride/train their horses in areas they've traditionally used, would be about as easy as banning guns. Ain't gonna happen.


----------



## juan_speeder (May 11, 2008)

jestep said:


> I've been hiking in 2 wilderness areas in CO just in the past 3 weeks. The thought of allowing bikes on these trails, which would both have been ride-able, makes me sick to my stomach. You know where it sucks to hike? On single track shared with mountain bikers.


How do you feel about trail runners? I know guys that can run 4 minute miles going downhill on tough singletrack.


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

juan_speeder said:


> How do you feel about trail runners? I know guys that can run 4 minute miles going downhill on tough singletrack.


You're doing it now, juan.

I'm not answering for jestep here, rather calling you out for doing exactly what I said people would do in this thread: Whining that if other people/user groups get to burn it down, then why shouldn't mountain bikers get to burn it down, too.

But as long as I'm here, I'll give you my opinion. If runners are allowed in Wilderness, then let them run there. This includes you.
=sParty


----------



## cookieMonster (Feb 23, 2004)

I don’t have that much desire to ride Wilderness trails. I have a lot of Wilderness within a half hour drive of my house and having hiked them, they are in the worst shape of all trails and wouldn’t be very fun. They are made that way by a lack of maintenance and legions of equestrian pack trains. No thanks.

What I’m staunchly against, however, is the continued designation of more and more Wilderness in areas that I’ve ridden and maintained for decades. In most of these places, the only change that will occur to the landscape is that there won’t be bikes. They are not under threat from development or anything else. If anything, the lands are at risk of devastating wildfire because of an abundance of fuels that has been allowed to build up unnaturally— and W designation will only ensure that that continues.

I live in ground zero for eco-Nazis that want us banned EVERYWHERE. These nutcases even put logs, sticks, and rocks on our designated bike trails (in blind spots)in the front country. For many, the Wilderness designation is merely a way to get rid of us, which is seemingly their number one goal. For many of these folks, no amount of Wilderness is ever enough until it’s ALL Wilderness.

Finally, Patagonia has led the charge in trying to get more of my local trails designated “W.” That company will never see a penny from me again as long as I live. I would encourage everyone here to boycott their MTB goods especially. Hypocrites.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

There've been a few studies that show biking is similar to hiking as far as trail damage and erosion. You should see some of our "hikes" around these places that are either no-bikes or not traditionally biked, it's a cluster-**** of parallel scree routes and erosion all over the place, rocks strewn everywhere because the slope is too steep, etc. My point is that many of these hike-only routes and areas are simply trashed from a trail design and maintenance perspective, it damn sure isn't because of bikes.

I'm ok with prohibiting bikes from some wilderness areas and keeping them more "pristine", but it has to be handled evenly, that means no horses/pack animals either. If something is open to horse/pack animals, it should damn sure be open to bikes.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

I have to believe someone paid him some good coin for this treason. His statements throw mt. bikers under the bus but don't mention impacts from pedestrians and equestrians... which is where he lost me.

I wonder if MtotheF (Ferrentino's handle on MTBR) will chime in here?



> "Now when I think of Wilderness with a capital "W," I picture a place where we humans exercise as much restraint as possible. Not that we shouldn't enter; we should just do so carefully, with respect and awe and leaving as few footprints as we're able, letting nature exist in a state of hopeful grace."


Uhh... Mike? I do that on a bicycle ALL THE FREAKING TIME!


----------



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

I mostly agree with Michael Ferrentino's article and support Patagonia's efforts toward's preserving the environment. Most of the wilderness trails I've hiked on are too rugged to ride without "improving" them. Keep the wilderness rugged!


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

So nothing new in the grand scheme of things...


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

This article is disappointing to read. Patagonia is off my list, too bad.



Harold said:


> I get what y'all are saying, but what I can't stomach is when people use Wilderness designations specifically to exclude mountain bikes from trails they've had access to for years or even decades. Some cranky old hikers told me specifically that they support Wilderness designation specifically to exclude mountain bikes.
> 
> I would be fine if not a single mile of trail in Wilderness changes status, *but that the trail access decisions were given to the specific land manager rather than being a blanket top-down mandate in order to remove the use of Wilderness designations as a weapon against mountain bikers.*
> 
> ...


Agreed, these decisions should be made locally on a case by case basis.

Where I am hikers do 10x the damage to trails every spring and fall with no discretion when it muddy. Meanwhile they do zero trail work. It's pretty frustrating sometimes. MTB trail crews do 100% of the trail building and maintenance.

Conversely the local mountain bikers are generally very respectful. Most completely avoid muddy trails, and when I see tire tracks from someone who dropped in and realized it was too soft, they reverse and exit the way they came, as they should.

The point is that hikers are capable of just as much trail damage as anyone, and often times worse because *A*. they do no trail work and don't respect the time and man power it takes, some even think hiking in the mud is fun, and *B*. the volume of hikers is much much higher than MTBers.

No, I don't think Mtbing should be legal everywhere, nor should it be banned everywhere.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

I agree with *OneSpeed*, decisions should be made locally on a case by case basis. If a trail would be hit too hard by bikers, don't allow them, same with horses. If a trail would only attract a few bike-packer or explorer types, allow them. Don't modify the trails to make it easier for bikes.

On the trails I rode yesterday, I saw lots of cut-throughs made by hikers. I think hikers are more likely to cause intentional damage.


----------



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

*OneSpeed* said:


> No, I don't think Mtbing should be legal everywhere, nor should it be banned everywhere.


I thought that was the gist of the article?


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

J.B. Weld said:


> I thought that was the gist of the article?


I thought the gist of the article was to ban mountain bike access in all wilderness areas?


----------



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

*OneSpeed* said:


> I thought the gist of the article was to ban mountain bike access in all wilderness areas?


Yes, but wilderness areas only make up a small portion of open lands. As mentioned in the article there is many times that area that's legally available for mountain biking.

So not legal _everywhere_, but certainly not banned everywhere.


----------



## beastmaster (Sep 19, 2012)

If this season's wildfires in CA/OR/WA have shown us anything, we all need to realistically begin to adjust our living behaviors on this small, delicate, overpopulated, stressed out planet. Many scientific studies have concluded that by 2030 everyone must reduce fossil fuel consumption by 50% and we must be entirely off fossil fuels by 2050 to avoid runaway, cascading climate change. In the meantime, gigantic fires like these, continued drought, and huge forest die-offs will likely continue as we try to steer out of this multigenerational, decades long pollution-based economy. We did to ourselves.

Riding bikes in wilderness designated areas is rightfully banned, especially now that we are at a real tipping point where these precious reserves of pristine spaces are going to be rapidly diminishing because of everything we do in other places.

it is a small price to pay. Let these places be as they are. And maybe horses should be banned at this point as well. Want to go there? Walk in, pack it all in, pack it all out (your **** included).

On this planet, humans are the problem.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

anyone else going to address Wilderness designation being used to kick mountain bikers off of trails they've had access to for years?

A few people seem to understand what that means, but a bunch of y'all don't seem to care.


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

*OneSpeed* said:


> Agreed, these decisions should be made locally on a case by case basis.
> 
> No, I don't think Mtbing should be legal everywhere, nor should it be banned everywhere.


I have to admit this response seems well thought out. Thanks for articulating your thoughts on this, *OneSpeed*.

I've been frustrated in the past by trails that cut through a corner of Wilderness for a section -- they go in, then come right back out -- and I can't ride these trails because the law is strict.

There are trails through Wildnerness areas here in Oregon that would be appropriate for riding and those that would not. Perhaps the case-by-case idea would be most fair and make most sense. It's hard to remain objective about this because there are Wilderness areas here that I've always dreamed of accessing by bike. I don't want my emotions to influence what should be a logical decision.

I still feel the spirit & purpose of the Wildnerness Act should remain -- that people should be able to find solitude there. Mountain biking has become so popular and so aggressive in style that I find it hard to believe that any Wilderness Area opened to bikes could avoid the "Let's shred it, brah!" flat billers tearing it up. Hopefully I'm wrong about this.

I suppose proximity to populated areas would be taken into consideration if such decisions are ever made.

As for ebikes in Wilderness, no. Good luck enforcing the distinction.

I fear the slippery slope in this case. Less so when on my bike. 
=sParty


----------



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

Harold said:


> anyone else going to address Wilderness designation being used to kick mountain bikers off of trails they've had access to for years?
> 
> A few people seem to understand what that means, but a bunch of y'all don't seem to care.


I doubt that removing mountain bikes has been the sole reason for declaring areas wilderness areas. Maybe I'm wrong.

And there's a difference between not caring and looking at the bigger picture.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

I am 100% for severely restricted to absolutely no access on wilderness lands. I know most mountain biking is no more detremental to the trail than hiking and far less damaging than horses. It's more about giving wildlife somewhere to live without our presence. We don't need and shouldn't have access to every square inch of land when we're sharing it with the other 99.9999% of species on this planet. Our activity has already driven 60% of Earth's species to extinction since the industrial revolution only 200 years ago.


----------



## cookieMonster (Feb 23, 2004)

J.B. Weld said:


> I doubt that removing mountain bikes has been the sole reason for declaring areas wilderness areas. Maybe I'm wrong.
> 
> And there's a difference between not caring and looking at the bigger picture.


In my neck of the woods, Wilderness zealots consistently list mechanized access as something that needs to be stopped. They want the capital W designation specifically to limit human access to foot and horse. They will use any and all rationales to support their arguments. The latest "scientific" evidence they're citing (since disproportionate erosion impacts by bikes has been debunked repeatedly) is that bikes cause animals to permanently leave areas due to being frightened. I've publicly argued this point by saying "I see bears, elk, deer, moose, etc. all the time on popular mountain bike routes that I've traveled for three decades" and that evidence falls on deaf ears. They don't want to share the trails with bikes, period.

The question I have though, which may be going off topic a little, is this: What is the impact of "flow trails" for lack of a better term, on public perception of our sport? I mean, trails have gotten wider, flowier, and *faster* over the years. That's not to say we couldn't go fast on old-school trails, but I think one would have a hard time arguing that modern trail designs haven't resulted in _more people going faster_ on mountain bikes, since the trails are much easier to navigate at speed -- with a lesser skillset required to do so. The fact that bikes have gotten better too, has led to a change as well.

I can completely see where hikers are coming from, if they're trying to hike on these types of trails when they're heavily populated with bikers as well. Especially because bikes are silent unless you're using a bell.

There is a prevailing assumption among anti-bikers that all of us are just out there to get a thrill and that's it. Certainly, that's a part of it, but that's not the whole picture for most of us. I routinely choose trails that will take me away from the crowds, and super high speed flow trails are not that interesting to me anymore. Largely, I want to be out in nature for the same reasons that hikers do.

I would never want to see "bike park" -like systems being developed in Wilderness areas. Keep it primitive, I say. Don't make it easy for the masses. I think that's what a lot of these folks are afraid of, and perhaps it's justified. People in general are not good at showing restraint.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

J.B. Weld said:


> I doubt that removing mountain bikes has been the sole reason for declaring areas wilderness areas. Maybe I'm wrong.
> 
> And there's a difference between not caring and looking at the bigger picture.


I doubt anyone could quantify this as a motivating factor with any level of certainty. What I do know is that it exists as a motivation. I also know that it's not something that is talked about much from the people that hold it as motivation. I think they know that it's underhanded and that they'd lose support if that motivation was widely known and publicly acknowledged.

I also know that there are lots of "Wilderness" areas out there that really aren't. Quite a few get very heavy human visitation just from hikers and horse riders. There's quite a few where the Wilderness designation is being used as a sort of preemptive designation. Such as, the land wasn't really wilderness upon designation. The land was heavily altered by people beforehand, and there's no climax ecology present anymore. One Wilderness area I hiked in several years ago had an old road (pavement and all) passing through it. You could see home sites, trash remaining from relatively recent human habitation (8 track tapes and whatnot), relics from grazing and farming, etc. Was Wilderness really the best designation to use to recover this land into better habitat? The USFS was working to restore longleaf pine savanna there, fwiw. I really don't think Wilderness was the best option here. Regardless of whether bikes were permitted or not, that Wilderness designation hamstrung land managers with the tools they were allowed to use to restore that land, and ultimately, what they could actually do as part of their restoration efforts.

From a bigger picture standpoint, I don't think we need more land designated under the most restrictive protections until we are able to get more land protected overall, ESPECIALLY in landscapes that have suffered the largest impacts. Look at a map of protected lands in this country sometime. There are huge swaths of the country where there are minimal protections. Prairies, riparian areas, and wetlands have been particularly decimated. Yet these are some of the least protected parts of our country. The land we do have protected is heavily fragmented, limiting its real utility to wildlife. We need better connectivity between protected lands so wildlife can move freely and exchange DNA between populations. I just read an article recently about how the Mt lions in the LA area are beginning to show signs of physical deformations that are indicative of severe inbreeding.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...ked-to-inbreeding-found-in-california-cougars

In a big picture sense, Wilderness designations don't really do $hit except make people feel good about the mystical and unrealistic view they have of open spaces.


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

...


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

cookieMonster said:


> What is the impact of "flow trails" for lack of a better term, on public perception of our sport?


You're definitely onto something here.

Folks that oppose us have always used the perception that all mountain bikers are thrill-seekers causing a ruckus and endangering others against us.

We haven't done a very good job of showing that this can exist on resort trails and in concentrated bike park settings ALONG WITH calmer, quieter, backcountry type riding in remote settings. Part of that problem is created by the Wilderness advocates who seek to exclude us from more and more backcountry trails, making it more and more difficult for riders to seek true backcountry experiences. In effect, they're increasingly concentrating us onto those more highly manicured frontcountry environments, pushing that type of riding more and more because it's just what we've got.


----------



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

Harold said:


> I also know that there are lots of "Wilderness" areas out there that really aren't. Quite a few get very heavy human visitation just from hikers and horse riders. There's quite a few where the Wilderness designation is being used as a sort of preemptive designation. Such as, the land wasn't really wilderness upon designation. The land was heavily altered by people beforehand, and there's no climax ecology present anymore.


I agree with that and also several of the points cookieMonster made. Wilderness designation and whether or not bikes are allowed there are 2 different arguments imo. The article seemed to be more about why bikes shouldn't be in historically designated wilderness areas and not about creating new areas to keep mountain bikes out.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Sparticus said:


> Mountain biking has become so popular and so aggressive in style that I find it hard to believe that any Wilderness Area opened to bikes could avoid the "Let's shred it, brah!" flat billers tearing it up. Hopefully I'm wrong about this.


That's EXACTLY what would happen. Everyone posting here deep down knows it too. If you're on a bike packing rig you might ride gently but that's a small minority of the type of bike you see out on the trails. The trails in the Three Sisters Wilderness are gentle grade enough that riding a bike would be physically possible, and I'll confess that when I've been out hiking I've imagined boosting certain roots and boulders, sending it over certain rock sections, and blasting down certain hills. If I've imagined doing it then others would too.

Personally what I'd like to see are more bike-only trail networks where hiking, motos, and horses are forbidden. It would have one-way climbing routes and one-way descents to reduce user interaction. Make the bike networks so fun to ride that people would choose those places over the primary hiking areas. The PNW already has places like that and people love them. I think when it comes to recreational use, segregation actually works best. Give everyone their own areas.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

The thing for me is wilderness areas just shouldn't have people. To many people scare away animals regardless of whether their on bikes or not.

I agree there are the crazy people who just hate bikes and they make up a surprising large number of people who want things designated as wilderness. I'd be interested to know how they'd feel about no hiking or horseback riding access to preserve the wilderness.

New trail designs definitely allow for higher speeds and bikes are far more capable. Here in Virginia we have trails in the George Washington National Forest that are hiking trails but mountain biking is welcome. They're extremely narrow and have straighter lines across the fall line of the mountain. You can go fast but the extremely narrow width and steep rocky drop off make you keep speed in check and the straightish lines keep sight lines long. Curvey, wide flow trails limit sight lines without limiting speed. We have a good mix of these narrow hiking trails and newer flowy trails here so it's pretty easy to compare.

I do fully understand the perspective of hikers and being annoyed by to much bicycle traffic. Biking is much easier to cover more ground and usually we outnumber hikers in a pretty big way. When they need to keep stopping to let a rider through it gets very annoying. It's similar with road cycling on country roads. It's not to bad for drivers with a few cyclists but as the number of cyclists going 15mph on a 45mph road increases it gets pretty annoying for people driving when you need to cover 20+ miles to get somewhere.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Harold said:


> anyone else going to address Wilderness designation being used to kick mountain bikers off of trails they've had access to for years?
> 
> A few people seem to understand what that means, but a bunch of y'all don't seem to care.


This desi was weaponized decades ago. The politicos, Green Piss and Sierra Club have been collaborating against bicycles for ages.
How many red circle slash stickers do you see in your neighborhood, be it rural or otherwise?

Obviously, there are places that should be protected but there are places that should be open to cyclists as well. The mention of local oversight is up the thread and it makes sense.

And who cleans up the horse/mule **** as the dictator expects done for dog ****? Outta curiosity...

Places for rowdy bike action do exist. Places for bikepacking which is usually rather tame as opposed to DH and FR should be available as should protected spaces as well.

Harold, you hit it quite well in the earlier post in which you shared the observation on weaponization against the mountain bike. Perhaps the mountain bike should be designated "endangered species"!

Still, this topic is a hotly contested one, indeed.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

cookieMonster said:


> The question I have though, which may be going off topic a little, is this: What is the impact of "flow trails" for lack of a better term, on public perception of our sport? I mean, trails have gotten wider, flowier, and *faster* over the years. That's not to say we couldn't go fast on old-school trails, but I think one would have a hard time arguing that modern trail designs haven't resulted in _more people going faster_ on mountain bikes, since the trails are much easier to navigate at speed -- with a lesser skillset required to do so. The fact that bikes have gotten better too, has led to a change as well.


Now that every bike on the planet (hyperbole, yes) has been sold due to the pandemic we have a massive influx of new users with lesser skillset who do all kinds of weird things on their new bike. They haven't learned "the rules" yet. Skidding is fun! Going 20' off trail is fun! Furthermore, people now are less likely to give a F about how their actions affect others. The more they can piss off others, the better. Allow Wilderness access and that hot mess would not a good recipe.


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

Nat said:


> *Now that every bike on the planet (hyperbole, yes) has been sold due to the pandemic we have a massive influx of new users with lesser skillset who do all kinds of weird things on their new bike. They haven't learned "the rules" yet. *Skidding is fun! Going 20' off trail is fun! Furthermore, people now are less likely to give a F about how their actions affect others. The more they can piss off others, the better. Allow Wilderness access and that hot mess would not a good recipe.


No argument, but hiking has even lower barriers to entry. Near me a large State Park (The Adirondacks, roughly 6 million acres) is being abused by more people than ever before. Not just causing additional trail damage but leaving trash everywhere. It sucks.

Just saying, I don't really understand the argument that hiking should be allowed in wilderness any more than anything else.

Responsible and respectful trail users, regardless of the activity, are lower impact and more sustainable than openly letting the masses abuse trails that already exist.

It's almost like you should have to get a permit, or pass a course, that would educate people to know how to use these areas in a way that doesn't ruin it for everyone. Not to mention a small permit fee could be used towards maintenance and cleanup.

Kind of like dirt jumping... 'no dig, no ride'


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

*OneSpeed* said:


> No argument, but hiking has even lower barriers to entry. Near me a large State Park (The Adirondacks, roughly 6 million acres) is being abused by more people than ever before. Not just causing additional trail damage but leaving trash everywhere. It sucks.
> 
> Just saying, I don't really understand the argument that hiking should be allowed in wilderness any more than anything else.
> 
> ...


That's been a big problem here for a long time. The most abused woodlands we have are hiking only. Shenandoah National Parking doesn't allow bikes because it fits under "mechanized" transport. There is trash and unauthorized social trails everywhere. The hallmarks of the park where tourists go most are the worst sections. Hiking Old Rag you could easy pick up two 50 gallon trash bags worth of trash in one hike. There's deep crevasses in the granite full of plastic water bottles and food wrappers.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

*OneSpeed* said:


> No argument, but hiking has even lower barriers to entry. Near me a large State Park (The Adirondacks, roughly 6 million acres) is being abused by more people than ever before.


Yeah, okay that's true. Our local Wilderness area trailheads have been absolutely overflowing this summer despite (or because of) the pandemic. It might not be an issue by next year though if these west coast fires torch everything to the ground.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

*OneSpeed* said:


> It's almost like you should have to get a permit, or pass a course, that would educate people to know how to use these areas in a way that doesn't ruin it for everyone. Not to mention a small permit fee could be used towards maintenance and cleanup.


The local USFS was planning to implement a daily pass reservation system to limit the number of users since our Wilderness is getting "loved to death." The program got put on hold due to COVID. May 2021 is when they're planning to start it.

https://www.statesmanjournal.com/st...-mount-jefferson-mount-washington/4994282002/


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

*OneSpeed* said:


> It's almost like you should have to get a permit, or pass a course, that would educate people to know how to use these areas in a way that doesn't ruin it for everyone. Not to mention a small permit fee could be used towards maintenance and cleanup.


I like that idea.

One of the challenges is that people have to see a benefit to the areas, and "you can't go in there" isn't going to encourage a lot of people to support them, they don't really care about the animals and plants. It's a very tough balance but if enough people don't support the idea, at some point our government will decide capitalism is more important and, "hey, we can sell off this land and solve some of our money problems!"


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Fajita Dave said:


> That's been a big problem here for a long time. The most abused woodlands we have are hiking only. Shenandoah National Parking doesn't allow bikes because it fits under "mechanized" transport. There is trash and unauthorized social trails everywhere. The hallmarks of the park where tourists go most are the worst sections. Hiking Old Rag you could easy pick up two 50 gallon trash bags worth of trash in one hike. There's deep crevasses in the granite full of plastic water bottles and food wrappers.


Damn, I hate people. WTF is wrong with them???

This is the first year in many years that I did not participate in my local NPS NRA annual clean-up. I rode yesterday in a county park along a river and they were holding a clean up and I made sure to thank any volunteer I passed. But it really pisses me off that we have to pick up after lazy, inconsiderate slobs.


----------



## DrDon (Sep 25, 2004)

I posted a while ago on a thread regarding wildness access. I’m for it on a case by case basis. I like hiking where there are no bikes, but I realize access to trails is an issue. The self righteous posters turned off a potential proponent, to good luck with that attitude when dealing with local prominent equestrians and hikers. A good example to see how obtaining trail access correctly is to follow the MEDL thread in the AZ forum. The wrong way is the Kingdom Trails fiasco. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## d365 (Jun 13, 2006)

Meanwhile, while we're squabbling about bikes on trails ..... https://www.theguardian.com/environ...e-trump-coronavirus-environmental-regulations


----------



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

d365 said:


> Meanwhile, while we're squabbling about bikes on trails ..... https://www.theguardian.com/environ...e-trump-coronavirus-environmental-regulations


No kidding.

This should settle the argument once and for all-


----------



## 93EXCivic (Mar 12, 2018)

Personally I am ok with existing Wilderness areas being hiking only. To me it is weird that horses/ pack animals are allowed though. 

However, I am not ok with areas that allowed biking being turned into Wilderness areas and then banning biking.


----------



## Fleas (Jan 19, 2006)

cookieMonster said:


> In my neck of the woods, Wilderness zealots consistently list mechanized access as something that needs to be stopped. They want the capital W designation specifically to limit human access to foot and horse. They will use any and all rationales to support their arguments. The latest "scientific" evidence they're citing (since disproportionate erosion impacts by bikes has been debunked repeatedly) is that bikes cause animals to permanently leave areas due to being frightened. I've publicly argued this point by saying "I see bears, elk, deer, moose, etc. all the time on popular mountain bike routes that I've traveled for three decades" and that evidence falls on deaf ears. They don't want to share the trails with bikes, period.
> 
> The question I have though, which may be going off topic a little, is this: What is the impact of "flow trails" for lack of a better term, on public perception of our sport? * I mean, trails have gotten wider, flowier, and *faster* over the years. * That's not to say we couldn't go fast on old-school trails, but I think one would have a hard time arguing that modern trail designs haven't resulted in _more people going faster_ on mountain bikes, since the trails are much easier to navigate at speed -- with a lesser skillset required to do so. The fact that bikes have gotten better too, has led to a change as well.
> 
> ...


I was going to chime in that wilderness areas probably don't have highly maintained trails, which would keep MTB speeds in check. But I don't know.

Hikers did cause most of the damage on our local trails this last Winter.

MTBers did do most of the repair work on those trails.

The only animals to be displaced by trail traffic (bike and foot) in my locale were some sort of nesting birds that are more active at night. So they restricted night rides/hikes.

We don't have wilderness areas here.
In the 90's, all the trails were narrow (18" tread, 36" corridor?) and old-school hiking trails (and largely unsanctioned). The 1st sanctioned MTB trails were likewise narrow. Yes you could go relatively "fast" (based on how injured a person could get if they ran off and hit a tree), but compared to todays trails (24-30" tread, 6ft corridor) - I'd say half the speed.
Then they allowed an unnatural/contrived and obtrusive flow trail (30-48+" tread, 10ft corridor) to be built in the National Park here. This was probably a bad precedent. Anyone with any sense does not hike there. Anyone not understanding the etiquette at this particular trail (e.g. stopping in the wrong place) could be in for a very negative experience. A more natural/primitive trail (i.e. "narrower") would probably have been more appropriate. Many riders love it. I even like it from time to time. But it's really fast.

If the point is to preserve the habitat, then no one should go there, ever, for any reason. But if you're going to allow access to anyone at all, there is no reason that bicycles should not at least be considered.

The only part of the article that does ring true for me - and I am very aware of this:


> ... no longer venture off the beaten path, for the risk that doing so will create new ones.


I've seen it happen many times. Our impact should be limited. So I proceed with some awareness and conscience. Sometimes I don't proceed. I'd like to think there are a few people out there who do the same. Although that gets me pondering whether it's better to have everyone confined to the same trail, thus focusing the user impact - or dispersing people all across the wilderness to "de-focus" the impact. In some places it only takes one person to screw things up.

-F


----------



## goodmojo (Sep 12, 2011)

juan_speeder said:


> Why? Bikes cause no more trail erosion than hiking boots, and less than horses. Boots cause erosion of g-outs, while bikes don't, but bikes create braking bumps.


the essence of the article says the wilderness act was not just about erosion, but creating the feeling of being in the wilderness.

The assertion (which mostly seems to make sense) is that mechanical transport destroys that feeling of wilderness. The goal is to create the separation of civilized technological life and that of primitive life. In reading about the history of the act I can almost believe it.

Mile for mile hiking is about the same erosion as bikes. But bikes make it much easier to go further.

I would be in favor of opening up wildernesses to bikes and 100% support legislation to do so. I dropped out of IMBA because they are against it. However I do agree with the author that the way the legislation reads, a reasonable interpretation is that bikes and any mechanical transport are banned.

I believe birdwatchers and hikers want the wilderness areas to themselves. They want to keep out all other uses. They use endangered species as the path to get everyone except themselves banned.

In austin, an area called forest ridge was an awesome mountain biking area. It became the balcones canyonsland preserve. The city had to vote on the budget to buy various parcels to designate preserve and proponents said biking would be allowed. The vote passed, partially with the support of the biking community. Within a few years they claimed biking disturbed the birds and biking is now banned.

One area explicitly has biking grandfathered in, they constantly try to remove access. Luckily there are old time mountain bikers that have kept the documents citing the original trails and the grandfathering. Once those guys are gone and people have forgotten the history, the environmentalists will get biking banned.

The city officials in charge of the decisions are birdwatchers. The city council at one point mandated opening up the preserve for recreation, the city employees just waited long enough until there were new city council members.

I also kitesurf and birdwatchers have managed to get kitesurfing banned at multiple national seashores. Ultimately the birdwatchers dont want their views destroyed by action sports and they got kitesurfing banned with zero evidence of impact to birds.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

goodmojo said:


> the essence of the article says the wilderness act was not just about erosion, but creating the feeling of being in the wilderness.
> 
> The assertion (which mostly seems to make sense) is that mechanical transport destroys that feeling of wilderness. The goal is to create the separation of civilized technological life and that of primitive life.


So my jet pack is out? It's not mechanized; It's chemical transport.


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

Nat said:


> So my jet pack is out? It's not mechanized; It's chemical transport.


Nat, if you can flap your arms, you can fly in. Otherwise, no deal brother.
=sParty


----------



## goodmojo (Sep 12, 2011)

Nat said:


> So my jet pack is out? It's not mechanized; It's chemical transport.


Typically jet engines have a lot of moving parts, therefore mechanized.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Fleas said:


> Our impact should be limited. So I proceed with some awareness and conscience. Sometimes I don't proceed. I'd like to think there are a few people out there who do the same. Although that gets me pondering whether it's better to have everyone confined to the same trail, thus focusing the user impact - or dispersing people all across the wilderness to "de-focus" the impact. In some places it only takes one person to screw things up.


There's a fine balance to be struck, for sure. It's been shown time and time again that if people cannot see/experience nature and conserved areas, they won't see the value in conservation. So you pretty much have to allow people to access those places in order to conserve anything at all. As much as it can be cathartic to ask the HOHA Wilderness nuts if they're so concerned about disrupting wildlife, if they'd be willing to prohibit ALL visitation of Wilderness areas, the value of the conservation (even with some low level of human access and disruption) is higher than no conservation at all because too few of the general public value it without being able to access it.

As for arguments about trail users displacing wildlife and all that, sure, I get it. My education is in wildlife biology, conservation, and environmental science. I've actually read a lot of primary literature on this. What I got out of that is different than what the people who want to exclude bikes are getting out of it. ALL users displace wildlife. Not just bikes. The existence of a trail at all creates both a barrier and a corridor (depends on the species you're looking at, whether it's a barrier or a corridor). Either may be a positive or a negative thing, depending on the species in question.

I know of trails that pass through habitat of seriously endangered species, and bikes are still permitted on them. Sometimes there are special management decisions made. But sometimes not.

One thing that can be clever to throw back at the people using disturbance reasons against mountain bikers is that there is a body of research out there showing that at least for some species, the TIME a person is present in the space is the most important factor. Mountain bikers are more likely to move through the area more quickly. Whereas it takes hikers much longer to do so (and on longer trails and larger areas, hikers are going to spend more overnights camping to cover the area). That generates a longer-term avoidance behavior from said wildlife species. Therefore, hikers have a greater negative impact than mountain bikers for those species.

There's no perfect solution, and there are negative effects for every possible answer.

I do think that current Wilderness management is more restrictive than it needs to be and it attempts to uphold an unrealistic ideal. I think Wilderness management could stand to be more nuanced and balanced, and my understanding of things is that the original Wilderness Act WAS more nuanced and balanced than later interpretations (like the one that kicked bikes out).


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

goodmojo said:


> Typically jet engines have a lot of moving parts, therefore mechanized.


Jet packs, up until very recently, used liquid fuel to provide propulsion and take off/land vertically. They only ran for something like 2 minutes and used some kind of oxidizer/fuel through a silver mesh that provided the thrust. They might have had a fuel pump, but likely relied on pressure to deliver the fuel. These are what you saw in stadiums and events, although the use was pretty rare still. The newer stuff with big fan engines or electric engines can take off vertically, but I'm not sure the "jet engine" ones can. I know some can maintain horizontal flight and climb, but have to be air-lanched.

I assume the traditional jet pack is what Nat was referring to...except with only a 2 minute run time, the "wilderness experience" would be pretty limited...


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

d365 said:


> Meanwhile, while we're squabbling about bikes on trails ..... https://www.theguardian.com/environ...e-trump-coronavirus-environmental-regulations


Yup...sucks, if allowed.


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

There's been plenty of news articles about the significant impact of hikers on public lands during lockdown (referencing Adirondack region of NYS). Crazy amounts of people leaving all kinds of traces let alone not knowing how to adequately prepare for challenging conditions, but that's a separate issue.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Nat said:


> Yeah, okay that's true. Our local Wilderness area trailheads have been absolutely overflowing this summer despite (or because of) the pandemic. It might not be an issue by next year though if these west coast fires torch everything to the ground.


Up here in WA, our wilderness trails were overrun by hikers even before the pandemic. I can't see how having mountains jam-packed with people can be good for wildlife at all. I suppose it's a good reason that bikes shouldn't be allowed in the local wilderness areas here since you'd be constantly dodging hundreds of hikers on a trail ride.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

Here in MT "conservationists" have taken to calling mountain biking "industrial recreation." But they're OK with commercial outfitters leading pack strings loaded with clients into the Wilderness. The trails look like this:










They're hard to walk without turning an ankle after they dry out.

It's also funny because they ignore hunting and fishing. Bass Pro Shops paid $5.5B for Cabela's, and they don't sell MTB gear. The state of MT has a multi-million $ budget to maintain and enhance current fishing access sites. The last legislative session provided $300K to acquire more access sites, and MT Trout Unlimited trumpeted their role in that. And of course every small town bar ha ha a blaze orange Welcome Hunters banner out in the fall, a banner made and distributed by AB. But somehow a small MTB tourism campaign is "industrial."

I'm not aware of any studies on the effect of recreation on big game (what concerns about "wildlife" are invariably about) that control for hunting pressure. All the Wisdom papers are studies of a hunted population. Anyone who's visited Yellowstone realizes that elk don't GAF about humans or even vehicles when they aren't being shot at. We see plenty of elk grazing in suburban yards here.

I've also never heard of elk mortality attributable to mountain biking. But hunting causes plenty of elk mortality.

Also, the idea of Wilderness as a pristine landscape "untrammeled my man" is only possible if you ignore thousands of years of native presence on the landscape. There's inescapable racism (or at least naïveté) at the root of the idea. Not to say there isn't value in the idea of setting aside some landscapes but the Wilderness act and designations almost always depend on some claim of preserving pristine settings.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Curveball said:


> Up here in WA, our wilderness trails were overrun by hikers even before the pandemic. I can't see how having mountains jam-packed with people can be good for wildlife at all. I suppose it's a good reason that bikes shouldn't be allowed in the local wilderness areas here since you'd be constantly dodging hundreds of hikers on a trail ride.


It's mostly certain popular trailheads here, the ones that make all of the "Top 10 hikes in Bend" lists that visitors find online and in print. The USFS states that having a limited number of daily entry permits will encourage people to spread out to the other trailheads. I usually go to the lesser-known trailheads anyway just because of crowding.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

Sparticus said:


> You're doing it now, juan.
> 
> I'm not answering for jestep here, rather calling you out for doing exactly what I said people would do in this thread: Whining that if other people/user groups get to burn it down, then why shouldn't mountain bikers get to burn it down, too.
> 
> ...


Competitive events, such as running races are not allowed in congressionally designated Wilderness areas. Yet, runners successfully lobbied congress and the USFS to retain access to a newly created Wilderness so that the Western States 100 could continue.

https://www.wser.org/history-year-by-year/

_1984 ⋅ Congress Threatens 
Outside Magazine rated the Western States Endurance Run as the "toughest endurance event in the world." Congress enacted the California Wilderness Act, which created the Granite Chief Wilderness Area. This threatened the Western States' continued use of the four miles of historic trail which lie within its boundaries and stimulated a four-year effort among ultrarunners nationwide to allow the Run to use the trail._

_1988 ⋅ Granite Chief Trail Granted 
Pursuant to Congressional guidance, the U.S. Forest Service granted permission for the Western States Endurance Run to continue forever its historic use of the trail within the Granite Chief Wilderness Area. This decision culminated four years of negotiation and appeal, led by Antonio Rossmann.
_

Mountain bikers shouldn't have lost an inch of trail in any Wilderness area created after 1982. And remember, congress has never banned bicycling in Wilderness. That was done by the USFS after the Sierra Club lobbied them to do so in 1982.

Fast forward nearly 40 years.... I trust that local USFS officials are capable of determining where and when bikes could be acceptable in the Wilderness areas they manage... as well as where bikes should remain prohibited. Does anyone else trust their local USFS to do the same?


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Nat said:


> It's mostly certain popular trailheads here, the ones that make all of the "Top 10 hikes in Bend" lists that visitors find online and in print. The USFS states that having a limited number of daily entry permits will encourage people to spread out to the other trailheads. I usually go to the lesser-known trailheads anyway just because of crowding.


On a summer weekend, you can't find a parking space within a mile of most of the trailheads around here. Forget about finding a campsite in the backcountry.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

jestep said:


> I've been hiking in 2 wilderness areas in CO just in the past 3 weeks. The thought of allowing bikes on these trails, which would both have been ride-able, makes me sick to my stomach. You know where it sucks to hike? On single track shared with mountain bikers.


Agreed. I'm fine with not being able to ride everywhere.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

How do you guys feel about e-bikes in Wilderness?


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

evasive said:


> Also, the idea of Wilderness as a pristine landscape "untrammeled my man" is only possible if you ignore thousands of years of native presence on the landscape. There's inescapable racism (or at least naïveté) at the root of the idea. Not to say there isn't value in the idea of setting aside some landscapes but the Wilderness act and designations almost always depend on some claim of preserving pristine settings.


That's one major reason why the whole "untrammeled by man" "pristine setting" ethos is a line of mythical mystical bullshit.

People are trying to create something that hasn't existed for what, centuries? millenia?

What we can do is set aside places where human activity is greatly reduced and capped. But crowded Wilderness trailheads show that the motivation to actually do so isn't very strong. Which makes it especially obvious that keeping bikes out of Wilderness areas has nothing to do with actual conservation efforts and has everything to do with the fact that some people just don't want to see bikes.

And that's fine. I'm not asking for that, and the overwhelming majority of mountain bike riders don't want that, either.

The major point is to de-weaponize Wilderness designation as a tool to kick mountain bikers off of trails they already use. A sub-point is the potential for mountain bikers to regain access to trails that they lost due to recent weaponized Wilderness designations.

It has never been a point to open all Wilderness trails wholesale to bikes. Never that. All of the posts responding as though that's the point (and this article written by Ferrentino/published by Patagonia) are indicative of a willful fingers-in-the-ears ignorance and a blatant refusal to listen to what people are actually saying.


----------



## Radium (Jan 11, 2019)

I agree with Mike. For decades, I did not. But after 60 years in on forest or another, it now seems to me that I don't really NEED to ride in designated wilderness. I used to be quite assholish about thinking it was my RIGHT. Yes, the entitlement mentality that we primates so often use to screw things up. Not anymore. Although, I still can't bring myself to join the Sierra Club.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Curveball said:


> How do you guys feel about e-bikes in Wilderness?


Big thumbs down.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Nat said:


> Big thumbs down.


Right, which brings on the question of how a land manager would regulate pedal bikes versus e-bikes in Wilderness.

Does anyone here think that e-bike riders would stay out of Wilderness areas if pedal bikes were allowed (on a limited basis of course)?


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

Curveball said:


> Right, which brings on the question of how a land manager would regulate pedal bikes versus e-bikes in Wilderness.


Hire a kid to stand at the trailhead with a slingshot and a pocket full of ball bearings?


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Curveball said:


> Right, which brings on the question of how a land manager would regulate pedal bikes versus e-bikes in Wilderness.
> 
> Does anyone here think that e-bike riders would stay out of Wilderness areas if pedal bikes were allowed (on a limited basis of course)?


Everyone here KNOWS there would be poaching. There's already poaching on our non-motorized networks. One emboldened dude was actually inquiring on Facebook about starting out on his ebike at 5am "to beat the crowds" on a very popular Wilderness day hike but little did he realize that people start out before that hour.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Sparticus said:


> Nat, if you can flap your arms, you can fly in. Otherwise, no deal brother.
> =sParty


I bet I could flap my arms with a jet pack on...


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Nat said:


> Everyone here KNOWS there would be poaching. There's already poaching on our non-motorized networks.


Which makes e-bikes the elephant in the room on this issue.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

So just ban e-bikes and make it a hefty fine if they get caught? They don't do any more damage to the trail than normal mtb and hiking so nothing of value is lost. It's not like some tourist or gender reveal party starting a wildfire.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Fajita Dave said:


> so nothing of value is lost.


Nothing of value_ to you._


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Fajita Dave said:


> So just ban e-bikes and make it a hefty fine if they get caught? They don't do any more damage to the trail than normal mtb and hiking so nothing of value is lost. It's not like some tourist or gender reveal party starting a wildfire.


How do you propose catching them? Or should they just be allowed because "they don't do any more damage..than a normal mtb..."?


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

Curveball said:


> How do you propose catching them? Or should they just be allowed because "they don't do any more damage..than a normal mtb..."?


There's no park rangers or forestry service employees for Wilderness areas out West? Even though e-bikes look less obvious now you can still hear the motor whine. You'll never catch everyone, make it a $500 fine like littering and it will be a major deterrent. Also like littering it needs to be enforced or it won't be followed.

I don't care if e-bikes could enter wilderness areas. If it's wilderness to preserve natural landscape and native animals there shouldn't be anyone in there. Since it seems like that's not an option the next best thing would be requiring a limited number of passes per day. I am in favor of a mix of hiking only and multi-use trails as long as more trails aren't built creating more damage. There could be hiking only trails and multi-use trails that would include hiking, biking, e-biking and equestrian.

But all of this would make to much sense.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Curveball said:


> Which makes e-bikes the elephant in the room on this issue.


Which is exactly the reason why I won't donate money to organizations that want to lobby Congress to allow bikes in Wilderness. And I've donated before. But now, with the proliferation of eBikes, I refuse to take part in that. Until brands, bike shops and advocacy orgs are adamant that the two are not the same, I won't donate another dollar.

Which, really, is unfortunate. I'd love to be able to connect some big rides through Wilderness areas. But I refuse to be a part of crippling or destroying Wilderness, by administrative or judicial decision.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## milehi (Nov 2, 1997)

Curveball said:


> How do you guys feel about e-bikes in Wilderness?


E bikers already ride all over designated wilderness and trails that are off limits to them. All the bike shops rent e bikes and are complicit.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Vader said:


> E bikers already ride all over designated wilderness and trails that are off limits to them. All the bike shops rent e bikes and are complicit.


Well then, do you support their access to Wilderness or not?


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Fajita Dave said:


> There's no park rangers or forestry service employees for Wilderness areas out West? Even though e-bikes look less obvious now you can still hear the motor whine. You'll never catch everyone, make it a $500 fine like littering and it will be a major deterrent. Also like littering it needs to be enforced or it won't be followed.


In a practical sense*, no there are no rangers patrolling the Wilderness. The budgets have been cut so much that there really isn't anyone out there to write those $500 tickets.

*There are Wilderness rangers, but so few and far between so as to be almost non-existent.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

Bikes and ebikes should never be allowed on this section of the Tahoe Rim Trail... especially ebikes. It would absolutely destroy the Wilderness and the Wilderness experience 









Ebikes, like other forms of transport that have motors, won't be allowed in Wilderness... and I support that. I suspect people have poached Wilderness on their ebikes... just as they have on normal bikes though. If the poaching becomes rampant, the land manager can act accordingly.

I forget where I heard or read this, but it seems applicable: "If it is in a Patagonia catalog, it is good to go in Wilderness" :thumbsup:

Here's a different story from Patagonia... 4 very short parts to it but interesting and not written by an angry old mountain biker:

Part 1) https://www.patagonia.com/stories/bike_mountain_m/story-20885.html
Part 2) https://www.patagonia.com/stories/bike_mountain_m_1/story-20881.html
Part 3) https://www.patagonia.com/stories/bike_mountain_m_2/story-20877.html
Part 4) https://www.patagonia.ca/stories/bike-mountain-m/story-20875.html


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

People destroy wilderness experiences. If you have a problem with an e-bike on a trail that's a personal problem.

My understanding of a wilderness area is the entire propose is to preserve the land in it's natural state. If we're going to have people access it by trail than impact needs to be absolute minimum. If an e-bike, mtb and hiker all have the same impact what reasoning would you have to ban any one of those three besides "I don't like it." To minimize impact you need to limit the number of people there regardless of which low impact activity they choose to be doing.

From my personal experience hikers and equestrians have by far the biggest impact. Horses destroy trails and poop all over the place. Hikers create a bunch on unsanctioned trails, leave trash everywhere and pick up whatever catches their eye to take home with them. That should piss you off a lot more than someone on an e-bike.


----------



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

Can you imagine this same conversation with pro-ebikers? "Studies have proved that ebikes have no more impact on trails than bicycles!" "No fair!!!"


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

How 'bout we only allow rigid singlespeeds?


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

ATVs cause the most trail damage.


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

My beef regarding any type of wilderness trail access is that we can have a trail in a beautiful area and people dont respect the reason its beautiful is because we stay on the trail.

Morons who use the trail and then think its cool to walk off into the flowers and sit in them to have a picnic drive me nuts! Etc. High use areas will just be trash areas if people didnt respect this.

Im reflecting on some hikes ive done above treeline and seen groups of tourists just walk off and do as they please. One lady took her dog off leash and let him jump all through the little alpine pool of water. She was so stupid that she walked around and through the edges trying to find a stick to throw into the pool of water for her dog to fetch. (Ah above treeline). Im sure i want to take pictures of the mountain reflecting off the pool with dog tracks and human footprints in the mud! At those elevations, vegetation disturbance takes decades to recover.

If anyone is familiar with maline canyon in jasper, iv seen aholes jump the fence and start hiking up the canyon. Even moving rocks to make it across the water in the bottom. This is a place with footpaths all along it and guard rails. We go there to see the natural beauty! Not to watch aholes hiking up it!

https://www.banffjaspercollection.com/attractions/maligne-canyon/

Some places need to be left alone to preserve their beauty.

As far as bikes doing damage to the wilderness.... we dont do much to the environment that mother nature cant handle. Its just that if your preserving an area for its natural state, people will f it up.

I dont see a lot of hikers in the bike parks. Imagine the outcry if we had to share our flow trails with them. Makes sense to have some areas separated. We do all have a pair of hiking boots. Just needs to be fair and equal. Though id hate to have no natural bike trails to ride.


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

Curveball said:


> In a practical sense*, no there are no rangers patrolling the Wilderness. The budgets have been cut so much that there really isn't anyone out there to write those $500 tickets.
> 
> *There are Wilderness rangers, but so few and far between so as to be almost non-existent.


Thanks for the tip, Curveball! Since you think everybody can get away with riding their ebike in Wilderness, I'm going to take the logical next step and ride my Honda XR400 in there, too. Good to know nobody will be around to take notice! I mean c'mon man, if I don't do it somebody else will.
=sParty


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

> The conclusion I came to, after many years of self-righteous poaching, was that my idealism was bullshit. I began to question the legitimacy of these perceived "rights," wondering whether we, as mountain bikers, deserve access to wilderness when we are already enjoying so much legal access in so many other places. My idea of recreation as a "right" shifted to that of a "privilege."


There'd be so much less drama if more people realized this.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Nat said:


> ATVs cause the most trail damage.


I knew it, it's all Nat's doing!


----------



## milehi (Nov 2, 1997)

Curveball said:


> Well then, do you support their access to Wilderness or not?


Wilderness should only be accessed by foot. Even horses should be kept out. The most severe trail destruction I've seen is from horsepacking in the Sierra.


----------



## kpdemello (May 3, 2010)

There's something to be said for banning mechanized forms of travel in certain areas. An individual biker may not have much more impact than an individual hiker, but bikes allow people to go further and impact more area overall than hikers. Add to that the current enduro-bro culture prevalent among many mountain bikers these days, and you have a recipe for large trains of bikers pounding down trails for 20 mile loops and then back to the parking lot for a tailgate around their big, gas-guzzling converted sleeper vans. 

That said, I think if the access can be managed to ensure minimal impact, I don't see why bikes shouldn't be allowed. Even ebikes, if it can be managed. So I think it's important for the local land managers to have a final say in what should and shouldn't be allowed based on the needs and unique characteristics of a particular property.

Sometimes I wish we could turn the clock back 10-15 years to when the mountain biking was much smaller. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the access, the trail development, and the progress in bike design that we've experienced. But, there are new challenges that come with the increasing popularity of mountain biking that I'd be happy to do without.


----------



## smartyiak (Apr 29, 2009)

Fajita Dave said:


> People destroy wilderness experiences...
> 
> My understanding of a wilderness area is the entire propose is to preserve the land in it's natural state.





Vader said:


> Wilderness should only be accessed by foot. Even horses should be kept out. The most severe trail destruction I've seen is from horsepacking in the Sierra.


Why not just ban all access? I mean, if the goal is to preserve it...people only mess it up.

Why not allow access to only park rangers and those approved for scientific study? I wouldn't have a problem with that...and no more bitching about who does what (or more) damage.

Also, not saying P-gucci isn't a good company and not saying they don't do good work, but I can't be the only who who finds their position ironic while making their name climbing/accessing peaks and claiming first ascents that are "wilderness."


----------



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

kpdemello said:


> There's something to be said for banning mechanized forms of travel in certain areas.


I agree, that's why they designate certain places wilderness areas.


----------



## kpdemello (May 3, 2010)

smartyiak said:


> Also, not saying P-gucci isn't a good company and not saying they don't do good work, but I can't be the only who who finds their position ironic while making their name climbing/accessing peaks and claiming first ascents that are "wilderness."


Everybody's a hypocrite. There's not one of us that can't say we've done damage to the environment in one way or another. If you start measuring activism by the purity of the individual activist, well none of us would be allowed to say much of anything. The point is that each of us can do something to help. I'd rather p-gucci do what it is doing than not giving a flying foo about the environment.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Fajita Dave said:


> People destroy wilderness experiences. If you have a problem with an e-bike on a trail that's a personal problem.
> 
> My understanding of a wilderness area is the entire propose is to preserve the land in it's natural state. If we're going to have people access it by trail than impact needs to be absolute minimum. If an e-bike, mtb and hiker all have the same impact what reasoning would you have to ban any one of those three besides "I don't like it." To minimize impact you need to limit the number of people there regardless of which low impact activity they choose to be doing.
> 
> From my personal experience hikers and equestrians have by far the biggest impact. Horses destroy trails and poop all over the place. Hikers create a bunch on unsanctioned trails, leave trash everywhere and pick up whatever catches their eye to take home with them. That should piss you off a lot more than someone on an e-bike.


And this is why I changed my mind about bikes in Wilderness. Those that ride e-bikes will rationalize their "right" to access as stated above.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

Curveball said:


> And this is why I changed my mind about bikes in Wilderness. Those that ride e-bikes will rationalize their "right" to access as stated above.


Yes, just because you don't like e-bikes. Still turn a blind eye to the well documented destruction hikers and horses do while being outraged about an e-biker just cruising down the trail.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

unrooted said:


> https://www.patagonia.com/stories/w...medium=email&utm_campaign=091220_TCL_unfenced
> 
> I'd say I would strongly disagree with Mike Ferintino's take on riding bikes in the wilderness, and will stop buying anything with a Patagonia label on it.


WOW, I got to this sentance and stance by Patagonia and totally agree with you. Not that I have ever purchased anything from them. I will make sure to never do so in the future.



> Y_ou can ride a mountain bike in many places, but sensitive species can survive only in their specific ecosystem with minimal disturbance._


This sentence is inferring that riding a bicycle on a trail that is also accessible via Horseback or on foot is somehow going to create more than a minimal disturbance to the ecosystem and thus is bad for sensitive species. The sheer volume of BS is too much for any container to hold. It is either ZERO access to humans, or some access for Humans. Trying to make any claim that a Bicycle on a trail is in anyway shape or form worse for the environment than a horse that poops out invasive seeds or a human with a wide foot track is unbelievable. At the very worse MTB's in the wilderness are equally as harmful as Hikers and Horseback riders, but in reality they are less damaging to the trails specifically. I might add, Sensitive Species are not going to grow in the middle of a trail, and if they do there is no guarantee a hiker wont step on them or a horse won't totally uproot them.

Is Patagonia Sponsored by the Sierra Club now?

Good night this sort of thinking is infuriating.


----------



## milehi (Nov 2, 1997)

smartyiak said:


> Why not just ban all access? I mean, if the goal is to preserve it...people only mess it up.
> 
> Why not allow access to only park rangers and those approved for scientific study? I wouldn't have a problem with that...and no more bitching about who does what (or more) damage.


The land belongs to the people and it's up to us to preserve it for future generations.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Fajita Dave said:


> Yes, just because you don't like e-bikes. Still turn a blind eye to the well documented destruction hikers and horses do while being outraged about an e-biker just cruising down the trail.


The Wilderness Act very specifically excludes motorized vehicles. Perhaps you should lobby Congress to amend it. What ever makes you think that I turn a blind eye to damage from horses and hikers?


----------



## 93EXCivic (Mar 12, 2018)

The biggest thing that bothers me about the article is he talks about bikes being recreation which they are and recreation being a privilege which it is but isn't hiking also both of those things and if your argument is going we must preserve areas from recreation why is horse riding or hiking ok?


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

Curveball said:


> And this is why I changed my mind about bikes in Wilderness. Those that ride e-bikes will rationalize their "right" to access as stated above.


No doubt someone will. Someone always does. In fact no doubt someone already does regardless of what they're riding, regardless of what they're doing.

Shall we ban all the good folks cuz there're always a couple bad ones? Similar argument applies to human-powered mountain bikers, sadly. Too many bad ones.

As for my comment a little ways up there... facetious - it's a word. Check it out, my friend.
=sParty

P.S. Irony is also a word and may apply in this case inasmuch as you & I may feel more similarly than we do differently about bikes in Wilderness.


----------



## smartyiak (Apr 29, 2009)

kpdemello said:


> Everybody's a hypocrite. There's not one of us that can't say we've done damage to the environment in one way or another. If you start measuring activism by the purity of the individual activist, well none of us would be allowed to say much of anything. The point is that each of us can do something to help. I'd rather p-gucci do what it is doing than not giving a flying foo about the environment.


I guess...but it's still ironic (to me).



Vader said:


> The land belongs to the people and it's up to us to preserve it for future generations.


Yes it does...and in order to preserve, what's wrong with staying the heck out of it? Does no longer belong to the people if keep it untracked?


----------



## 93EXCivic (Mar 12, 2018)

smartyiak said:


> Yes it does...and in order to preserve, what's wrong with staying the heck out of it? Does no longer belong to the people if keep it untracked?


When was the last time the land had no humans on it? The native Americans were living on the land thousands of years before it was turned into "Wilderness".


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

Some people claim allowing bicycles in Wilderness on a case-by-case basis is a "*slippery slope*". E.g., ebikes and motos will be next, blah blah blah.

The reality is the *slippery slope* started in 1982 when the Sierra Club successfully lobbied to remove bicycles from 100% of Wilderness areas (and ultimately many Wilderness Study Areas and Recommended Wilderness Areas).

Next to be removed will be horses... which would be greatly supported by hikers and already banished mountain bikers.

Then the next to be removed will be humans... to the delight of some people posting here and several environmental groups.

Then, we will slowly start to lose Wilderness acreage. Generally, if humans can't use a resource, they stop caring about it... and the next thing you know is the government starts allowing extraction (logging, mining, etc.) and road building... especially since the human population continues to grow exponentially.... and there aren't enough Wilderness Without Humans constituents to fight it. Let's hope that doesn't happen.

With that said, I think modern land managers generally see no reason to exclude bicycles in 100% of Wilderness 100% of the time (which is probably why you can't find hardly anyone who has been ticketed for riding in Wilderness), and bicycling still has a chance to be an approved use (on a case-by-case basis). We were probably close to 10 years away from that. Ebikes have probably pushed that back to about 20 years.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Sparticus said:


> No doubt someone will. Someone always does. In fact no doubt someone already does regardless of what they're riding, regardless of what they're doing.
> 
> Shall we ban all the good folks cuz there're always a couple bad ones? Similar argument applies to human-powered mountain bikers, sadly. Too many bad ones.
> 
> ...


Yeah, we're likely pretty close in our views. If e-bikes didn't exist and/or weren't becoming so popular, then I'd be all for limited Wilderness access for regular bikes. Their rapidly increasing popularity looks to me like they'd feel entitled to Wilderness access if regular bikes were allowed and that doesn't sit right with me.

I know you were being facetious about riding a dirt bike in Wilderness.


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

Guess I won't be the popular one. But the way things are here in SoCal seem pretty well balanced right now. A few places I can go to run without seeing bikes (and based on a lack of manure, no horses) like the PCT. I hardly see hikers there too. Few places I can ride my bike and see no one else, maybe an occasional runner (but rarely a hiker). Few places I can take my horse and not see a bike or person on foot.

But I am an ultra runner, mountain biker, and equestrian.


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

Curveball said:


> How do you propose catching them? Or should they just be allowed because "they don't do any more damage..than a normal mtb..."?


Fancy, fast Jeeps...


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Sidewalk said:


> Guess I won't be the popular one. But the way things are here in SoCal seem pretty well balanced right now. A few places I can go to run without seeing bikes (and based on a lack of manure, no horses) like the PCT. I hardly see hikers there too. Few places I can ride my bike and see no one else, maybe an occasional runner (but rarely a hiker). Few places I can take my horse and not see a bike or person on foot.
> 
> But I am an ultra runner, mountain biker, and equestrian.


Just to clarify your meaning, are you saying "There are a few places" or "there are few places?"


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Have y'all read the actual wilderness act? Mechanized transport? The writers did not intend for it to include bikes. And they were allowed up until 1964. It's about being able to be part of nature. What better way than bikepacking? Light, quicker than hikers, able to get away from the crowds at the trail heads. You can't even use a chainsaw or a wheelbarrow, how is one supposed to do trail work, esp from say a blow down or after a fire where there might be lots of trees. Bikes wouldn't be suitable every where due to crowds or terrain. Maybe some areas could stay hikers only, some horse only and some for just bikes? A trial basis for a few bike areas would be great. Might be able to connect a few areas with bikepacking routes, that say the wilderness area is right in the middle of or such.


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

Horses are trail destroyers. But horses aren’t the problem. Equestrians are the problem. You see, without the equestrian, horses have little interest in traveling on trails. They run willy nilly. So the real problem isn’t horses, it’s equestrians.

I say allow horses into Wilderness areas but ban equestrians.

Yeah, that’s the ticket.

I realize what I wrote has nothing to do with what you wrote. I’m on my second gin & tonic.
=sParty


----------



## Scott O (Aug 5, 2004)

Vader said:


> Wilderness should only be accessed by foot. Even horses should be kept out. The most severe trail destruction I've seen is from horsepacking in the Sierra.


Agreed. But what if the horse has human feet? This just raises more legal and ethical questions.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Sparticus said:


> Horses are trail destroyers. But horses aren't the problem. Equestrians are the problem. You see, without the equestrian, horses have little interest in traveling on trails. They run willy nilly. So the real problem isn't horses, it's equestrians.
> 
> I say allow horses into Wilderness areas but ban equestrians.
> 
> ...


Actually, that's my idea with E-bikes too. Allow the E-bikes on the trails, but just no battery.


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

Sparticus said:


> I say allow horses into Wilderness areas but ban equestrians.


Hmmm....

I take my horse for short runs a lot (he is kinda slow). So if I have him on a leash (halter and lead) am I a runner, or equestrian? This is getting complicated.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Jayem said:


> Actually, that's my idea with E-bikes too. Allow the E-bikes on the trails, but just no battery.


Thanks for the laugh, Jayem! I wish I could give you a positive rep for this post.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

If you have an ehorse does that make you an e-questrian?





Sorry. That's all I had.


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

Nat said:


> If you have an ehorse does that make you an e-questrian?
> 
> Sorry. That's all I had.


{e-groan}


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Sparticus said:


> {e-groan}


That's a "neigh" from Sparty. Can I get a yea?


----------



## WHALENARD (Feb 21, 2010)

I say turn "wild" horses into burgers, all of them, and allow non-motored bikes into wilderness. 

Sent from my moto g(6) forge using Tapatalk


----------



## mlx john (Mar 22, 2010)

Curveball said:


> Their rapidly increasing popularity looks to me like they'd feel entitled to Wilderness access if regular bikes were allowed and that doesn't sit right with me.


Should that same reasoning (rapidly increasing popularity) apply to regular bikes as well, regardless of E-bikes?


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

mlx john said:


> Should that same reasoning (rapidly increasing popularity) apply to regular bikes as well, regardless of E-bikes?


Yes.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

mlx john said:


> Should that same reasoning (rapidly increasing popularity) apply to regular bikes as well, regardless of E-bikes?


No, because the Wilderness Act specifically does not allow motorized travel. Are you now going to argue that e-bikes don't have motors?:madman:


----------



## mlx john (Mar 22, 2010)

Does not allow mechanized travel either, could be wrong, but thought I was pointing out a bit of flawed reasoning.

Of course my E-bike has a motor, and I don't feel the particular need or desire to ride wilderness on a bike or E-bike. I'm lucky, here in NM we have hundreds of miles of sweet single track.

I'm not that obtuse.


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

WHALENARD said:


> I say turn "wild" horses into burgers, all of them, and allow non-motored bikes into wilderness.
> 
> Sent from my moto g(6) forge using Tapatalk


They are an uncontrolled invasive species...


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

mlx john said:


> Does not allow mechanized travel either, could be wrong, but thought I was pointing out a bit of flawed reasoning.
> 
> Of course my E-bike has a motor, and I don't feel the particular need or desire to ride wilderness on a bike or E-bike. I'm lucky, here in NM we have hundreds of miles of sweet single track.
> 
> I'm not that obtuse.


You're missing context. In 1964, the Wilderness Act did not consider bicycles to be "mechanized" according to the definition they used at the time. Their definition at the time for "mechanized" meant "with a motor" so bikes were allowed then. Not motorcycles. Not cars. It wasn't until 1982 that an administrative decision was made to redefine "mechanized" to include anything with a wheel (but not snowshoes or skis), even if it was just a cart being pushed.

There is a reliable legal argument to simply overturn that administrative decision with another administrative decision (or with a court decision or legislative action), but doing so is politically toxic. Mountain bikers are still a small enough of a lobby that they can't overwhelm the negative response that will come from people who oppose bikes in Wilderness, regardless of how much sense the argument actually makes.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

mlx john said:


> Does not allow mechanized travel either, could be wrong, but thought I was pointing out a bit of flawed reasoning.


It wasn't necessarily factual reasoning. It was just my opinion. If regular bikes were allowed in Wilderness and lots of e-bikers also started riding in there too, then I could use some solid facts. I'm just hypothesizing what I think would likely happen and opine that I don't like it.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Harold said:


> You're missing context. In 1964, the Wilderness Act did not consider bicycles to be "mechanized" according to the definition they used at the time. Their definition at the time for "mechanized" meant "with a motor" so bikes were allowed then. Not motorcycles. Not cars. It wasn't until 1982 that an administrative decision was made to redefine "mechanized" to include anything with a wheel (but not snowshoes or skis), even if it was just a cart being pushed.
> 
> There is a reliable legal argument to simply overturn that administrative decision with another administrative decision (or with a court decision or legislative action), but doing so is politically toxic. Mountain bikers are still a small enough of a lobby that they can't overwhelm the negative response that will come from people who oppose bikes in Wilderness, regardless of how much sense the argument actually makes.


Makes me wonder what was going on in '82. Doesn't seem like there would have been enough bikes in wilderness for them to have banned them. Maybe some incidence in one location?


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

chazpat said:


> Makes me wonder what was going on in '82. Doesn't seem like there would have been enough bikes in wilderness for them to have banned them. Maybe some incidence in one location?


Good point. Mountain biking wasn't much of a thing back then. Hmmmmm. Rogue wheelbarrow pushers?


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

chazpat said:


> Makes me wonder what was going on in '82. Doesn't seem like there would have been enough bikes in wilderness for them to have banned them. Maybe some incidence in one location?


The reality is that once "mountain biking" became a thing in the early 1980's (but still minuscule in terms of a user group), hikers and equestrians didn't like or want this new trail user on "their trails"... and fought. Long before that, when tote goats and motorcycles became a thing, hikers and equestrians didn't like or want them on "their trails"... and fought. When ebikes came on the scene recently, "mountain bikers", hikers and equestrians (but mostly "mountain bikers") didn't like them on "their trails"... and are fighting it.

Humans just don't like change. Period. And the ban on bicycles in Wilderness was 100% "arbitrary". Wheel barrows and game carts were collateral damage.

1983








1981








1982 ... just before the Sierra Club "convinced" the USFS to rid Wilderness of bikes, wheelbarrows and baby strollers.








Oh.. and Ferrentino can still eat a bag of dicks. Benedict Arnold.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

Harryman said:


> Agreed. I'm fine with not being able to ride everywhere.


I'm not. It's public land, not your own private hiking ranch.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

J.B. Weld said:


> Yes, but wilderness areas only make up a small portion of open lands. As mentioned in the article there is many times that area that's legally available for mountain biking.
> 
> So not legal _everywhere_, but certainly not banned everywhere.


That's simply not true. 50m acres in the lower 48. Probably 20%+ of all public open spaces. When you add similar restrictions enabled by national parks which are not Wilderness, you're probably up to 30%.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

beastmaster said:


> If this season's wildfires in CA/OR/WA have shown us anything, we all need to realistically begin to adjust our living behaviors on this small, delicate, overpopulated, stressed out planet. Many scientific studies have concluded that by 2030 everyone must reduce fossil fuel consumption by 50% and we must be entirely off fossil fuels by 2050 to avoid runaway, cascading climate change. In the meantime, gigantic fires like these, continued drought, and huge forest die-offs will likely continue as we try to steer out of this multigenerational, decades long pollution-based economy. We did to ourselves.
> 
> Riding bikes in wilderness designated areas is rightfully banned, especially now that we are at a real tipping point where these precious reserves of pristine spaces are going to be rapidly diminishing because of everything we do in other places.
> 
> ...


I just can't follow the logic, assuming that there's one to your argument.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

The funny bit about Wilderness is that it's purely an 1800's European view of the world, that completely excludes the natives who lived and worked in Wilderness for 13,000 years. This whole nature devoid of humans is not based on history. Fact is that humans lived there forever until they were kicked out by the zealots who wanted a new religion to worship.

Hence, we end up with land that is untrammeled... We also end up with trails that are unmaintained, and forests that overgrown and burn much hotter (at least out west). Trees have to be cut by a cross cut saw, seriously? In 2020? So, what happens? They're not and trails are disappearing. How many people have time to go in the Wilderness for 10 days on horses (that will crap everywhere) to go cut a few trees like they did in 1850? 

The whole concept of Wilderness has been taken way too far by fringe lunatics who don't even see how crazy the concept has become. It's sad as it's such a wonderful concept otherwise.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

zorg said:


> The funny bit about Wilderness is that it's purely an 1800's European view of the world, that completely excludes the natives who lived and worked in Wilderness for 13,000 years. This whole nature devoid of humans is not based on history. Fact is that humans lived there forever until they were kicked out by the zealots who wanted a new religion to worship.
> 
> Hence, we end up with land that is untrammeled... We also end up with trails that are unmaintained, and forests that overgrown and burn much hotter (at least out west). Trees have to be cut by a cross cut saw, seriously? In 2020? So, what happens? They're not and trails are disappearing. How many people have time to go in the Wilderness for 10 days on horses (that will crap everywhere) to go cut a few trees like they did in 1850?
> 
> The whole concept of Wilderness has been taken way too far by fringe lunatics who don't even see how crazy the concept has become. It's sad as it's such a wonderful concept otherwise.


Given the population density of native people, I would disagree with this in general. Native populations tended to gather around rivers in temperate climates and other populations in what we would now deem as "wilderness" have always been extremely low-density. Not to say there are none or marginalize them, but in general, wilderness was wilderness. Now with the means to load up your F-250, ride out on your motorcycle, fly around the country, take food and supplies with you, etc., it's not the same thing, not even close to equivalent.


----------



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

zorg said:


> I'm not. It's public land, not your own private hiking ranch.


What about unimogs? Unimog owners pay taxes too.


----------



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

zorg said:


> I just can't follow the logic, assuming that there's one to your argument.


It seems self evident to me.


----------



## WHALENARD (Feb 21, 2010)

Jayem said:


> Given the population density of native people, I would disagree with this in general. Native populations tended to gather around rivers in temperate climates and other populations in what we would now deem as "wilderness" have always been extremely low-density. Not to say there are none or marginalize them, but in general, wilderness was wilderness. Now with the means to load up your F-250, ride out on your motorcycle, fly around the country, take food and supplies with you, etc., it's not the same thing, not even close to equivalent.


That and much much more.

Sent from my moto g(6) forge using Tapatalk


----------



## WHALENARD (Feb 21, 2010)

Fuel loads are there because of fire suppression...not "management". This has got be one of the most nitwit repeated pieces of propaganda going. "Management" from California through Washington is mostly in the form of clear cuts which cause desertification, soil degradation, higher local temps, and a host of other bullshit. Selective thinning is far and few between and cluster planting is another bullshit practice which delivers dense choked forest fuel loads. 

Sent from my moto g(6) forge using Tapatalk


----------



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

WHALENARD said:


> Fuel loads are there because of fire suppression...not "management". This has got be one of the most nitwit repeated pieces of propaganda going. "Management" from California through Washington is mostly in the form of clear cuts which cause desertification, soil degradation, higher local temps, and a host of other bullshit. Selective thinning is far and few between and cluster planting is another bullshit practice which delivers dense choked forest fuel loads.


They just need a little raking & sweeping


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

WHALENARD said:


> That and much much more.
> 
> Sent from my moto g(6) forge using Tapatalk


That doesn't change the fact that the untrammeled bit is not grounded in reality.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

J.B. Weld said:


> What about unimogs? Unimog owners pay taxes too.


That's a silly answer and you know it.

Here is the part that the Wildernuts can never explain with any kind of logic. Why is a trail that has been used for years or decades by cyclists somehow becomes inappropriate to ride when that land becomes designated Wilderness? Looking forward to that explanation.


----------



## Scott O (Aug 5, 2004)

There's a lot of gray area here and I'm not sure if this solution would work, but what if we put DaveVT out there and had him hide behind a tree. He could then jump out and strangle any horses he sees entering the wilderness. Just a thought.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

Jayem said:


> Given the population density of native people, I would disagree with this in general. Native populations tended to gather around rivers in temperate climates and other populations in what we would now deem as "wilderness" have always been extremely low-density. Not to say there are none or marginalize them, but in general, wilderness was wilderness. Now with the means to load up your F-250, ride out on your motorcycle, fly around the country, take food and supplies with you, etc., it's not the same thing, not even close to equivalent.


https://billingsgazette.com/lifesty...cle_b589afe6-194b-58d7-a1b1-7442b8c10220.html

It's likely that the plains and intermountain west had lower population densities than eastern/southern woodlands and California, but those areas definitely would not have been what we imagine as wilderness. Even the areas that Wilderness advocates describe as "ice and rock" were inhabited and used, as described in the story linked above. The mountains and plains would have been similar to the steppe and forest steppe in Kazakhstan or other parts of Eastern Europe-central Asia. And generally speaking, foraging cultures have no concept of wilderness. It's a human concept applied to a landscape. William Cronon makes this point convincingly.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

zorg said:


> That's a silly answer and you know it.


I'm pretty sure that JB was quite serious. Unimog owners unite! Don't let them take the land from us!


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

zorg said:


> I'm not. It's public land, not your own private hiking ranch.


But it also belongs to the public of the future.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

evasive said:


> https://billingsgazette.com/lifesty...cle_b589afe6-194b-58d7-a1b1-7442b8c10220.html
> 
> It's likely that the plains and intermountain west had lower population densities than eastern/southern woodlands and California, but those areas definitely would not have been what we imagine as wilderness. Even the areas that Wilderness advocates describe as "ice and rock" were inhabited and used, as described in the story linked above. The mountains and plains would have been similar to the steppe and forest steppe in Kazakhstan or other parts of Eastern Europe-central Asia. And generally speaking, foraging cultures have no concept of wilderness. It's a human concept applied to a landscape. William Cronon makes this point convincingly.


Well put. It's interesting how horses, non native species to the Americas (apparently a distant cousin disappeared from the continent over 10,000 years ago) is somehow okay in Wilderness. It's further proof that Wilderness as we know it is nothing more than a late 1800s European construct with complete disregard for the history and actual use of the land.


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

zorg said:


> Well put. It's interesting how horses, non native species to the Americas (apparently a distant cousin disappeared from the continent over 10,000 years ago) is somehow okay in Wilderness. It's further proof that Wilderness as we know it is nothing more than a late 1800s European construct with complete disregard for the history and actual use of the land.


So is your solution to turn it all into a free for all, or shut it down entirely, return it to the native population, maybe something else?

While I don't disagree that we are kinda just making it up, I do believe we should be doing some serious preservation, more than we are doing now. If that means I can't ride my bike or my horse there, I am fine with that. I don't feel entitled to it.

Then again, I have no offspring, so the future really doesn't matter to me.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

Sidewalk said:


> So is your solution to turn it all into a free for all, or shut it down entirely, return it to the native population, maybe something else?
> 
> While I don't disagree that we are kinda just making it up, I do believe we should be doing some serious preservation, more than we are doing now. If that means I can't ride my bike or my horse there, I am fine with that. I don't feel entitled to it.
> 
> Then again, I have no offspring, so the future really doesn't matter to me.


None of the above.

The issue is that Wilderness as a land conservation tool became this green religion for zealots with all kind of made up inane rules (as you pointed out). I'm all for conserving land for future generations, but barring mountain bikers from Wilderness doesn't further that goal one iota.

Let's preserve the land for future generations. Let's allow low impact activities (hiking/human powered cycling/wheelbarrows for hunters). Let's use chainsaws a couple weeks a year to clear fallen trees that block trails. Let's review whether it makes sense to have trains of horses and mules carry out of shape people glamping in fragile ecosystems.

That'd be a good start.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

zorg said:


> None of the above.
> 
> The issue is that Wilderness as a land conservation tool became this green religion for zealots with all kind of made up inane rules (as you pointed out). I'm all for conserving land for future generations, but barring mountain bikers from Wilderness doesn't further that goal one iota.
> 
> ...


Ok, let's re-write the Wilderness Act using your proposed changes.

What if the powers that be, in some "future" administration, decide that, you know what, it's perfectly OK to strip mine or drill in a designated Wilderness area. Through their infinite wisdom, they determine that cutting some roads and letting a couple hundred acres here and there get leased out is "low impact".

Or, what about a lottery for motos to traverse a Wilderness area? 100 a year? A thousand? Relatively low impact, right? What about some quads, or some Texas wheelchairs?

Is that OK? I'm just trying to figure out what the line is here.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

Le Duke said:


> Ok, let's re-write the Wilderness Act using your proposed changes.
> 
> What if the powers that be, in some "future" administration, decide that, you know what, it's perfectly OK to strip mine or drill in a designated Wilderness area. Through their infinite wisdom, they determine that cutting some roads and letting a couple hundred acres here and there get leased out is "low impact".
> 
> ...


Ah the old slippery slope argument. If one allows cycling, then next thing you know we'll allow unimogs and oil drilling...


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Le Duke said:


> Ok, let's re-write the Wilderness Act using your proposed changes.
> 
> What if the powers that be, in some "future" administration, decide that, you know what, it's perfectly OK to strip mine or drill in a designated Wilderness area. Through their infinite wisdom, they determine that cutting some roads and letting a couple hundred acres here and there get leased out is "low impact".
> 
> ...


I'm not sure if I remember this correctly, but I think you can do prospecting and mining in Wilderness under the 1872 mining law.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

zorg said:


> Ah the old slippery slope argument. If one allows cycling, then next thing you know we'll allow unimogs and oil drilling...


Here's the thing: I'm FOR cycling in Wilderness areas. As my post above will demonstrate.

I just understand that it's a complicated issue. And, yes, a slippery slope is exactly how I would describe modifications to the Wilderness Act.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

Le Duke said:


> Here's the thing: I'm FOR cycling in Wilderness areas. As my post above will demonstrate.
> 
> I just understand that it's a complicated issue. And, yes, a slippery slope is exactly how I would describe modifications to the Wilderness Act.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Technically, wheelbarrows and human powered cycling are allowed under current Wilderness Act, and actually were for a period of time. The bans are administrative mis-interpretations of the Act. So, no Unimogs, quads or motos.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Curveball said:


> I'm not sure if I remember this correctly, but I think you can do prospecting and mining in Wilderness under the 1872 mining law.


Correct.

The problem being that an administration can waive requirements for just about any kind of analysis required for either permitting or operation of the mine.

Is a Wilderness area that has been destroyed by waived requirements still a Wilderness?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

Curveball said:


> I'm not sure if I remember this correctly, but I think you can do prospecting and mining in Wilderness under the 1872 mining law.


I believe that's true. At the very least the designation doesn't eliminate mining leases (which is why ID's all-R congressional delegation supported a Wilderness in the White Clouds). It doesn't eliminate grazing leases either, which drives me nuts. In the headwaters areas typical of WAs, the only thing that degrades a stream more than riparian grazing is clearcutting the watershed.


----------



## WHALENARD (Feb 21, 2010)

evasive said:


> It doesn't eliminate grazing leases either, which drives me nuts.


Imo, this is the current most widespread destructive force on our public lands. Talk about a driving force in making grasslands and scrub forest fire prone. The power of the cattle lobby is nearly unmatched.

Sent from my moto g(6) forge using Tapatalk


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

evasive said:


> I believe that's true. At the very least the designation doesn't eliminate mining leases (which is why ID's all-R congressional delegation supported a Wilderness in the White Clouds). It doesn't eliminate grazing leases either, which drives me nuts. In the headwaters areas typical of WAs, the only thing that degrades a stream more than riparian grazing is clearcutting the watershed.


Ugh, that's right. I had completely forgotten about grazing. What a load of crap (literally).


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Eat less beef.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

Nat said:


> Eat less beef.


Yeah, but ironically when I was doing stream surveys/assessments, we often ended up ordering steaks at the bar that night. We wanted a meal that caused a cow to die.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

evasive said:


> Yeah, but ironically when I was doing stream surveys/assessments, we often ended up ordering steaks at the bar that night. We wanted a meal that caused a cow to die.


Lol.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

evasive said:


> Yeah, but ironically when I was doing stream surveys/assessments, we often ended up ordering steaks at the bar that night. We wanted a meal that caused a cow to die.


Double cheeseburger please!

How ironic. Wilderness must be left untrammeled by man but can completely trashed by non native species...


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

nat said:


> lol.


x2!


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

zorg said:


> Double cheeseburger please!
> 
> How ironic. Wilderness must be left untrammeled by man but can completely trashed by non native species...


And mines too. Cripes, this is just getting to be too much.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

Nice takes, Zorg. The usual anti-bikes-in-100%-of-Wilderness folks can't be reasoned with.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Empty_Beer said:


> Nice takes, Zorg. The usual anti-bikes-in-100%-of-Wilderness folks can't be reasoned with.


Who are those people? Which of the posters here has expressed anything resembling that opinion?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

Le Duke said:


> Who are those people? Which of the posters here has expressed anything resembling that opinion?


You are consistently leading the pack, Le Duke! Prove me wrong  JB Weld and this new Curveball person are right behind ya.


----------



## speedygz (May 12, 2020)

Le Duke said:


> Ok, let's re-write the Wilderness Act using your proposed changes.
> 
> What if the powers that be, in some "future" administration, decide that, you know what, it's perfectly OK to strip mine or drill in a designated Wilderness area. Through their infinite wisdom, they determine that cutting some roads and letting a couple hundred acres here and there get leased out is "low impact".
> 
> ...


I thought he was quite clear & concise about that. Human powered, not electric, gasoline, horse, or otherwise. Simples. No idea where lotteries for motorcycles come into it, or strip mining, other than your imagination.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

*Patagonia and Mike Ferintino: bikes in wilderness*



Empty_Beer said:


> You are consistently leading the pack, Le Duke! Prove me wrong  JB Weld and this new Curveball person are right behind ya.


My posts in this thread indicate that 1) I am for bikes in Wilderness and 2) Have donated money to organizations dedicated to that end goal.

So, I'm not sure why you are mentioning me here. I'm simply concerned about the future of Wilderness if we allow changes to how it is current administered. But...reading is hard, I get it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

speedygz said:


> I thought he was quite clear & concise about that. Human powered, not electric, gasoline, horse, or otherwise. Simples. No idea where lotteries for motorcycles come into it, or strip mining, other than your imagination.


He also said "Low impact activities". Which, if that is allowed to be interpreted by land managers at various levels, could mean quite a few things.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## speedygz (May 12, 2020)

Le Duke said:


> He also said "Low impact activities". Which, if that is allowed to be interpreted by land managers at various levels, could mean quite a few things.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


How can you possibly equate strip mining, and dirt biking as low impact?


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

speedygz said:


> How can you possibly equate strip mining, and dirt biking as low impact?


I'm not. I'm saying that that sort of vagueness is the problem.

And, administrators have leeway to make decisions regarding impact. As an example, the Pebble Mine project was deemed too dangerous to salmon and other fisheries. Then it was magically approved, meaning the rules weren't applied correctly or were simply ignored.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



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

Empty_Beer said:


> You are consistently leading the pack, Le Duke! Prove me wrong  JB Weld and this new Curveball person are right behind ya.


There's a difference between "anti-bikes in the wilderness" and being ok with it, I guess I figure there are needs more important than my own.


----------



## goodmojo (Sep 12, 2011)

zorg said:


> None of the above.
> 
> The issue is that Wilderness as a land conservation tool became this green religion for zealots with all kind of made up inane rules (as you pointed out). I'm all for conserving land for future generations, but barring mountain bikers from Wilderness doesn't further that goal one iota.
> 
> ...


Ultimately their point is that wilderness is supposed to feel wild and have the feeling of leaving civilization behind. Bringing bikes in destroys that feeling. I get where they are coming from, but disagree in that they dont get to dictate for everyone. Right now we are all fundamentally disagreeing about the purpose of wilderness.

It isnt about erosion, though that has been an argument.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

This thread is the prick waving contest of all time! Unfortunately, it lead to a popcorn shortage...


----------



## mtnbkrmike (Mar 26, 2015)

BansheeRune said:


> This thread is the prick waving contest of all time! Unfortunately, it lead to a popcorn shortage...


Bahahahahaha!

Nothing to add except to muse that there seems to be a lot of highly charged threads on MTBR these days. Including posts by some regulars who appear rattled and overly agitated for no apparent reason. I'm waiting for one of the truly passionate here to say eff it, and announce to all that he has been training for mixed martial arts his whole life and would like to meet up and settle the score with any of the naysayers, old school.

And then...thread lock.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Empty_Beer said:


> You are consistently leading the pack, Le Duke! Prove me wrong  JB Weld and this new Curveball person are right behind ya.


I'm new!!??

Maybe you should go back to read my posts in some of the past Wilderness threads for some perspective. I think I was clear in this thread that I'm not opposed to human-powered bikes in Wilderness and have contributed to the STC in the past. I now have some reservations about it with the proliferation of e-bikes.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

Ebikes are clearly banned from any definition of wilderness. What's the issue?

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

zorg said:


> Ebikes are clearly banned from any definition of wilderness. What's the issue?
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk


They would not be banned in the eyes of the e-bike riders if human-powered bikes are allowed. Harold's point about losing access to a great many areas that we already enjoy worries me greatly. I guess if I accept that e-bikes will also be in Wilderness, then I can balance that idea against all of the other Wilderness impacts, like grazing and mining.


----------



## WHALENARD (Feb 21, 2010)

mtnbkrmike said:


> Bahahahahaha!
> 
> Nothing to add except to muse that there seems to be a lot of highly charged threads on MTBR these days. Including posts by some regulars who appear rattled and overly agitated for no apparent reason. I'm waiting for one of the truly passionate here to say eff it, and announce to all that he has been training for mixed martial arts his whole life and would like to meet up and settle the score with any of the naysayers, old school.
> 
> And then...thread lock.


I'll meet you behind the school, pal.

Sent from my moto g(6) forge using Tapatalk


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

Curveball said:


> They would not be banned in the eyes of the e-bike riders if human-powered bikes are allowed. Harold's point about losing access to a great many areas that we already enjoy worries me greatly. I guess if I accept that e-bikes will also be in Wilderness, then I can balance that idea against all of the other Wilderness impacts, like grazing and mining.


That's speculation. Nobody is advocating for ebikes in wilderness

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

mtnbkrmike said:


> Bahahahahaha!
> 
> Nothing to add except to muse that there seems to be a lot of highly charged threads on MTBR these days. Including posts by some regulars who appear rattled and overly agitated for no apparent reason. I'm waiting for one of the truly passionate here to say eff it, and announce to all that he has been training for mixed martial arts his whole life and would like to meet up and settle the score with any of the naysayers, old school.
> 
> And then...thread lock.


This sounds oddly familiar&#8230;


----------



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

zorg said:


> That's speculation. Nobody is advocating for ebikes in wilderness


Why not? They cause no more trail damage than bicycles.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

J.B. Weld said:


> Why not? They cause no more trail damage than bicycles.


Dramatically less impact than grazing and mining.


----------



## mtnbkrmike (Mar 26, 2015)

Empty_Beer said:


> You are consistently leading the pack, Le Duke! Prove me wrong  JB Weld and this new Curveball person are right behind ya.


And yeah. Just who is this new Curveball person?

Lmao. I missed that. Omg. Comedic gold.

My GF, who is into this kind of stuff, tells me that Mars being in retrograde at the moment has a lot to do with unexplainable conduct by otherwise completely balanced people. Last night there were 6 police officers who attended one of her neighbours' places (I sure hope I got that apostrophe right...) after the couple lost their minds on each other and took their screaming to the streets.

These are scary times. In the world and right here on MTBR.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

J.B. Weld said:


> Why not? They cause no more trail damage than bicycles.


What's your point? I think that class 1 ebikes would be fine, but under the Wilderness Act, they would clearly be banned, so it's a totally moot point, and nobody is advocating for them. Unless you're trying your justify your ill conceived position based on some far fetched slippery slope argument.

And the best part? ebikes are allowed today... under the ADA.

About you explain to us why it's cool that trails that were once legal to ride become suddenly illegal to bikes because the land is renamed Wilderness. No change to the trail, no change to the land, just the construct changes.

I'm looking forward to your explanation and resulting tortuous logic (or lack of thereof based on your prior posts).


----------



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

zorg said:


> What's your point? I think that class 1 ebikes would be fine, but under the Wilderness Act, they would clearly be banned, so it's a totally moot point, and nobody is advocating for them. Unless you're trying your justify your ill conceived position based on some far fetched slippery slope argument.
> 
> And the best part? ebikes are allowed today... under the ADA.
> 
> ...


My point is that many people participating in this thread have stated that bikes have no more impact on trails than feet (which I disagree with) and that is the reason they should be allowed in wilderness areas. If this is true then why not ebikes? There are dozens of threads filled with posts saying they do no more damage than bicycles.

And I don't think it's a totally moot point, In many areas ebikes have been legally determined to be non-motorized and are allowed on non-motorized trails.

Also I never said it was "cool" that places that were once legal to ride are suddenly illegal.

I'm not meaning to argue, just stating my opinion. I appreciate and love wilderness areas and think there should be more of them. I have plenty of places to ride a mountain bike where I live and am totally willing to sacrifice potentially new riding areas for wild lands. I think there are many things (e.g. plants, rocks, wild animals, wild rivers, etc) that are more important than my desire to shred new trails.*

_*the opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of others or mtbr._


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

There's something notorious in law called the eggshell skull defense. It basically tries to prove innocence in the defendant based on how they were unaware of how sensitive the victim(s) was/were to their actions. It was deemed invalid in the courts, as it essentially appeals to ignorance in the defendant and blames the victim for pre-existing conditions that made them unexpectedly sensitive to what the defendant considers "normal".

People seem to be taking up this form of defense against their damage against nature. A conservationist could point out that valuable biocrust is being irreversibly damaged from just being merely tread on. Those who take up this kind of defense seem to act all innocent, trying to downplay the seriousness of their actions in question. If someone being called out on it is pressed, they'd point out how other trail users do it whenever they go off the trail too, and how they don't see them being punished for it, as if it is unfair to single them out. 

This sort of defense is illogical. Morally questionable actions are okay if others do it? You'll only do morally better if *everyone* else is doing it too? You see others getting away with something questionable, that they gain benefit/pleasure from, and you'll see that as a sign to cross the line and gain similar benefit/pleasure too?

Until humans find a way to accelerate the reversal of their damaging actions, it makes sense to reduce the damage done by human activity. That's what Wilderness stands for, right? What's with all the questionable fearmonger ideas around neglect, as if more human activity is a good thing? What about biking is a good thing for the land/nature? You can access it on foot like non-cyclists.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

J.B. Weld said:


> My point is that many people participating in this thread have stated that bikes have no more impact on trails than feet (which I disagree with) and that is the reason they should be allowed in wilderness areas. If this is true then why not ebikes? There are dozens of threads filled with posts saying they do no more damage than bicycles.
> 
> And I don't think it's a totally moot point, In many areas ebikes have been legally determined to be non-motorized and are allowed on non-motorized trails.
> 
> ...


You realize that you argued both and against wilderness? So you're for more wilderness but do not like losing trail. Wilderness is the tool by which all the anti bikes a..holes manage to kick us out.

So which is it?

Your arguments are lacking so far.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk


----------



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

zorg said:


> You realize that you argued both and against wilderness? So you're for more wilderness but do not like losing trail. Wilderness is the tool by which all the anti bikes a..holes manage to kick us out.
> 
> So which is it?
> 
> Your arguments are lacking so far.


Never said I do not like losing trail. Not arguing.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

zorg said:


> Nobody is advocating for ebikes in wilderness
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk


Fajita Dave is.

Here in WA, e-bikes are banned from natural surface trails unless otherwise permitted by the land manager. Guess how well this prohibition is working out? E-bikes are all over the trails where they are banned and the land manager doesn't have the resources for education/enforcement. I'd expect the same in Wilderness.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

Curveball said:


> Fajita Dave is.
> 
> Here in WA, e-bikes are banned from natural surface trails unless otherwise permitted by the land manager. Guess how well this prohibition is working out? E-bikes are all over the trails where they are banned and the land manager doesn't have the resources for education/enforcement. I'd expect the same in Wilderness.


I'm looking at this issue strictly from an environmental impact perspective. If you want to minimize or eliminate environmental impact then don't let people in or severely limit the numbers. If studies are showing impacts are roughly the same between hiking, mtb and e-bike than you don't have a leg to stand on excluding one unless the location can't handle the sheer volume of traffic. This isn't privilege, it's common sense based on actual impact of a given activity rather then some illegitimate hatred toward something.

A lot of our policies are out of date or corrupted by certain people/groups. In my opinion Wilderness shouldn't have people in it, it's wilderness to preserve the natural landscape and be a haven for native animals to live. Allowing grazing by a bunch of invasive non-native species is absolutely off the wall crazy if your trying to maintain the natural untouched landscape. Allowing e-bikes even compared to people riding horseback has a drastically lower impact on the environment of whatever location this is happening in. I'm simply trying to point out this squabbling over whether bikes and e-bikes should be allowed is pretty stupid given the other hypocrisies going on.

We have National Forests to ride here on the east coast. Some of the trails are hiking only so hikers have a place to go where there's no one besides hikers which is great. They also have a National Park here where all of it is hiking and horseback with bikes being excluded from trails. Which is fine because us mountain bikers have a very large portion of the National Forests, tons of parks and private land to ride on.

To me it looks like our country needs to restructure these categories, close loopholes and shut down special interest groups who clearly have one goal in mind like the Sierra Club.
Wilderness needs to actually be wilderness. No humans or a very limited amount should be allowed.
National Forests should make up the majority of our recreational land to play in. There would be designated hiking trails and multi-use trails. With the impact of class 1 e-bikes being the same as mtb they would be welcome to ride. I'm not arguing whether e-bikes do more trail damage or not. There's enough information available now to show their impact is equal to normal MTB. People skidding around and braiding around trees is a problem but that's the impact of the rider and not the type of bike they ride.
National Parks would remain the same. Lots of infrastructure to educate the masses who visit every year about the importance of our environment. You'll never get the average person outside into the woods without a specific destination and creature comforts.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Say, how long ago was the most recent environmental impact study of hiking versus mountain biking?


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Fajita Dave said:


> I'm looking at this issue strictly from an environmental impact perspective. If you want to minimize or eliminate environmental impact then don't let people in or severely limit the numbers. If studies are showing impacts are roughly the same between hiking, mtb and e-bike than you don't have a leg to stand on excluding one unless the location can't handle the sheer volume of traffic. This isn't privilege, it's common sense based on actual impact of a given activity rather then some illegitimate hatred toward something.
> 
> A lot of our policies are out of date or corrupted by certain people/groups. In my opinion Wilderness shouldn't have people in it, it's wilderness to preserve the natural landscape and be a haven for native animals to live. Allowing grazing by a bunch of invasive non-native species is absolutely off the wall crazy if your trying to maintain the natural untouched landscape. Allowing e-bikes even compared to people riding horseback has a drastically lower impact on the environment of whatever location this is happening in. I'm simply trying to point out this squabbling over whether bikes and e-bikes should be allowed is pretty stupid given the other hypocrisies going on.
> 
> ...


And what about the global warming you are causing with those fajitas?? Hmm, hmmm??


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

Fajita Dave said:


> I'm looking at this issue strictly from an environmental impact perspective.


Few people in this thread have actually brought any relevant points about environmental impacts. I keep hearing people talk about trail condition impacts but that's a very small aspect in terms of environmental impacts. I'll introduce one: your approach speed to wildlife, triggers a direct proportional stress response by the animal. So if you approach walking, the stress reaction is relatively low. If you approach at mach-chicken, the stress response is quite high. When you stress wildlife, you are severely impacting their chance of succeeding - many critters in the wild do not have the energy reserves to flee like this at every approach, they behave differently when stressed and migrate to less suitable habitats to avoid these stressors.

I'm not even doing this justice here but I encourage people to expand out of their box when considering wilderness; those broken down drainages and clapped out, eroded jumps at your local park are not the type of meaningful 'impacts' being considered for this type designation.


----------



## milehi (Nov 2, 1997)

Carl Mega said:


> Few people in this thread have actually brought any relevant points about environmental impacts. I keep hearing people talk about trail condition impacts but that's a very small aspect in terms of environmental impacts. I'll introduce one: your approach speed to wildlife, triggers a direct proportional stress response by the animal. So if you approach walking, the stress reaction is relatively low. If you approach at mach-chicken, the stress response is quite high. When you stress wildlife, you are severely impacting their chance of succeeding - many critters in the wild do not have the energy reserves to flee like this at every approach, they behave differently when stressed and migrate to less suitable habitats to avoid these stressors.
> 
> I'm not even doing this justice here but I encourage people to expand out of their box when considering wilderness; those broken down drainages and clapped out, eroded jumps at your local park are not the type of meaningful 'impacts' being considered for this type designation.


I don't see this at all. I live in a national forest and the wildlife co exists with us. I have a family of foxes in my back yard, a brown bear decided to call my front yard home earlier this year and I had to walk past it to get to my driveway. Mountain lions and coyotes will avoid me but deer will come to the back fence. It's like living in a zoo here.


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

Vader said:


> I don't see this at all. I live in a national forest and the wildlife co exists with us. I have a family of foxes in my back yard, a brown bear decided to call my front yard home earlier this year and I had to walk past it to get to my driveway. Mountain lions and coyotes will avoid me but deer will come to the back fence. It's like living in a zoo here.


This is well established and your personal observations about your local human-adapted opportunist critters are completely irrelevant. Have you ever been part of an NEPA-EA?


----------



## milehi (Nov 2, 1997)

Carl Mega said:


> This is well established and your personal observations about your local opportunist critters are completely irrelevant. Have you ever been part of an NEPA-EA?


Absolutely not. I've been mountain biking for 35 years. In that time I've been kicked off trails because of an endangered rat and gnat only to see housing tracts and industrial buildings built on those former trails. I ride where ever I want. National parks? Yes. The PCT? Oh hell yes. A very tasty section runs right behind me and I ride the **** out of it in the off season. I cant and wont be segregated and locked out.

Oh, and the last animal I rode past was a bobcat who couldn't be bothered as my dog and I rode by.


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

Vader said:


> Absolutely not.


Ok. You're out of your depth then. Sorry but that's what it is. You are entitled to your somewhat angry pointed opinion tho. My partner is the expert; she is a wildlife biologist and a land-manger and has inked more conservation easements than you can shake a stick at; this is my dinner time conversation. So I defer the expertise of her and her colleagues who spent their life studying this stuff and, well, do this every freaking day.

However, I have had the pleasure for working for a land agency building trails. Those EA studies are not arbitrary - worth a read if you haven't. (I tend to think that most trail users tho skip to the parts where they can see the recommendations and options and don't read the actual assessments). Point being, what is discussed here (trail condition impacts) are a small segment of what is being assessed. No one is giving much of hoot about trail widening and ride-arounds at the level of wilderness.

I live in rural area too btw. The human adapted animals you see are not the same as those sequestered to the wild. Over the last ten years, I've probably have had 100+ bears in my yard - this is not a good thing. A myriad of well established reasons.

(edit) tl;dr - they are trying to preserve the habitat not the trails


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Carl Mega said:


> Few people in this thread have actually brought any relevant points about environmental impacts. I keep hearing people talk about trail condition impacts but that's a very small aspect in terms of environmental impacts. I'll introduce one: your approach speed to wildlife, triggers a direct proportional stress response by the animal. So if you approach walking, the stress reaction is relatively low. If you approach at mach-chicken, the stress response is quite high. When you stress wildlife, you are severely impacting their chance of succeeding - many critters in the wild do not have the energy reserves to flee like this at every approach, they behave differently when stressed and migrate to less suitable habitats to avoid these stressors.
> 
> I'm not even doing this justice here but I encourage people to expand out of their box when considering wilderness; those broken down drainages and clapped out, eroded jumps at your local park are not the type of meaningful 'impacts' being considered for this type designation.


Many of us are respectful of Wilderness designations whether by bicycle or high performance snow machine. Some however, do not respect that designation. Does it have ramifications or consequence? Most area land managers, etc. do make descisions based upon that respect or lack thereof. Cannot blame em.

At the same time, when a trail system that has been in existence for decades is re-designated to spite mult-use, that only does more harm to areas that do require protection since some dummies will abuse the wilderness after such weapons are used against the people.

Keeping spaces for playgrounds is as important as is wilderness designation... Every square .0001" cannot be made Sierra Club exclusive, nor can it all be playground. These designations should be done on a more objective basis however, there are zealots on both sides of the topic that destroy any chance of quality decision and outcome.

I do agree with the fact that disturbance of wildlife is an issue. Where I live there are trails that close for elk calving, until the herd migrates to their next destination. Riparian locations do the same closures and restriction to preserve such wildlife activity. All human traffic is closed for those sensitive times. We locos do our very best to respect that or said trails will be permanently shut down to all.

Courtesy, respect and integrity are no longer required in life, or so it seems... This tidbit exists on both pro and con sides of this topic...


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

BansheeRune said:


> Many of us are respectful of Wilderness designations whether by bicycle or high performance snow machine.


I think so. Mostly good from my observations.

Like a few others here, I have a personal view that is nuanced and doesn't neatly fall into 'shut everyone out' or 'open everything up'. It's morphed a lot over the years but straight up I was a 'this is ridiculous! bikes should be in the wilderness!' guy in my younger years. These days, I think there are more important things than what I want.

Anyway - I only waded in to this because of the trail conditions wear/user mode difference minor peeve. If you want bikes in 'wilderness" don't get stuck on a human recreation experience aspect (like trail conditions) when the major driver is preserving the wild/wildlife habit.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

BansheeRune said:


> And what about the global warming you are causing with those fajitas?? Hmm, hmmm??


Veggie sweet potato fajitas


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

BansheeRune said:


> Where I live there are trails that close for elk calving, until the herd migrates to their next destination.


We have that here in Oregon too. Every year some bikers poach the closed area anyway. It's always Californians who do whatever the F they want without regard. Everyone hates them.


----------



## mbmb65 (Jan 13, 2004)

Fajita Dave said:


> Veggie sweet potato fajitas


Gross.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

Nat said:


> We have that here in Oregon too. Every year some bikers poach the closed area anyway. It's always Californians who do whatever the F they want without regard. Everyone hates them.


Wow. Tribalism much?

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

zorg said:


> Wow. Tribalism much?
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk


Are you gonna be okay? Need a minute?


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

Carl Mega said:


> I think so. Mostly good from my observations.
> 
> Like a few others here, I have a personal view that is nuanced and doesn't neatly fall into 'shut everyone out' or 'open everything up'. It's morphed a lot over the years but straight up I was a 'this is ridiculous! bikes should be in the wilderness!' guy in my younger years. These days, I think there are more important things than what I want.
> 
> Anyway - I only waded in to this because of the trail conditions wear/user mode difference minor peeve. If you want bikes in 'wilderness" don't get stuck on a human recreation experience aspect (like trail conditions) when the major driver is preserving the wild/wildlife habit.


Well, if you want to preserve habitat/wildlife, kick everyone out. Let's see how that plays out. Take Yosemite: Wilderness with millions of visitors per year...

And the whole speeding bikes scares Wilderness implies that bikes are speeding all the time, which we know isn't true, especially out west where trails wouldn't allow for speeding. Furthermore, how does a bunch of hikers camping in the forest and spending days there not disturb the habitat. What about a pack of horses and mules?

End of the day, nobody's asking for access to all trails at all times. But the blanket ban has nothing to do with science, NEPA, or the Act itself, but everything to do with backdoor lobbying from hiker/equestrians. And after 30 years, we have a bunch of gullible people who think it makes sense. So much for critical thinking...


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

J.B. Weld said:


> Never said I do not like losing trail. Not arguing.


So, simple yes/no question. Do you agree with banning bikes from Boulder White Cloud Wilderness?


----------



## WHALENARD (Feb 21, 2010)

Most wilderness trails that come to mind are big effort backcountry type riding. That in of itself keeps the numbers and impacts low. Take Ants Basin of the newly designated White Cloud for example...that saw so few riders losing the trail was part of the experience. 
The thing I see on both a macro and micro level is pitting similar vested interests against each other. This thread is a good example. Mountain bikes are virtually inconsequential to wilderness vs big industry, sprawl, and other exploits stated here. 
I see this very thing play out locally all the time. HUGE tracks of land decimated by logging and the various recreational groups fight over the little scraps left to them. We need to reject this entire paradigm and focus on what really threatens public lands.

Sent from my moto g(6) forge using Tapatalk


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Fajita Dave said:


> Veggie sweet potato fajitas


Lies!!!:nono:


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

WHALENARD said:


> We need to reject this entire paradigm and focus on what really threatens public lands.


Include drought and wildfire in that conversation.


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

zorg said:


> Furthermore, how does a bunch of hikers camping in the forest and spending days there not disturb the habitat. What about a pack of horses and mules?


You do a lot of 'whataboutisms'. You know that? What sort of critical thinking goes along the lines of 'well, if other things have impact then adding additional impactful activities makes even more sense!'

To be clear, I am in favor of some areas having no human access. Some nations already do this - surprisingly Russia. I think there is sense on limits for free-range grazing, pack animal access, mining, hunting, development and a host of other human activities. On the other side, I think that graduations of recreation can be expanded in ways that are not now - example: some areas would be viable for electric motorized even tho ICE is not allowed.

Your mtb speeding comment makes no sense. I literally live "out west". There are countless trail descents into drainages, creeks, rivers, valleys and other places of significant and sensitive habitat. It is undenieable that the descending approach speed of bikes/motos is considerable over than of foot & hoof.

Here's the deal with bikes in the wilderness: you are going to have more people, accessing more remote locations in higher density and frequency than now and the mechanism that enables this will also bring higher speeds and other collateral baggage. This will have an impact. It's fine to say: "we have tolerance in the system to accommodate because the <specific> area is not under pressure" or "I don't care about wildlife" or "we need to quantify the stressors/impacts and mitigate selectively". But to blanket deny that the change would have an impact at all shows poor understanding of the topic and is a disingenuous argument.

I get where enthusiasts are coming from. Few people are tolerant to hearing that there are limits to doing what they want. Further, the idea that you are sacrificing to preserve something that may in no direct way benefit you is hard for some (part of the reason there are humans are allowed in WA today - "you'll get to experience it pristine" - gotta sell it as "you get something out of this"). But, man, stepping back a bit - there are not a lot of wilderness areas and our native species are under a lot of pressure and dwindling - so yeah, it doesn't feel super important that I get to play on my bike wherever I want.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

Carl Mega said:


> You do a lot of 'whataboutisms'. You know that? What sort of critical thinking goes along the lines of 'well, if other things have impact then adding additional impactful activities makes even more sense!'
> 
> To be clear, I am in favor of some areas having no human access. Some nations already do this - surprisingly Russia. I think there is sense on limits for free-range grazing, pack animal access, mining, hunting, development and a host of other human activities. On the other side, I think that graduations of recreation can be expanded in ways that are not now - example: some areas would be viable for electric motorized even tho ICE is not allowed.
> 
> ...


What's your point? What are you arguing for or against?

It's pretty obvious that any presence of any kind will have an impact. So, are you arguing for banning everyone? Are you telling that when bikes were legal in Boulder White Cloud (just a recent example), nature was stressed to the brink of extinction?

If there are too many people, limit them. You're grossly overstating the impact of bikes, vs. other activities, to rationalize your exclusionary position.


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

zorg said:


> What's your point? What are you arguing for or against?
> 
> It's pretty obvious that any presence of any kind will have an impact. So, are you arguing for banning everyone? Are you telling that when bikes were legal in Boulder White Cloud (just a recent example), nature was stressed to the brink of extinction?
> 
> If there are too many people, limit them. You're grossly overstating the impact of bikes, vs. other activities, to rationalize your exclusionary position.


I'm giving people facts and a under represented view point in this thread. While people are talking about trail impacts, I think we've gone off the rez as WA are about habitat preservation vs. what most mtbers are used to regarding their local public riding areas (city/county/state/blm/fs) which is a balance of various human recreation/exploits/wildlife/habitat/area preservation/etc. In WA, the finger is on the scale for preservation full stop - as it should be. The rest of it are concessions to make it palatable to the public.

Brink of extinction sounds like a terrible standard before taking action. I don't follow the boulder news so I'm not versed. However, the argument that you don't change things before they are a problem is poor reasoning against proactive planning: I fix my leaky pipe before my house floats away.

My personal view is bikes not in wilderness is a reasonable concession given the options. If anything, I'd rather see wilderness get more protection from human activities - some controlled, sensitive areas already have permits & limits. I would also advocate for more use of area protections that don't raise to the restrictions of Wilderness but are still prohibitive to things like motorized, grazing, development, mining, etc.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

Carl Mega said:


> I'm giving people facts and a under represented view point in this thread. While people are talking about trail impacts, I think we've gone off the rez as WA are about habitat preservation vs. what most mtbers are used to regarding their local public riding areas (city/county/state/blm/fs) which is a balance of various human recreation/exploits/wildlife/habitat/area preservation/etc. In WA, the finger is on the scale for preservation full stop - as it should be. The rest of it are concessions to make it palatable to the public.
> 
> Brink of extinction sounds like a terrible standard before taking action. I don't follow the boulder news so I'm not versed. However, the argument that you don't change things before they are a problem is poor reasoning against proactive planning: I fix my leaky pipe before my house floats away.
> 
> My personal view is bikes not in wilderness is a reasonable concession given the options. If anything, I'd rather see wilderness get more protection from human activities - some controlled, sensitive areas already have permits & limits. I would also advocate for more use of area protections that don't raise to the restrictions of Wilderness but are still prohibitive to things like motorized, grazing, development, mining, etc.


Enjoy your bike/human free Wilderness...


----------



## WHALENARD (Feb 21, 2010)

How does hunting compare as a stressor vs mtb in wilderness?

Sent from my moto g(6) forge using Tapatalk


----------



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

zorg said:


> So, simple yes/no question. Do you agree with banning bikes from Boulder White Cloud Wilderness?


Maybe. I haven't been to Boulder in over 30 years and have no idea about the local situation there.


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

zorg said:


> Enjoy your bike/human free Wilderness...


What if... it wasn't all about what we enjoy. Sometimes *you* are not the most important thing. It's a developmental progression that happens to some of us after object permanence.



WHALENARD said:


> How does hunting compare as a stressor vs mtb in wilderness?


Oh man. Now you are talking and not just Wilderness but across FS and BLM. Hunters are a very strong lobby and have exploited some of the same points I mentioned here against mtbs and motos in extremely self-serving ways with bad faith arguments & their own impact conveniently ignored. The greens do it too, but where I live, the hunter lobby is the one swinging the big stick and getting other users (and predators) excluded in the name of "wildlife" while their motives are more game (not same as wildlife) and near exclusive access. They have amazing balance being anti-moto singletrack but pro SxS and ATV. It's a big mess. There are good hunters and they serve purpose & honor their activity but the talking points from their lobby groups are painful.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

Carl Mega said:


> What if... it wasn't all about what we enjoy. Sometimes *you* are not the most important thing. It's a developmental progression that happens to some of us after object permanence.


That's the issue with Wildernuts. You've turned a land conservation tool into a new religion. Your absolutist "I'm morally superior" vision of Wilderness is the problem. If you had your way, you'd close all open spaces to all humans (despite the fact that humans have lived in all areas for eons). Good luck with that.


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

zorg said:


> That's the issue with Wildernuts. ..... If you had your way, you'd close all open spaces to all humans (despite the fact that humans have lived in all areas for eons). Good luck with that.


Wildernuts. How clever. Hope I'll be ok and recover from this scathing putdown.

Cool revisionist take. In this thread, I advocated for new eMoto access in areas and more use of controls besides Wilderness designation. But you get on with your bad-self brah.

So other than opining on the internet - you do anything for trails, access, betterment of areas? You just might be "all hat and no cattle".


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

Carl Mega said:


> Wildernuts. How clever. Hope I'll be ok and recover from this scathing putdown.
> 
> Cool revisionist take. In this thread, I advocated for new eMoto access in areas and more use of controls besides Wilderness designation. But you get on with your bad-self brah.
> 
> So other than opining on the internet - you do anything for trails, access, betterment of areas? You just might be "all hat and no cattle".


So, your fragile ego needs to win the internet? Good on you. Have fun.


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

zorg said:


> So, your fragile ego needs to win the internet? Good on you. Have fun.


So you're admitting I won! I can log off now. Whew.

Subtext: Zorg never lifted a finger to help anyone but himself and wants to ride all the trails he wants. Big man baby.

(edit) leave something useful in my crap post - re Boulder-White-Cloud WA:

https://www.outsideonline.com/2009216/mountain-biker-and-wilderness-relationship-its-complicated

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


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

Carl Mega said:


> So you're admitting I won! I can log off now. Whew.
> 
> Subtext: Zorg never lifted a finger to help anyone but himself and wants to ride all the trails he wants. Big man baby.
> 
> ...


Awesome. This thread will be better without you. You can go back to enjoy your partner lecture you on the finer points of NEPA...


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

I appreciate your input, Carl Mega. You made a lot of good points.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

Carl Mega said:


> My personal view is bikes not in wilderness is a reasonable concession given the options. If anything, I'd rather see wilderness get more protection from human activities - some controlled, sensitive areas already have permits & limits. I would also advocate for more use of area protections that don't raise to the restrictions of Wilderness but are still prohibitive to things like motorized, grazing, development, mining, etc.


This is what I'm all in favor of. Wilderness should be there simply to preserve the natural habitat otherwise labeling it Wilderness is just a BS front making it seem like you're protecting something.

Places where it makes sense and the ecosystem isn't as fragile would be fine to open up to the public to enjoy. Of course it would need guidelines that make sense in place to protect the natural environment and keep each user at least somewhat happy.

Unfortunately I don't have any faith in our government to make rational decisions or bother updating policies that were created in the 1700's to fit a modern world.


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

Fajita Dave said:


> This is what I'm all in favor of.


They did a plan here where 1/3 of the designation was Wilderness. The other 2/3 got a customized land and travel management plans. By and large the existing trails (single track bicycle / motorized) were grandfathered, it built new trails specifically to allow eBikes, it opened up additional over snow travel terrain. Seems like a good model and mindset to follow.

Lest anyone pay attention to that other nut, I'm all about trails. My job was building trails. I took pride in that work - pretty gratifying to see people enjoy em. Want someone to care about nature? Get them on a trail. Trails are also a win-win scenario: not only are they delivering people access & experience, they are directly mitigating impact issues by channeling use/travel to where you want. Without proper established trails that cater to the need, you just have people scrambling about trampling everything underfoot. Pretty cool to consider that what could be called a land scar is also a hyper effective preservation tool and they deliver the grins.


----------



## WHALENARD (Feb 21, 2010)

Carl Mega said:


> they are directly mitigating impact issues by channeling use/travel to where you want.


This is an important tool in the calculous imo.

Sent from my moto g(6) forge using Tapatalk


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

I'm with you, Carl. It's a very tough balance, keeping the land preserved while also serving the people. I'm willing to give up riding in an area if it is necessary, though I really don't have a horse in this race as there is not much Wilderness around me.

Covid 19 has provided us with a look at the future, or maybe it's here. I drove by my near-by NPS NRA at 9:30 Sunday morning and the parking lot was already overflowing. It was one of our first chilly mornings and I had thought that would keep some of the people away. The road was lined with caution tape on the sides to prevent people from parking (it is a narrow, twisty road). 

But it is a trend that has already been growing around me. There are several NPS National Battlefield parks around me that all had to greatly expand their parking lots over the last few years. They use to all be free but a couple of years ago they started requiring paid parking.

I suppose it is selfish of me to desire less people use MY parks. But unfortunately, along with the crowds come more litter and damage (and fewer parking spaces).

I guess it's not practical but I wish there was an education requirement before people were allowed to use the parks. I'm kind of against fees, our taxes should be covering that but I know that's been an easy target for politicians to take funds from. And bigger crowds require more upkeep. I'm starting to get fee'd to much; I buy an annual pass for my NRAs (which isn't good for the Battlefield Parks, that's a separate fee). I have an annual fishing license, which allows me to ride in the WMAs*. Several of the county parks around me now charge to park. I sometimes ride in State Parks that charge, though I usually ride my bike in and avoid having to pay. Maybe there should be a requirement that you have to do some trail work/litter pick up to access the parks, though of course there is no one around to check any type of pass outside the parking lot (every now and then) in most of these places.

*I rode in a WMA this past weekend and as I was leaving, I walked up to the kiosk in the parking lot to look at the map and was surprised to see that my fishing license and other land access passes were not valid in this particular WMA and I was supposed to have paid $7 or purchased an annual pass for $75. WMAs are normally owned by the state but this one is actually owned by the city of Atlanta, despite being over an hour away from the city, way out in the country. Apparently the city purchased the land for a future Atlanta Airport North. It will be horrible if that ever happens but I guess someday, it will. There is a state WMA just north of there.


----------



## goodmojo (Sep 12, 2011)

zorg said:


> Well, if you want to preserve habitat/wildlife, kick everyone out. Let's see how that plays out. Take Yosemite: Wilderness with millions of visitors per year...
> 
> And the whole speeding bikes scares Wilderness implies that bikes are speeding all the time, which we know isn't true, especially out west where trails wouldn't allow for speeding. Furthermore, how does a bunch of hikers camping in the forest and spending days there not disturb the habitat. What about a pack of horses and mules?
> 
> End of the day, nobody's asking for access to all trails at all times. But the blanket ban has nothing to do with science, NEPA, or the Act itself, but everything to do with backdoor lobbying from hiker/equestrians. And after 30 years, we have a bunch of gullible people who think it makes sense. So much for critical thinking...


The issue isnt disturbing the habitat, the issue is disturbing the natural peace and tranquility of the people hiking and birdwatching.

The animals dont care at all, it is the people that care. I 100% believe that what they are saying about being disturbed is true. The question is whether their desire to get away from mechanized civilization get to dictate access.

All the conservation points are just tools they use to have peace and quiet for their desired activity. For example in my area a salamander that pretty much has no value is used to stop road construction, mountain biking, etc but not hiking. Same with the golden cheeked warbler. The warbler thrives around a military base artillery range. In one preserve they have managed to get rid of most hikers by making a test about the golden cheeked warbler mandatory.

Natural erosion is orders of magnitude higher than any recreational activity. Even ATVs on atv trails are nothing compared to the natural erosion happening everyday due to rain events on thousands of square miles.

The antis cant say "you are disturbing my peace and quiet". So they use erosion, scaring animals, breaking the canopy, etc as tools.

It is like the NIMBYs who dont want poor people to move in but they cant say that, so instead they cite traffic, "neighborhood character", and crowded schools.


----------



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

goodmojo said:


> All the conservation points are just tools they use to have peace and quiet for their desired activity. For example in my area a salamander that pretty much has no value is used to stop road construction, mountain biking, etc but not hiking.


No value? You mean they aren't a commodity? Fug'em then I guess. Hard to believe they'll allow hiking but not highway construction 

Is peace & tranquility valueless in Texas?


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

J.B. Weld said:


> No value? You mean they aren't a commodity? Fug'em then I guess. Hard to believe they'll allow hiking but not highway construction
> 
> Is peace & tranquility valueless in Texas?


I like how you basically the whole point of his argument...


----------



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

zorg said:


> I like how you basically the whole point of his argument...


I think I got the gist, not interested in warblers or salamanders. Also something about how natural erosion damages the environment*

Since ~98% of the us isn't wilderness land you'd think it would be easy for people who don't like it to live some place where there isn't any.

*just kidding (partially anyway) I realize the post was meant to say that 'wildernuts' use habitat protection and endangered species as guises in order to declare areas off limit for development, and I completely disagree.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

goodmojo said:


> The issue isnt disturbing the habitat, the issue is disturbing the natural peace and tranquility of the people hiking and birdwatching.
> 
> The animals dont care at all, it is the people that care. I 100% believe that what they are saying about being disturbed is true. The question is whether their desire to get away from mechanized civilization get to dictate access.
> 
> ...


I think you have hit the nail on the head here. The history of the lobbying around the rules changes is proof that the reasoning to keep bikes out of the wilderness is really just one user groups bias against another. "we don't want them there because we don't like them"

To Carl Mega's points about faster objects on the trail "frightening" animals to the point where they migrate to other locations...... Seriously? Who cares? Animal life has proven time after time that is can successfully adapt to changes in climate, location, etc. All things done by nature over thousands of years. You know what wild animals cannot adapt to, building houses and freeways over the land they used to live on.

Mountain Bikes on the wilderness trail systems are not going to have any meaningful impact on plant or animal life.

No one is asking for Mountain Bike access on every inch of wilderness, we are talking about access on existing trails.

Or is someone asking about riding off-trail? Maybe I missed that?


----------



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

Klurejr said:


> To Carl Mega's points about faster objects on the trail "frightening" animals to the point where they migrate to other locations...... Seriously? Who cares? Animal life has proven time after time that is can successfully adapt to changes in climate, location, etc. All things done by nature over thousands of years.


I don't think so. Not nearly enough people care imo but thankfully some do.






Agree that habitat loss is the main problem but many other factors contribute.


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

Klurejr said:


> To Carl Mega's points about faster objects on the trail "frightening" animals to the point where they migrate to other locations...... Seriously? *Who cares? *Animal life has proven time after time that is can successfully adapt to changes in climate, location, etc.


This is a sad comment and rather pathetic. Animal life has not universally adapted to human influences - quite the contrary. As the hunter lobby likes to point out, these stressed animals have hard time reproducing and replenishing their numbers - compounded year after year. Yes, rampant development is the biggest issue and wilderness does a real fkn good job of shutting that down. Our cost for that protection? You can't play bicycles on just a tiny bit of all the rocks and plots of dirt you see. Boo-hoo, poor guy. I guess to that point: you've adapted to not riding Wilderness like since it was enacted....So *who cares* about your little first world problem?

In the scheme of things, do you realized how rare Wilderness designations are? It requires congress to pass a law, it goes through processes & refinement that may take decades, it has to be existing Federal properties, most of it is on NPS, the rest is mostly FS. Typically it used to protect sensitive & pristine areas from development concerns - in essence locking it down from political influences pushing for industry. You used to be able to sort of count on the standards in National Monuments (where you can enact custom management plans) but the recent political winds have undermined that designation - which puts more emphasis on Wilderness because it is much, much less likely to ever be rescinded. But hey, let's weaken that protection and set a precedent that might get opened up again to weaken it further and further. And for what? Of the trails that exist in Wilderness, many are not suited to mtb and probably/possibly wouldn't be open to mtb after they go thru NEPA - it'd be a whole can of worms for little payoff. Unless you are believing in the fantasy that removing mechanized off the prohibited travel list means you'll just magically get to ride everything at the snap of a fingers?

Adding this before distortion: 640MM acres of public lands, 109MM acres of Wilderness. ^17% Most of the big pickings for Wilderness has already been done.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Klurejr said:


> I think you have hit the nail on the head here. The history of the lobbying around the rules changes is proof that the reasoning to keep bikes out of the wilderness is really just one user groups bias against another. "we don't want them there because we don't like them"
> 
> To Carl Mega's points about faster objects on the trail "frightening" animals to the point where they migrate to other locations...... Seriously? Who cares? Animal life has proven time after time that is can successfully adapt to changes in climate, location, etc. All things done by nature over thousands of years. You know what wild animals cannot adapt to, building houses and freeways over the land they used to live on.
> 
> ...


I hate to say this, but this is one of the more ignorant posts in this thread.

In CO, plenty of trails are seasonal due to elk mating and calving. Why? Because high speed human interaction results in lower reproductive and calf survival rates. A species can't adapt if the mother elk runs away from its fawn, they get separated and the fawn dies as a result. A dead animal cannot adapt.

And, it's not the "anti-mountain bike crowd" that pushed this, so they can have access without being disturbed by Steve Shuttler and Evan Endurbro. Everyone is prohibited from accessing the trails and FS roads in those areas during that time of year. Hikers, backpackers, bikes, motos, vehicles on the road are all prohibited. Then, once the elk move back to higher terrain later in the year, everyone is allowed back in those areas.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Le Duke said:


> I hate to say this, but this is one of the more ignorant posts in this thread.
> 
> In CO, plenty of trails are seasonal due to elk mating and calving. Why? Because high speed human interaction results in lower reproductive and calf survival rates. A species can't adapt if the mother elk runs away from its fawn, they get separated and the fawn dies as a result. A dead animal cannot adapt.
> 
> ...


So during the non-mating/calving season there is no prohibition from fast moving traffic, including Trucks and Motos?


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Klurejr said:


> I think you have hit the nail on the head here. The history of the lobbying around the rules changes is proof that the reasoning to keep bikes out of the wilderness is really just one user groups bias against another. "we don't want them there because we don't like them"
> 
> To Carl Mega's points about faster objects on the trail "frightening" animals to the point where they migrate to other locations...... Seriously? Who cares? Animal life has proven time after time that is can successfully adapt to changes in climate, location, etc. All things done by nature over thousands of years. You know what wild animals cannot adapt to, building houses and freeways over the land they used to live on.
> 
> ...


That's terrible and wrong in so many ways.


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

Le Duke said:


> In CO, plenty of trails are seasonal due to elk mating and calving. Why?


Heh. I got a bit triggered w/ Klurejr so I'll tone down this next point. We ,in rural states, that depend on hunter tags for revenue get to see the closures for Elk as that group champions it HARD in FS/BLM/NPS. However, this same situation exists for other species but they are not game so they get passed over. You might see closures for birds of prey and a few other select ones but most of the other animals just have to deal with it. The one spot they all get that luxury? Wilderness.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

Seasonal closures apply to everyone and every mode of travel, and that’s a legitimate management tool for protecting wildlife. 

Claiming that bikes cause increased flight response and therefore harm wildlife (or more accurately big game, as Carl Mega noted obliquely in his reference to the hunting lobby) is something else. AFAIK there have been no studies on this that control for hunting pressure. Game learn to fear and avoid humans when humans shoot them. Wisdom’s work in Oregon is on hunted herds. It’s pretty tenuous to claim that increased flight response leads to increased stress, decreased feeding, and therefore to lower survival, WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY ignoring the direct mortality caused by hunting. At the end of the day, it’s recreation management that prioritizes hunting. 

None of that is specifically Wilderness related, but that makes it more relevant as it plays out on public land closer to most riders.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

J.B. Weld said:


> I think I got the gist, not interested in warblers or salamanders. Also something about how natural erosion damages the environment*
> 
> Since ~98% of the us isn't wilderness land you'd think it would be easy for people who don't like it to live some place where there isn't any.
> 
> *just kidding (partially anyway) I realize the post was meant to say that 'wildernuts' use habitat protection and endangered species as guises in order to declare areas off limit for development, and I completely disagree.


That 98% number is absolutely meaningless, and you should know it.

The real number that matters is 20%: that's the percentage of open space under Wilderness designation (and that's a low estimate). And that number is growing since the Wildernuts won't be satisfied until all open space is Wilderness.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Klurejr said:


> So during the non-mating/calving season there is no prohibition from fast moving traffic, including Trucks and Motos?


Correct.

While being hit by a car is a danger, the greater danger is not making it to that point in life at all.

Prohibiting traffic during the most vulnerable months dramatically increases survival rates overall.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

I also get a bit triggered when the Sierra Club successfully gets bicycles banned in my local area for similar reasons, and then a developer builds a track of homes on the land a few years later.

Before the houses were there the Animals co-existed with the humans, hiking, biking or horseback riding.

With the houses the animals are either dead or have been driven out.

Watch any nature documentary, the things that kill off species are major developments, industrial spills, clear cutting forest to convert to farm land or development.

Humans hiking or riding on existing trails are not putting more species on the endangered species list.

Yes, we need to be concerned about the natural world, but anyone claiming humans using trails is killing off habitat has chosen the wrong hill to die on. The fight should be against Development, Mining/logging, farming and grazing.

To Le Dukes point, yes there can be specific area's with specific examples and those should be taken into consideration.

Someone mentioned before about User Education. I think that is a great idea. Maybe to get a permit for specific wilderness trails you must take a specific class or test to be qualified for using those trails. Just putting up a fee for a pass is not going to make anyone learn about that specific area.

Blanket Bans are not good. Each Trail system needs to be managed according to the needs of the area.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Klurejr said:


> I also get a bit triggered when the Sierra Club successfully gets bicycles banned in my local area for similar reasons, and then a developer builds a track of homes on the land a few years later.
> 
> Before the houses were there the Animals co-existed with the humans, hiking, biking or horseback riding.
> 
> ...


Habitat fragmentation can take many forms.

Roads and trails are absolutely a thing that impact species. If anything, something like a clear cut is less hazardous to many species than a dirt road or even a single track trail. It is a temporary (human) disturbance that introduces longer term biological heterogeneity to an ecosystem. Now, obviously size, location, shape and how a clear cut interacts with terrain and resources will determine how much of an impact it has. Two clearcuts of the same size on opposite sides of a ridge line could have dramatically different impacts.

There are whole branches of ecology, biology and geography that study this stuff.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Klurejr, I'm curious. In which state do you live?


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

Klurejr said:


> I also get a bit triggered when the Sierra Club successfully gets bicycles banned in my local area for similar reasons, and then a developer builds a track of homes on the land a few years later.


This is an intriguing example. Honestly, it's hard to picture in regards to public lands. Maybe a land-swap? If you are governed by a conservation easement, it is EXTREMELY unlikely it'd be amended to allow for track homes new construction. And public lands - ummmmm - no. Got a link or anything to an example?

Sierraclub and other special interests have some bad-faith people but I see them roughly the same as most the other user groups...maybe just more of em' and better organized tbh.
[/QUOTE]



Klurejr said:


> The fight should be against Development, Mining/logging, farming and grazing.


Agreed - within reason anyway. Land conservation, namely through conservation easements is the most relevant and exciting tool I see. All that rancher land you see? Well, if you don't want that to become Spawlmarts n McMansions - having them protected this way is really effective. If you are not familiar, the owner establishes a con/ease which limits the way the land can be used. The land is devalued thus enables the owner to get tax breaks. Often the land can get donated or sold to public or other agency for mangement. If you've ridden some public place with 'xxx Ranch' it likely went thru a similar process. Not all of it goes to parks for rec tho - often reserved for Ag (and grazing) and the details of the easement are dictated by the owner. As these old ranchers and farmers get to end of life - its difficult to have a handoff to next gen, they don't want to see their legacy land get developed so this is a way they segment some/all for future gens and ensure it doesn't get dev. Worth also calling out - when you are petitioning your local land mangers for XYZ trails or to allow eBikes, if that land was acquired by conservation easement, the agency is bound by those terms - so if it doesn't allow new trails or motor. That's it. Ppl just see the land and think 'free game' but not as many are aware of the layers of controls that may prevent what they want. Further complicated if land is patchwork: private, city, county, fs, blm, etc. Hard rules.

^this, like Wilderness, is not perfect. They are just the best tools available. If we waited for perfection, nothing would be protected or reserved for public use.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

Carl Mega said:


> Heh. I got a bit triggered w/ Klurejr so I'll tone down this next point. We ,in rural states, that depend on hunter tags for revenue get to see the closures for Elk as that group champions it HARD in FS/BLM/NPS. However, this same situation exists for other species but they are not game so they get passed over. You might see closures for birds of prey and a few other select ones but most of the other animals just have to deal with it. The one spot they all get that luxury? Wilderness.


As if millions of hikers, campers and horse riders don't disturb the wildlife when they mill around and set camp. Singling out cyclists is disingenuous.

Some other posters mention shuttling, which also is ridiculous. Going into the backcountry is hard and will be for the long distance riders. Those won't go very fast.

That focus on speed as the single reason to keep cyclists out is not reasonable.


----------



## WHALENARD (Feb 21, 2010)

Le Duke said:


> If anything, something like a clear cut is less hazardous to many species than a dirt road or even a single track trail. It is a temporary (human) disturbance that introduces longer term.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Huh? I'm having a hard time making sense of that?

Sent from my moto g(6) forge using Tapatalk


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Nat said:


> Klurejr, I'm curious. In which state do you live?


California, San Diego County to be more specific.



Carl Mega said:


> This is an intriguing example. Honestly, it's hard to picture in regards to public lands. Maybe a land-swap? If you are governed by a conservation easement, it is EXTREMELY unlikely it'd be amended to allow for track homes new construction. And public lands - ummmmm - no. Got a link or anything to an example?
> 
> Sierraclub and other special interests have some bad-faith people but I see them roughly the same as most the other user groups...maybe just more of em' and better organized tbh.


The Del Mar Mesa in San Diego is a good example. Places where hiking, biking and horseback riding had been in place for years, cyclists were kicked out, and now there are million dollar homes there and more going in.

A lot of it is specific designations as to who owns the land and how the land around it is mitigated to offset the development. It is really infuriating to have a big chunk of land turned into a Nature Conserve where biking is no longer allowed as mitigation so a developer can build mansions on that same land......

None of it was designated "Wilderness", I am not implying that in regards to what happened here. Most of it was owned by the city or was private at one point.

Another Example is the Carlsbad Highland Ecological Reserve, or CHER. It was farm land up until the 1960's. Pesticides were used, roads cut, invasive plants introduced. You can still find plastic piping half buried and exposed in many places. There is a ton of Plastic drip lines sticking up out of the dirt on all the roads and trails. Fireroads were cut as fall lines with no proper erosion control or drainage. If I recall correctly the land was sold to the city of Carlsbad when the farming was done with.

People used it for 4x4 and moto action in the 1970's - 1990's, then MTB became popular and single track started showing up. In 1998 a section of the old farm land was set aside to help the then thought to be endangered Gnat Catcher. They literally put concrete K Rails out in the property to "fence" off this section and made it off-limits to all human traffic. The signage said it was only a 2 year project. 20 years later the signs were still up and the walls are still there. It was later discovered that the gnat catcher in question was not a unique species, but rather part of a much larger species and NOT endangered.

The Walls are still there..... It is a major eyesore.

Around the time of the Gnat Catcher ordeal the City gave the land to the State to become a Nature preserve, it is surrounded on 3 sides by Houses and farms on the south end. The rules have changed multiple times in the 20+ years it has belonged to the state. At one point there was signage from CDFW that said bicycles were allowed, the maps on CDFW's site show only a few fire roads as being approved trails.

As MTB grew more popular, more single track showed up, the MTB crowd built the trails, but they were actively used by hikers and trail runners alike. I am not sure if the signs were incorrectly put in place, but the rules for this Nature Preserve according to CDFW right now is no Cycling access and no Horseback riding, but hiking and bird watching is okay. The cyclists ignored this "rule" and thrived alongside the hikers and the occasional Equestrian.

2 years ago a local lady got tired of seeing the MTBers hanging out on the trails (her home backs up to them and she was an important player in getting the City to give the land to the State to preserve it, something that is actually good because it totally stops any development), she got the Sierra Club involved. The Sierra Club used their power to bully the CDFW into more active management of the land and enforce the rules regarding no cycling in the preserve. CDFW put up some huge ugly signs at all the major entrances and spent 6 months performing a shock and awe campaign, the Wardens were driving their trucks all over the property to chase down cyclists and mostly gave out warnings. The CDFW officially made ALL the existing Singletrack Legal for hiking and bird watching, but illegal for cycling and horseback riding. There is a access road for the power company that runs north/south in a direct line along the eastern border that is fine for the power company to drive trucks on, but illegal for bikes to ride. They sent in a guy who has been actively tearing down berms, but not putting in any water drainage or erosion control. Multiple cyclists spoke to the wardens and found they were being called down from other parts of the state and paid OT to cover this campaign, and none of them wanted to be there babysitting trails.

Carlsbad PD was also engaged to patrol these trails on dirt bikes during the beginning of the COVID lockdowns to ensure no one was hiking or biking out there when all the trails were closed. The Carlsbad PD Homeless outreach program also uses dirt bikes on occasion to go out there as homeless activity has increased since the cyclists were scared off.

These days the CDFW no longer has money to waste on wardens hanging out. But Gabe the Gardener is still out there once a week tearing out berms. CDFW even brought in tractors and cut a new road that did not exist before so it was easier for their trucks to drive from one side of the preserve to the other. Cyclist have returned to find that the heavy rains from last winter have created extreme erosion due to lack of maintenance (in past years the builders would be out right after any rains to fix ruts and create erosion control).

The place is in the worst shape I have seen in the 13 years I have lived nearby.

Sorry for the long tirade, and I know this is not 100% on point with the discussion, just trying to express the background to my viewpoints. The state is basically treating these preserves as Wilderness when it comes to access so they don't have to bother with trail maintenance. Considering both these examples are in the middle of highly populated area's it just does not work.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Klurejr said:


> California, San Diego County to be more specific.


I see.


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

zorg said:


> As if millions of hikers, campers and horse riders don't disturb the wildlife when they mill around and set camp. Singling out cyclists is disingenuous.
> 
> Some other posters mention shuttling, which also is ridiculous. Going into the backcountry is hard and will be for the long distance riders. Those won't go very fast.
> 
> That focus on speed as the single reason to keep cyclists out is not reasonable.


Here's the daylight between our positions. Cyclists are not singled out or persecuted anymore than every one of the other enthusiast groups. I just spent some time I'm not getting back reading hunter sites. Get this -> they think they are singled out and want changes to WA. Went over to hang-gliders: same deal. Snowsports: yep. Ranchers: oh they think they go the crap end of the stick too. Poor dog owners have to keep theirs on leashes. Climbers not loving their concessions either. The hardcore greens are bitching what interests they gave up. OHV people are mad at everyone but themselves. A common theme is: oh man, I like this but I want you know, a little more.

It's been said that a good compromise is when both sides are dissatisfied. Feels true here.

So if you are trying to find some perfectly objective, universal 'truth' on every nuanced rule or piece of dirt - qualified and quantified to death - you won't. What Wilderness is a whole bunch of stakeholders making concessions for an overall good thing. Can someone find edge-case or exceptions or even mainline things that may be 'less bad' ecologically than something grandfathered in? Obviously. So does that mean we need to include every activity that doesn't currently have the impacts of grazing? I don't think that's a reasonable answer.

I think there are adjacent, good aspects of Wilderness in terms of cycling too. Might be a bit of silver lining but think of it as a defacto relief valve for people who want hiker only trails. "You already have allllll of this"

There are people who don't believe in public lands at all. There are those who don't believe in Wilderness or protections. There are those who believe in broader parts of Wilderness but want to amend it to suit their specific interests.

So should we open up the guts of this thing to be back on the drawing board and subject to the political winds of times? Or can we pause and step back and see what a overwhelming success the program is and honor the last 50+ years of very, very hard efforts and compromises that brought it to bear?

That's where I'm at. By any measure, WA are a massive success story.

In terms of efforts for trail opportunities for mtb, I don't think the juice will be worth the squeeze. We'd be better off directing all that energy and resources to current land & trail issues. Conservation for public access. Terrain that suits the need. Do we continue to politic for more considerate placement of WA than was applied in 1980? Absolutely - as mentioned, the hybrid style that went in by me a few years ago did exactly that. Wilderness for sensitive/pristine. Custom management plans for other areas.

So up to you. Wanna sit at home, stewing on the internet fuming on your latest persecution complex. Go fer it. Ain't changing anything but you. Wanna try to change the act - that's your prerogative. I think in the end, you'd have been happier with the results if you put that money and time into your local areas.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

Carl Mega said:


> Here's the daylight between our positions. Cyclists are not singled out or persecuted anymore than every one of the other enthusiast groups. I just spent some time I'm not getting back reading hunter sites. Get this -> they think they are singled out and want changes to WA. Went over to hang-gliders: same deal. Snowsports: yep. Ranchers: oh they think they go the crap end of the stick too. Poor dog owners have to keep theirs on leashes. Climbers not loving their concessions either. The hardcore greens are bitching what interests they gave up. OHV people are mad at everyone but themselves. A common theme is: oh man, I like this but I want you know, a little more.
> 
> It's been said that a good compromise is when both sides are dissatisfied. Feels true here.
> 
> ...


So, you're the one writing a 1000 word essay, and I'm the one stewing at home? 

Restoring the intent of the WA doesn't preclude working on other opportunities. Those 2 goals are not mutually exclusive. Good for you if you're happy being excluded without a good reason from 50M acres in the lower 48, but that's on you.

The one thing that's absolutely certain is that unless we restore cycling opportunities in Wilderness, we will keep losing trails, one new Wilderness at a time. It's been going on for 40 years and shows no sign of abating. I can't understand while any MTBer would be happy with that outcome.


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

Klurejr said:


> California, San Diego County to be more specific.
> 
> The Del Mar Mesa in San Diego is a good example. Places where hiking, biking and horseback riding had been in place for years, cyclists were kicked out, and now there are million dollar homes there and more going in.


I feel for your situation. I will say that part about the replacing public lands with homes just doesn't pass the smell test. It had to either be private or part of a land swap/deal.

I looked at this: https://www.delmarmesa.org/del-mar-mesa-preserve

And saw that there's concerns about adjacent land that is private becoming commercially developed (wait - have you heard me mention conservation easements? lol).

"Del Mar Mesa Preserve is a City of San Diego resource-based park, created over twenty-five years through the combined efforts of US Fish and Wildlife, CA Fish and Wildlife, San Diego County, the City of San Diego, environmental groups both large and small,* individual developers, property owners who dedicated up to 75% of the land in exchange for density*, and hundreds of citizen volunteers, including among many others, Endangered Habitats League, Center for Biological Diversity"

CA has some really difficult, entrenched issues to deal with.


----------



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

I'm not worried about running out of trail to ride, not due to wilderness designation anyway.


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

zorg said:


> So, you're the one writing a 1000 word essay, and I'm the one stewing at home?


I'm happy to write when it's purpose is to persuade or educate. Usually helps me more than the reader.

There are limited resources and, in real life, you have to pick battles and select specific goals. Speaking from my front row seat in these matters, budgets/grants/donations, political will and external blockers and opportunities force you whittle down to what is relevant and attainable.

Outside of STC, I've not seen anyone offer anything close to course of action. So maybe that's where the thread needs to go - advocates for changing WA - what's your plan? Bring some specifics.

Edit: I'm ok with that 'outcome' because there is a greater good. Same reason I'm ok with paying taxes for a Fire Dept even when it's not my house burning down. But I get that everyone has their level on these things. And I'm not excluded, I can use the WA same as anyone else.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Carl Mega said:


> Here's the daylight between our positions. Cyclists are not singled out or persecuted anymore than every one of the other enthusiast groups. I just spent some time I'm not getting back reading hunter sites. Get this -> they think they are singled out and want changes to WA. Went over to hang-gliders: same deal. Snowsports: yep. Ranchers: oh they think they go the crap end of the stick too. Poor dog owners have to keep theirs on leashes. Climbers not loving their concessions either. The hardcore greens are bitching what interests they gave up. OHV people are mad at everyone but themselves. A common theme is: oh man, I like this but I want you know, a little more.
> 
> It's been said that a good compromise is when both sides are dissatisfied. Feels true here.


I know this was not in response to my comments, but if the Hikers and Equestrians are the ONLY groups not dissatisfied with the outcome...... what compromise are they making. That is why these groups are all up in arms from where they stand.

I don't really think it is fair to lump bike-packers into the same group as Hunters, Ranchers, Hang Gliders and Snowsports. Cyclists are not asking for off-trail access, all those other groups are. I see a pretty big line in the sand there.

Hunters are not gonna stay on designated trails, the entire purpose of their sport is to go find wildlife and kill it.
Ranchers purpose is to let their animals graze, literally eating off the land
Hang Gliders.... I guess they need to go off-trail to get to the cliffs they want to jump off? not sure on that one.
Snowsports - off-trail
Climbers - off trail

OHV has no place in wilderness, I think everyone here agrees with that.
Dogs probably have no place in wilderness on or off leash. (I am a dog owner and have been my entire life, there are too many irresponsible owners out there who wont clean up after their dogs and would allow them to run wild)

As stated before I see no difference between a Bike-Packer and a Back-Packer traveling the PCT or any other wilderness trail. I have yet to read anything that makes me agree with the Article the OP posted.



Carl Mega said:


> I feel for your situation. I will say that part about the replacing public lands with homes just doesn't pass the smell test. It had to either be private or part of a land swap/deal.
> 
> I looked at this: https://www.delmarmesa.org/del-mar-mesa-preserve
> 
> ...


Yes it does..... Especially in a densely populated place like San Diego Country where the weather is good year-round and the general populace enjoys outdoor activities.


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

Klurejr said:


> I know this was not in response to my comments, but if the Hikers and Equestrians are the ONLY groups not dissatisfied with the outcome...... what compromise are they making. That is why these groups are all up in arms from where they stand.


It's all good man. Sorry about slamming on you earlier. It's a fun peruse other forums and read their takes. Malcontents everywhere. Non-hunter hikers complaining about hunting and other minor grievances. Horse people (who are still excluded from certain trails) moaning about that and trail maintenance. Everybody got something.

But I get your points. If your preferred activity is completely out, it sucks harder than if you just have some light controls.

In the abstract, there's only a slight priority gap between most of our positions. If I could wave a magic wand, grazing goes bye-bye. 2nd wish is that mechanized could be selectively included. But that's predicated on these changes not undermining the whole thing - and maybe it would. I dunno. I have to respect the efforts people put into this thing and in terms of protection, it moved the needle.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Klurejr said:


> As stated before I see no difference between a Bike-Packer and a Back-Packer traveling the PCT or any other wilderness trail. I have yet to read anything that makes me agree with the Article the OP posted.


This takes us back to page 1 of this thread, but it's naive to think that only bikepackers would ride bikes in Wilderness. There would be shralping, there would be jump-creation, there would be advanced lines, there would be go-arounds, there would be motors.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Nat's bringing the motors?? Shame on you! Especially in a forum based on ebike hate...


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Carl Mega said:


> It's all good man. Sorry about slamming on you earlier. It's a fun peruse other forums and read their takes. Malcontents everywhere. Non-hunter hikers complaining about hunting and other minor grievances. Horse people (who are still excluded from certain trails) moaning about that and trail maintenance. Everybody got something.
> 
> But I get your points. If your preferred activity is completely out, it sucks harder than if you just have some light controls.
> 
> In the abstract, there's only a slight priority gap between most of our positions. If I could wave a magic wand, grazing goes bye-bye. *2nd wish is that mechanized could be selectively included. *But that's predicated on these changes not undermining the whole thing - and maybe it would. I dunno. I have to respect the efforts people put into this thing and in terms of protection, it moved the needle.





Nat said:


> This takes us back to page 1 of this thread, but it's naive to think that only bikepackers would ride bikes in Wilderness. There would be shralping, there would be jump-creation, there would be advanced lines, there would be go-arounds, there would be motors.


The answer seems to be something more in the middle and more specific to the trail system in question.

The crux of the article was that bike don't belong in the wilderness, and that is just not true.

Responsible biking has a place. Maybe some trails that are in Wilderness are too close to where humans live so yes guys might loop them and bring out the shovels and put in illegal jumps. I don't think anyone can definitively say that would never happen. HOWEVER, when I think of Wilderness I think of the PCT, most of which is no where near habitation and the only guys with the motivation to ride it would be guys like EvDog(mtbr member) who is a true bikepacker (i follow his instagram) out there riding all the remote places he can find where bikes are allowed, and those trails have not been turned into cess-pools because bikes are allowed.

Maybe some trails in the Wilderness should be closed during certain times of the year (elk birthing), maybe some should be closed to specific activities for other regional reasons. Maybe some should be open year round to bicyclists.

A blanket ban is not a good response.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

A lot of the support for this article is going farther than what STC wants, what I've harped on, and what most riders really want.

Nobody here wants every damn Wilderness trail opened up for mtb riding.

What people WANT is the possibility for a bike to cross a Wilderness boundary so that some remote, backcountry mtb trails that are included in a Wilderness designation can continue to be accessed.

Nobody here argues that Wilderness areas should have less visitation than frontcountry areas. Nobody here argues that Wilderness should have a lower density of trails than frontcountry areas, permitting wildlife to have refuges from what access there is. Nobody here argues that Wilderness areas should be treated with more respect from trail users.

I would argue that what STC is proposing is actually the far more nuanced way to manage Wilderness Areas.

A blanket ban on bikes really only makes sense if there is also a blanket ban on all nonmotorized recreational activity. Heavily restricted, that makes sense. Blanket ban does not. A blanket ban on all nonmotorized recreational activity is impractical for lots of reasons.

Now, yeah, there are other management solutions that CAN work. But bikes have all too often been thrown in the wood chipper so to speak when it comes to setting boundaries. The PROBLEM is that there are a lot of people who draw those boundaries specifically to screw with mountain bikers and other people they don't want to share with. They intentionally set up to chop off a chunk of trail that mtb riders use.

What we need is a willingness to work with people. What are the discrete boundaries of the ACTUAL ecological communities of note? What does the research show is an effective buffer that such communities need from people? What is the justification for the specific boundaries as they are drawn? Can the boundaries be adjusted? Can alternative management designations be used? Can the trail be moved to accommodate the new WA? I know that in a lot of WA designation processes where mtb trails would be affected, these strategies have been vigorously pursued, yet there have been few successes on that front.

I know of some state-level conservation discussions where "state nature preserves" are the comparable land use designation to Wilderness Areas at the federal level. Bikes are not blanket prohibited from these state nature preserves. However, if a use is not written into the original preserve designation, then it's not going to be added later. So a comparable tool might be able to be used for Wilderness Areas. Remove the blanket federal prohibition on them, but add a clause that would prevent new mtb route creation. That way, if a new Wilderness area is proposed, mtb access to specific trails could be lobbied for on a case-by-case basis. MTB advocates would have to be on their A-game for this, and it's highly probable that some mtb trails would still become off-limits. However, it would force riders to be selective about the trails they lobby for inclusion into the specific Wilderness designation. Boom. Solid compromise.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Klurejr said:


> HOWEVER, when I think of Wilderness I think of the PCT, most of which is no where near habitation and the only guys with the motivation to ride it would be guys like EvDog(mtbr member) who is a true bikepacker (i follow his instagram) out there riding all the remote places he can find where bikes are allowed, and those trails have not been turned into cess-pools because bikes are allowed.


I see that you're picturing really remote backcountry riding but a lot of the PCT through Oregon would be within easy reach of a day ride on a 160mm shred machine. These photos are all from the PCT Wilderness within five miles of a highway and about 45 minutes from Bend. Open it up to bikes and it would get flooded with riders:


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

Nat said:


> I see that you're picturing really remote backcountry riding but a lot of the PCT through Oregon would be within easy reach of a day ride on a 160mm shred machine. These photos are all from the PCT Wilderness within five miles of a highway and about 45 minutes from Bend. Open it up to bikes and it would get flooded with riders:
> 
> View attachment 1365779
> 
> ...


It's called the perfect cycling trail for a reason. Your "sky is falling" is not a valid reason to ban bikes. Plus, nothing is stopping people from riding that trail illegally right now. Actually, plenty do (good for them).


----------



## PlantFetich (Aug 19, 2018)

Dang, guys. Take a breather.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

........


----------



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

I don't buy much expensive outdoor gear but the next time I do it's going to be Patagonia stuff.




----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Harold said:


> A lot of the support for this article is going farther than what STC wants, what I've harped on, and what most riders really want.
> 
> Nobody here wants every damn Wilderness trail opened up for mtb riding.
> 
> ...


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Harold again.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

PlantFetich said:


> Dang, guys. Take a breather.


Indeed.

Just a reminder - Attacks on other forum users are not permitted and will be moderated. Make your point without name calling please.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

What Harold said, but:

If you are found using an eBike on a Wilderness area trail opened up for bicycle use, there are two options: 

1) Your battery is confiscated and you must pay a $5000 fine.

2) The Wilderness trail you were riding is no longer available to cyclists, and your name is published as part of the explanation as to why. And a fine, because **** you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Nat said:


> I see that you're picturing really remote backcountry riding but a lot of the PCT through Oregon would be within easy reach of a day ride on a 160mm shred machine. These photos are all from the PCT Wilderness within five miles of a highway and about 45 minutes from Bend. Open it up to bikes and it would get flooded with riders:


If you go back and re-read my post I clearly state the some trails in the Wilderness would be fine for cycling access and some would not and it would be better for the local land managers to make the decision.

Yes, some of the PCT is close to highways, and some of it would be perfect for riding a bike on, and in those cases cyclists and pedestrians and equestrians can practice proper trail etiquette. Your pictures of the PCT in Oregon look amazing and they look to be empty of people. If a cyclist rides the PCT responsibly and never actually encounters a pedestrian or an equestrian(assuming bicycles are legal on the PCT), what is the problem? If they do encounter another user group what is the problem? Multi-Use Trail systems work great in most places and would work the best in the more remote places.

I am not recommending anyone poach the PCT. I am saying if bikes were legal on it the world would not end.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Le Duke said:


> What Harold said, but:
> 
> If you are found using an eBike on a Wilderness area trail opened up for bicycle use, there are two options:
> 
> ...


Sounds reasonable.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Le Duke said:


> What Harold said, but:
> 
> If you are found using an eBike on a Wilderness area trail opened up for bicycle use, there are two options:
> 
> ...


That sounds reasonable, I like it. Some ebikes have non-removable integrated batteries though, so I suppose they could just impound the whole bike.

As for part 2, if someone is visiting from another state, decides to take his ebike in Wilderness and gets it shut down for everyone, would he really give a damn? It's not his home; He was just passing through. He didn't respect the rules in the first place so I could see him not caring what happens for everyone else after he leaves.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Le Duke said:


> What Harold said, but:
> 
> If you are found using an eBike on a Wilderness area trail opened up for bicycle use, there are two options:
> 
> ...


As with most of your ideas, I can get behind this one too.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Nat said:


> That sounds reasonable, I like it. Some ebikes have non-removable integrated batteries though, so I suppose they could just impound the whole bike.
> 
> As for part 2, if someone is visiting from another state, decides to take his ebike in Wilderness and gets it shut down for everyone, would he really give a damn? It's not his home; He was just passing through. He didn't respect the rules in the first place so I could see him not caring what happens for everyone else after he leaves.


At the very least he should have to pay a second $5k fine to get the bike back.

If people know there is the possibility of $10k in fines if you are caught poaching..... there would be decidedly less poaching.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Klurejr said:


> If a cyclist rides the PCT responsibly and never actually encounters a pedestrian or an equestrian


That is an enormous "if."


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

Nat said:


> That is an enormous "if."


Based on the fact that it happens everyday right now without a problem, not really.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Nat said:


> That is an enormous "if."


What makes you think the "if" is so enormous? Do your local trails have lots of reported problems on the existing MUTs?



zorg said:


> Based on the fact that it happens everyday right now without a problem, not really.


I tend to agree with zorg on this. where I live the vast majority of trail users are courteous and practice good etiquette.

Yes there are a few that don't and those are the stories that get told online, but surely you don't really believe that bicycles, hikers and equestrians cannot get along.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Klurejr said:


> What makes you think the "if" is so enormous? Do your local trails have lots of reported problems on the existing MUTs?
> 
> I tend to agree with zorg on this. where I live the vast majority of trail users are courteous and practice good etiquette.
> 
> Yes there are a few that don't and those are the stories that get told online, but surely you don't really believe that bicycles, hikers and equestrians cannot get along.


Unfortunately negative trail interactions are plentiful here in this tourism mecca. A study in 2015 reported that we had 3 million visitors to this city of 90,000 population. That equates to 20,000 visitors per day, many of whom get outside and hit a trail at some point during their visit. You'd be naive to think that everyone rides responsibly and plays well together. The best solutions involve segregation. Equestrians get their area, MTBers get ours, hikers get theirs, motos and ATVs get theirs.

Where is all of this poaching going on that you guys say is happening? California?


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Nat said:


> Unfortunately negative trail interactions are plentiful here in this tourism mecca. A study in 2015 reported that we had 3 million visitors to this city of 90,000 population. That equates to 20,000 visitors per day, many of whom get outside and hit a trail at some point during their visit. You'd be naive to think that everyone rides responsibly and plays well together. The best solutions involve segregation. Equestrians get their area, MTBers get ours, hikers get theirs, motos and ATVs get theirs.
> 
> Where is all of this poaching going on that you guys say is happening? California?


It really sounds like Bend has a tourism problem.

I am not aware of anyone poaching the PCT here in Socal. I do not doubt it happens, I also do not doubt it happens in Bend.

I agree that segregation can be a good thing and we need more dedicated and directional MTB trails, but I also know there is very little trail conflict in the places where MUT's exists, which is most of the trails around SoCal.

This really plays into my comment that the local land managers should make the decisions instead of blanket bans. Each area has it's own unique needs, from what you are saying Bend has too many tourists and needs more segregated trails, so bikes on the PCT might not work there.

Things are a bit different in Southern California.

I am sure things are probably different in other states where the Wilderness Act has closed off cycling from trails where it used to be allowed.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

*Patagonia and Mike Ferintino: bikes in wilderness*

Well, USFS HQ published a rule update today about ebikes. I haven't read it yet, but the early chatter makes it sound similar to the DOI Secretarial Order. It probably won't be relevant to WAs since their management is in statute. But considering how many ebikers think their state's motor vehicle code applies to USFS natural surface trails, that's going to be fun.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-ins...3nOTlIJbWcIju5Hnqt0BAvntpjlqal7O6xYKMgv1y4c2M


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Klurejr said:


> It really sounds like Bend has a tourism problem.
> 
> I am not aware of anyone poaching the PCT here in Socal. I do not doubt it happens, I also do not doubt it happens in Bend.
> 
> ...


Yes, this place is being "loved to death" for sure. It's a huge problem.

Clarify for me what you meant earlier when you said "If a cyclist rides the PCT responsibly and never actually encounters a pedestrian or an equestrian" followed by agreement with zorg's "Based on the fact that it happens everyday right now without a problem, not really."

So were you claiming that people ride the PCT every day without a problem?


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

Klurejr said:


> It really sounds like Bend has a tourism problem.
> 
> I am not aware of anyone poaching the PCT here in Socal. I do not doubt it happens, I also do not doubt it happens in Bend.
> 
> ...


Rules perceived as unjust are rarely followed. The closing of the PCT was drawn up on a typewriter by 3 guys at the request of the Sierra Club, PCTA, etc. without any public input or study. So, illegal riding happens all the time everywhere. Different trails for all user groups would be great but are 1) not realistic and 2) would ultimately mean less trails for everyone. So, back to reality, the best way forward is to share.

The problem is closures is that it creates unrealistic expectations of a trail belonging exclusively to one user group. And then hikers are dismayed when cyclists show up on the PCT, because that goes against their expectations. Make it multi use and expectations will be adjusted accordingly, and folks will share happily, with the exception of Nat who can't seem to share, especially with tourists from CA. 

And last but not least, there are bad apples in every group, and that would include hikers and equestrians. Life is a bell curve.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

This is why people from everywhere can’t stand Texans and Californians. 

No wonder your trail access sucks. You refuse to comply with any rule you don’t like and as a result, groups oppose your expanded access and land managers listen to them. 

Here in CO we have both the CDT and the Colorado Trail. Both pass through Wilderness. No one rides through them. I’ve hiked some spectacular portions of each and never seen a bicycle in the Wilderness sections. When I do, I’m sure that person will be a Californian or a Texan. Because they know better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

Le Duke said:


> This is why people from everywhere can't stand Texans and Californians.
> 
> No wonder your trail access sucks. You refuse to comply with any rule you don't like and as a result, groups oppose your expanded access and land managers listen to them.
> 
> ...


That's delusional

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

zorg said:


> That's delusional
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk


Maybe you're the problem, and not everyone else?

Is it beyond comprehension that your self-centered ways might actually come back to bite you in the ass later?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Le Duke said:


> Maybe you're the problem, and not everyone else?
> 
> Is it beyond comprehension that your self-centered ways might actually come back to bite you in the ass later?


Agreed.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Le Duke said:


> This is why people from everywhere can't stand Texans and Californians.
> 
> No wonder your trail access sucks. You refuse to comply with any rule you don't like and as a result, groups oppose your expanded access and land managers listen to them.
> 
> ...


Agreed again. Terrible guests. People from pretty much anywhere else? Welcome! Enjoy your visit!


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

Le Duke said:


> Maybe you're the problem, and not everyone else?
> 
> Is it beyond comprehension that your self-centered ways might actually come back to bite you in the ass later?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Nope, I'm pretty sure that the problem are folks that think excluding bikes from the PCT and Wilderness is normal.

Maybe, it's beyond your comprehension that agreeing to the status quo will only lead to more trail losses. If you're gullible enough to follow dumb rules, that's on you. There are plenty of MTBers who think and do otherwise.


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

It's fascinating when people don't realize they are a living, breathing cliché. The things they say and are proud of.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

Carl Mega said:


> It's fascinating when people don't realize they are a living, breathing cliché. The things they say and are proud of.


You win the self deprecating post award.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

keep on rockin guy....middle aged dork in a privileged sport sees any rule that slightly impedes his ability to do what he wants means it rises to the level of personal persecution and oppression. Throw in some half-baked conspiracy ideas like 3 people in a room supervened the process (ya know where 2 houses congress votes, after the fed agency proposals - I bet the prez was probably in on it too! #NOCOLLUSION!). 

Oh wait - he's going to willfully disobey the rule (you are so hard brah, so hard) and he's from California? Knock me over with a feather! But surely he has a plan to right this oppressive wrong, take some personal action? No? Just condescending crap talking on the internet (errr, I mean a message board there gramps)? You don't say, you don't say.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Nat said:


> Yes, this place is being "loved to death" for sure. It's a huge problem.
> 
> Clarify for me what you meant earlier when you said "If a cyclist rides the PCT responsibly and never actually encounters a pedestrian or an equestrian" followed by agreement with zorg's "Based on the fact that it happens everyday right now without a problem, not really."
> 
> So were you claiming that people ride the PCT every day without a problem?


I thought my statement was pretty clear, I will re-quote it for you:



> If a cyclist rides the PCT responsibly and never actually encounters a pedestrian or an equestrian(*assuming bicycles are legal on the PCT*), what is the problem?




It was a hypothetical question, right now bicycles are not legal on the PCT, my question was, IF THEY WERE legal, why would it be a problem for it to be Multi-Use?


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Guys, stop with the personal attacks, including broad generalizations about people from certain states.... We all know cherry picking and calling out someone from a specific local as being "the problem" is not accurate in anyway, it is language meant to incite anger and division. Please just stop it.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

evasive said:


> Well, USFS HQ published a rule update today about ebikes. I haven't read it yet, but the early chatter makes it sound similar to the DOI Secretarial Order. It probably won't be relevant to WAs since their management is in statute. But considering how many ebikers think their state's motor vehicle code applies to USFS natural surface trails, that's going to be fun.
> 
> https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-ins...3nOTlIJbWcIju5Hnqt0BAvntpjlqal7O6xYKMgv1y4c2M


I found this verbiage in the release interesting:



> The Forest Service's proposed directive revisions align with the 27 States andDOI's proposed e-bike rules in adopting a standard definition for an e-bike and a threetiered classification for e-bikes and align with DOI's proposed e-bike rules in requiring*site-specific decision-making and environmental analysis at the local level* to allow ebike use.


This is the exact thing I am saying needs to be done with the trails being converted to Wilderness and thus blanket banning all cycling.


----------



## mbmb65 (Jan 13, 2004)

Nat said:


> Unfortunately negative trail interactions are plentiful here in this tourism mecca. A study in 2015 reported that we had 3 million visitors to this city of 90,000 population. That equates to 20,000 visitors per day, many of whom get outside and hit a trail at some point during their visit. You'd be naive to think that everyone rides responsibly and plays well together. The best solutions involve segregation. Equestrians get their area, MTBers get ours, hikers get theirs, motos and ATVs get theirs.
> 
> Where is all of this poaching going on that you guys say is happening? California?


You should try living in a tourist town. Asheville, just Asheville, which is the same size as Bend, during the same time had 11.1 million visitors. That number doesn't include Brevard, Hendersonville, and other popular towns nearby. Overuse is the absolute number one issue we face here. Our Texans and Californians are Floridians and folks from the piedmont of NC. It's insane.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## WHALENARD (Feb 21, 2010)

mbmb65 said:


> You should try living in a tourist town. Asheville, just Asheville, which is the same size as Bend, during the same time had 11.1 million visitors. That number doesn't include Brevard, Hendersonville, and other popular towns nearby. Overuse is the absolute number one issue we face here. Our Texans and Californians are Floridians and folks from the piedmont of NC. It's insane.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


My parents live outside Ashville. I haven't been back there in 15ish years. When I used to ride there Ashville was a sleepy little hamlet and I had the trails to myself. Having a hard time wrapping my head around the growth/use and am dreading coming back to spend some time with them this spring.

Sent from my moto g(6) forge using Tapatalk


----------



## mbmb65 (Jan 13, 2004)

WHALENARD said:


> My parents live outside Ashville. I haven't been back there in 15ish years. When I used to ride there Ashville was a sleepy little hamlet and I had the trails to myself. Having a hard time wrapping my head around the growth/use and am dreading coming back to spend some time with them this spring.
> 
> Sent from my moto g(6) forge using Tapatalk


I've been here since '88 and the changes are phenomenal. It's still a great place to ride, and be, you just have to be creative, and careful about where/when you go. The sleepy, mountain hamlet is no more. Asheville is absolutely run over with tourism, and the city has not only allowed it to happen, they've encouraged it. Housing is ridiculous. We're fortunate enough to have been here long enough, that we own property, and are settled. Covid refugees from larger cities have flocked here, and now climate change refugees are showing up in droves, many of them from California. Yay.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Klurejr said:


> I thought my statement was pretty clear, I will re-quote it for you:
> 
> It was a hypothetical question, right now bicycles are not legal on the PCT, my question was, IF THEY WERE legal, why would it be a problem for it to be Multi-Use?[/COLOR]


In summary, you say hypothetically _if_ bikes were legal on the PCT, then I say that's a big if (because we're really speculating here), to which zorg claims that it already happens every day right now and you "tend to agree" with him.

Zorg, were you saying that people already poach the PCT every day right now without any issues? If so, where is this poaching happening?


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Nat said:


> In summary, you say hypothetically _if_ bikes were legal on the PCT, then I say that's a big if (because we're really speculating here), to which zorg claims that it already happens every day right now and you "tend to agree" with him.
> 
> Zorg, were you saying that people already poach the PCT every day right now without any issues? If so, where is this poaching happening?


But _WHY_ do you say it would be a big deal for the PCT to be a MUT? Is trail conflict really super horrible in Bend? Are Mountain Bikers and Hikers regularly getting into fights on the current MUTs in the area?

Yes my comment was a hypothetical question, my comment also has nothing to do with Zorgs comments about poaching.

Can you answer MY question without lumping in Zorgs comments? He and I are not the same person. I am not condoning poaching.

My point is trail users in my area, SoCal, have little to no conflict on MUTs, even with super high traffic due to the year round weather that is good for hiking, trail running, horseback riding and mountain biking.

Based on the local conditions and general good natured sharing of trails, I do not think it would be a problem if the PCT was opened up for cycling in this area. I use the PCT as an example because it is the only thing close to Wilderness we have this far south.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

mbmb65 said:


> I've been here since '88 and the changes are phenomenal. It's still a great place to ride, and be, you just have to be creative, and careful about where/when you go. The sleepy, mountain hamlet is no more. Asheville is absolutely run over with tourism, and the city has not only allowed it to happen, they've encouraged it. Housing is ridiculous. We're fortunate enough to have been here long enough, that we own property, and are settled. Covid refugees from larger cities have flocked here, and now climate change refugees are showing up in droves, many of them from California. Yay.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


That stupid law that forces money raised from hotel taxes to be used to ADVERTISE for more tourism, but not for anything else (such as infrastructure for people who live here).


----------



## mbmb65 (Jan 13, 2004)

Harold said:


> That stupid law that forces money raised from hotel taxes to be used to ADVERTISE for more tourism, but not for anything else (such as infrastructure for people who live here).


Stupid, for sure.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

nobody rides the PCT! And those dumb enough to risk it would certainly never document it!!


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

I don't know, sometimes I think we need to ban everyone and leave the wild places to the species that won't completely trash them. 

https://www.backpacker.com/news-and..._Bflc6GIPDB735HM-di48-cLk79ke9YwAxCPW7j1I&utm

And as some people said in the comments, screw the "influencers". All they do is get people who can't think for themselves into these areas.

Seriously, maybe we should require an education to earn a license to access these areas, like they do for hunting. Big fines if caught in the areas without a license.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

mbmb65 said:


> Stupid, for sure.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


And there was enough progress right before COVID hit that it was looking like it might get changed to balance out some money for infrastructure and parks and other projects.

Not now.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

chazpat said:


> I don't know, sometimes I think we need to ban everyone and leave the wild places to the species that won't completely trash them.
> 
> https://www.backpacker.com/news-and..._Bflc6GIPDB735HM-di48-cLk79ke9YwAxCPW7j1I&utm
> 
> ...


I went up to Max Patch a month or two ago. It wasn't even close to that trashed, but people were still treating it like a dump. Micro-trash everywhere. There were 3 open bags of trash in the parking lot stinking up the place (they must have been there for awhile to be like that) and I tossed 'em in my truck when I left.

I've been having conversations with some people I know and quite a few people who care about the outdoors would prefer the USFS to outright ban camping on Max Patch. I would also prefer the local USFS districts to institute a rule requiring people using roadside campsites to bring a toilet and pack out their $hit.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

Carl Mega said:


> keep on rockin guy....middle aged dork in a privileged sport sees any rule that slightly impedes his ability to do what he wants means it rises to the level of personal persecution and oppression. Throw in some half-baked conspiracy ideas like 3 people in a room supervened the process (ya know where 2 houses congress votes, after the fed agency proposals - I bet the prez was probably in on it too! #NOCOLLUSION!).


Reading comprehension is not your forte, is it?

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Wow, so ****y...


----------



## mbmb65 (Jan 13, 2004)

Harold said:


> I went up to Max Patch a month or two ago. It wasn't even close to that trashed, but people were still treating it like a dump. Micro-trash everywhere. There were 3 open bags of trash in the parking lot stinking up the place (they must have been there for awhile to be like that) and I tossed 'em in my truck when I left.
> 
> I've been having conversations with some people I know and quite a few people who care about the outdoors would prefer the USFS to outright ban camping on Max Patch. I would also prefer the local USFS districts to institute a rule requiring people using roadside campsites to bring a toilet and pack out their $hit.


People at these roadside sites typically can't manage to haul their trash, much less their own feces. The USFS can pass rules and regulations all they want, but as long as there is no enforcement, it doesn't matter. I've always thought that folks should have to register for roadside camping, especially in the front country, providing an avenue to follow if they trash the place. The bottom line is, too many people suck.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Ailuropoda (Dec 15, 2010)

They're bicycles, not meteors. Talking about their environmental impact is silly. A little erosion off of a trail is not the apocalypse. I mentioned this before but in my native North Louisiana, when we get one of our typical rainstorms the creeks run red with thousands of tons of mud. A couple pounds of dirt shifted from a trail is insignificant...like running over a couple of insects or some ubiquitous and plentiful forest plant. I know we're supposed to wring our hands in despair but your bike is not a destroyer of worlds. 

I started going out west a lot lately, to Arizona where we hope to move. Flying in you can appreciate that the desert is enormous...which is also apparent when you are in it. A couple of tires rolling over a trail shift a little dirt. Big deal. I'm not cutting down cacti or strip mining for copper. 

I think we have taken leave of our senses. Unfortunately, since many of you accept the premise of the extreme environmentalists, this has become the conventional wisdom and you are continuously not only apologizing for riding your harmless bikes but trying to show that you aren't a threat.

The common sense things like packing out your trash, not setting fires, and having a basic respect for other trail users should be enough.


----------



## milehi (Nov 2, 1997)

Klurejr said:


> It really sounds like Bend has a tourism problem.
> 
> I am not aware of anyone poaching the PCT here in Socal. I do not doubt it happens, I also do not doubt it happens in Bend.
> 
> ...


I "poach" the PCT. Specifically the section from Lake Arrowhead to the 15 freeway. Never during peak season with thru hikers and the only other users I've encountered on the trail was a trials motorcycle and gang bangers spray painting on rocks.

The PCT used to be open to bikes, then without any public input it was "closed" to bikes by no official agency so it's a very grey area for me. There's wilderness here too (San G), but I wouldn't think of riding there but The Perfect Cycling Trail calls like a Siren.


----------



## Ailuropoda (Dec 15, 2010)

Carl Mega said:


> keep on rockin guy....middle aged dork in a privileged sport sees any rule that slightly impedes his ability to do what he wants means it rises to the level of personal persecution and oppression. Throw in some half-baked conspiracy ideas like 3 people in a room supervened the process (ya know where 2 houses congress votes, after the fed agency proposals - I bet the prez was probably in on it too! #NOCOLLUSION!).
> 
> Oh wait - he's going to willfully disobey the rule (you are so hard brah, so hard) and he's from California? Knock me over with a feather! But surely he has a plan to right this oppressive wrong, take some personal action? No? Just condescending crap talking on the internet (errr, I mean a message board there gramps)? You don't say, you don't say.


He's not wrong, you know, at least in the broad sense although I'm not sure about the "three guys with typewriters."

Many environmental regulations have been written without real legislative input. What typically happens is that an environmental group like the Sierra Club files a lawsuit with a government agency, the government agency whose employees sympathize with the environmental group settle the suit and a regulation that has the force of law is created. This is one of the reasons a lot of environmentalists hate President Trump; the EPA has cut back on these "sweetheart lawsuits."

For that matter, most regulations are written in a similar manner. An omnibus-like bill is passed which gives the regulatory agency broad latitude to...regulate....and laws are created in a de facto manner that may be both arbitrary and unjust. Unfortunately, as we live in a nation of lawyers and not laws, fighting these kind of things is ruinously expensive for mere citizens.

We have the same problem in the corporate world. Corporations can act pretty much with impunity and without the slightest hint of due process. I had a buddy fired for a facebook post. To defend himself would have cost a couple of hundred thousand dollars in legal fees with no assurance that he would win the case. At the very least his employers would wear him down with legal maneuvers.

Don't get all twisted and accuse me of being a conspiracy nut. This is how regulations are created, mostly by lobbyists who write whole sections of bills that members of congress and state legislatures never actually read or understand. I would give you as evidence the Affordable Care Act, EMTALA, the ADA, and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act; all of which morphed into multi-thousand page bills with all kinds political plums in them.

You will recall Mrs. Pelosi's famous assertion that we would, "Have to pass the Affordable Care Act to find out what is in it." Nobody read all six thousand pages.

The corporation I work for decided in March to take ten percent of our pay which they will pay back at some unspecified time. Business really took a downturn because of COVID. There was no contractual basis for this at all but if I want my money back I will have to hire a lawyer at 300 bucks an hour who will end up costing me more than the money the corporation stole from me. I doubt I can get one to work on contingency for my money plus his costs.

That's just how it is. He is not a middle-aged dork in a privileged sport for pointing this out. The word "privilege" is kind of insulting to those of us who work hard and have to put up with what are now existential troubles.


----------



## downcountry (Apr 27, 2019)

Ailuropoda said:


> He's not wrong, you know, at least in the broad sense although I'm not sure about the "three guys with typewriters."
> 
> Many environmental regulations have been written without real legislative input. What typically happens is that an environmental group like the Sierra Club files a lawsuit with a government agency, the government agency whose employees sympathize with the environmental group settle the suit and a regulation that has the force of law is created. This is one of the reasons a lot of environmentalists hate President Trump; the EPA has cut back on these "sweetheart lawsuits."
> 
> ...


Wow!
Total mtbr sacrilege, dude. 
Cue Carl Mega-"you're out of your depth!!"
while pounding fists and stomping feet.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

3 guys on a typewriter refers to how the PCT was closed. Carl can't read.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk


----------



## Ailuropoda (Dec 15, 2010)

downcountry said:


> Wow!
> Total mtbr sacrilege, dude.
> Cue Carl Mega-"you're out of your depth!!"
> while pounding fists and stomping feet.


One of the things I have observed is that people never question the so-called conventional wisdom and accept it as if it was absolute reality with no attempt at critical examination. An environmentalist tells you that your completely innocuous mountain bike destroys the environment by shifting a few ounces of dirt on a trail or scares some beetle into not mating and they believe it because you have been conditioned your whole lives to accept this kind of thing.

Is there any evidence for this? Can you even construct an experiment to see if you're scaring the beetles? In fact, it's mostly just conjecture with some politically biased and very statistically shoddy research to bolster it. Of course, if you disagree they can alway call you a racist or "privileged."

Then they use emotionally charged words like "impact," once again, as if your mountain bike is a climate-changing meteor.

It's actually more of an aesthetic thing. Some environmentalists just don't want to see bicycles or more people in their pristine wilderness, even if the visitors have no "impact" and follow the common sense rules for visiting wilderness areas.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

And there it is. Science doesn’t exist because I don’t like the results.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

Le Duke said:


> And there it is. Science doesn't exist because I don't like the results.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


At least he is about half correct. The major part he's missing is the vast majority of forests where beatles and other animals live is gone and occupied by humans and our structures instead. It's pretty important to protect what's left.


----------



## Ailuropoda (Dec 15, 2010)

Le Duke said:


> And there it is. Science doesn't exist because I don't like the results.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Being both an engineer and a physician, I can tell you that a lot of what passes for science is based on incredibly shoddy research and that scientists, contrary to their ideals, are as politically biased as anybody else and let their views color their conclusions. Additionally, financial interests often obscure science. Hospitals, for example push thombolytics in stroke care even though the research over their effectiveness was inconclusive at best and strongly motivated by the huge profits going to both pharmaceutical companies pushing them and hospitals that want to get in on the profits from being a "Stroke Center."

In this case, not only were the endpoints used to determine effectiveness highly subjective but a lot of the data were manipulated to show the results in the best light.

So, while I trust the scientific method, I don't trust people with an agenda. It is a rare scientist who is not emotionally or financially invested in his work. This applies with a vengeance to the Global Warming industry.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Ha. Tell me exactly what financial incentive a meteorologist, physicist or geologist would have to take part an “industry” where the vast majority of your peers are competing for grants in the exact same research area. You don’t stand out at all by participating. 

Seems it would easier, and more lucrative, and build greater status within the field to do exactly the opposite.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Ailuropoda (Dec 15, 2010)

Fajita Dave said:


> At least he is about half correct. The major part he's missing is the vast majority of forests where beatles and other animals live is gone and occupied by humans and our structures instead. It's pretty important to protect what's left.


Your mountain bike tires are not the problem and they do not have an impact. You see, you have bought the premise. It's not a dichotomy; your mountain bike is not harmful to the environment and the solution to "protect" the environment is not to ban them from trails. The converse is true along the Ducks Unlimited model. While it's true that DU is a hunting organization, they have done more to bring back wild birds than organizations like the Sierra Club could even dream about.

If you let people use nature for recreation, they learn to love and respect it and will take care of it. Nobody is saying not to have some common sense rules. Why let hikers in the wilderness? Why let anybody if you want to keep it totally pristine?


----------



## Ailuropoda (Dec 15, 2010)

Le Duke said:


> Ha. Tell me exactly what financial incentive a meteorologist, physicist or geologist would have to take part an "industry" where the vast majority of your peers are competing for grants in the exact same research area. You don't stand out at all by participating.
> 
> Seems it would easier, and more lucrative, and build greater status within the field to do exactly the opposite.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You can and will lose your position at a university if you produce research that contradicts the current Global Warming conventional wisdom. You may not get fired but nobody is going to fund your research because there is no real freedom of speech in corporate or academic culture. You are free to speak as long as you regurgitate the political orthodoxy of your employers.

Some people are so wedded to their opinions that they can't see this. For example, if you believe in Global Warming with the usual religious intensity of many of its adherents, you can't understand or tolerate opposing beliefs because you are on a crusade.

Research grants go to those who write proposals that flatter the conventional wisdom. This is most evident in the "softer" sciences like psychology and less so the more technical you get. It's hard (but not impossible) to fudge the data in particle physics or flow dynamics nor is there as much politics involved.

I would point out that five years ago transgenderism was considered an abnormal psychiatric condition. Now, if you propose to study this and, horror of horrors, produce evidence to support the need for a study such as the several thousand percent higher suicide rate among them, you will be driven out of the university like a leper with herpes.

Climate science, as an example, lends itself readily to creative interpretation because it deals with a massively complex system that cannot be modeled accurately and, if you really look at some of the research, it's mostly derivative and based on a rather shaky foundation of unassailable knowledge which is why climate whores tend to thunder down at unbelievers with religious and not rational arguments. What's the term? Global Warming Denier?

The pharmaceutical industry is a good example of science in the service of profit.

You can build status in the science business by going against the conventional wisdom if you are Albert Einstein or somebody whose ideas are not just radical but so right that they cannot be contradicted. Like every profession, the business of science is full of low-level folks just kind of going through the motions to get through the day. The people approving grants are not super-genius level scientists with high level thinking skills. They're mostly relatively smart but fundamentally normal people working at a nine-to-five government job or similar. In industry they are bean-counters primarily looking at the potential for profit.

Le Duke, I have always respected you viewpoints and your opinions but I can't understand the blind spot you may have for science in your healthy general skepticism.


----------



## milehi (Nov 2, 1997)

Fajita Dave said:


> At least he is about half correct. The major part he's missing is the vast majority of forests where beatles and other animals live is gone and occupied by humans and our structures instead. It's pretty important to protect what's left.


Here, It's the bark beetles that are destroying the forest and creating an environment ripe for firestorms, all caused by the tree huggers who are adamant about any form of forest management. Four hundred poderosas an acre? Cool. Never mind what a healthy forest is supposed to look like just as long as you don't remove a single pine cone. So the forest burns and becomes a desert. True story.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Ailuropoda said:


> You can and will lose your position at a university if you produce research that contradicts the current Global Warming conventional wisdom. You may not get fired but nobody is going to fund your research because there is no real freedom of speech in corporate or academic culture. You are free to speak as long as you regurgitate the political orthodoxy of your employers.


Not sure about you, but I've had formal meteorology training and I've traveled with the scientists going to do surveys and research in arctic locations, like Barrow, Shishmaref, Kotzebue, Kivalina, and many more. I've also had several of them come and make presentations to our local sience pub. The only requirement we have is that their talk needs to be science-based, not political. The Arctic is where the effects of climate change are more pronounced than in mid-latitudes.

If you can produce reliable data to show that there is no correlation between the rapid rise in temperature and increase in CO2 % in our atmosphere due to the industrial revolution, you may have something, but if you faked your results or are simply coming to that conclusion using bad science, you should be fired. It's not a huge conspiracy, it's simply what the science shows. If you are coming to different conclusions, then either your data is right or it's wrong. There's a subset of people that won't believe it unless they have physically caught on fire. Science is about looking at the data and coming to the best conclusion. It can be wrong. It can change. If you can do better, you should be doing it. It's not some giant conspiracy where scientists are living fat off of grant money and driving around in porsche's. I can attest to this. They do it because they love science and learning new things.

All too often, someone (that shouldn't be commenting about something they know nothing about) says "well, the earth has heated up and cooled down before". That is not what "this" (climate change) is about. It's not about the gradual cycles that occur over eons. It's about a rapid rise that does not match those cycles and correlates with the increase of CO2. I always have to ask the question, "what would it take"? What would it take for you to believe this is the best conclusion with the data available? At what point do you just fall back on ingrained beliefs rather than what the data shows? Is there any point at which you concede and believe it?

Freedom of speech is not guaranteed academia. There are plenty of private institutions that do not have to give freedom of speech, just like employers don't have to. But hell, if you were able to show how this is all a hoax, I'm sure the big oil companies would be on that like a bee on honey, as long as you had good hard science to show it, and you better believe that they got lots of money to fund research.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

Jayem said:


> Not sure about you, but I've had formal meteorology training and I've traveled with the scientists going to do surveys and research in arctic locations, like Barrow, Shishmaref, Kotzebue, Kivalina, and many more. I've also had several of them come and make presentations to our local sience pub. The only requirement we have is that their talk needs to be science-based, not political. The Arctic is where the effects of climate change are more pronounced than in mid-latitudes.
> 
> If you can produce reliable data to show that there is no correlation between the rapid rise in temperature and increase in CO2 % in our atmosphere due to the industrial revolution, you may have something, but if you faked your results or are simply coming to that conclusion using bad science, you should be fired. It's not a huge conspiracy, it's simply what the science shows. If you are coming to different conclusions, then either your data is right or it's wrong. There's a subset of people that won't believe it unless they have physically caught on fire. Science is about looking at the data and coming to the best conclusion. It can be wrong. It can change. If you can do better, you should be doing it. It's not some giant conspiracy where scientists are living fat off of grant money and driving around in porsche's. I can attest to this. They do it because they love science and learning new things.
> 
> ...


Well the oil companies were the first to figure global warming in the 70s, weren't they?

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

zorg said:


> Well the oil companies were the first to figure global warming in the 70s, weren't they?
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk


BP now stands for "Beyond Petroleum", according to the employees and recent retirees I've talked to...Their diversification and investment into non-oil energy is staggering.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

Jayem said:


> BP now stands for "Beyond Petroleum", according to the employees and recent retirees I've talked to...Their diversification and investment into non-oil energy is staggering.


European companies seem to have figured it out while the US oil corps are fighting tooth and nail to hang on to the fossil fuel model.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk


----------



## EatsDirt (Jan 20, 2014)

Nat said:


> Agreed again. Terrible guests. People from pretty much anywhere else? Welcome! Enjoy your visit!


From my experience, in Hawaii the most vocal "locals" giving **** to tourists and transplants are actually... yep, transplants.

This begs the question, where you boys (Nat, LeDuke) originally from? No fibbing now!


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

zorg said:


> European companies seem to have figured it out while the US oil corps are fighting tooth and nail to hang on to the fossil fuel model.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk


My wife was upset with me when I told her I was buying BP and like stock. I told her that if anyone is going to figure out the next big thing in clean/green energy production, it's them. They would absolutely love to drastically reduce their extraction costs and still charge people the same amount of money. That's the goal of any well run business.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

EatsDirt said:


> From my experience, in Hawaii the most vocal "locals" giving **** to tourists and transplants are actually... yep, transplants.
> 
> This begs the question, where you boys (Nat, LeDuke) originally from? No fibbing now!


IL. Live in CO. Most of my family is from CA (my wife and her family, my mom's entire family, etc.). Go there once a year.

I generally don't give **** to tourists or transplants. Only people that suck. Due to either their massive populations or pure dumb luck, most of the troublemakers you'll see at a trailhead or ski resort in CO are from CA or TX. CA tend to know the rules and just don't care; the TX are just ignorant of the rules in general. See thread above for details.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## milehi (Nov 2, 1997)

Jayem said:


> Not sure about you, but I've had formal meteorology training and I've traveled with the scientists going to do surveys and research in arctic locations, like Barrow, Shishmaref, Kotzebue, Kivalina, and many more. I've also had several of them come and make presentations to our local sience pub. The only requirement we have is that their talk needs to be science-based, not political. The Arctic is where the effects of climate change are more pronounced than in mid-latitudes.
> 
> If you can produce reliable data to show that there is no correlation between the rapid rise in temperature and increase in CO2 % in our atmosphere due to the industrial revolution, you may have something, but if you faked your results or are simply coming to that conclusion using bad science, you should be fired. It's not a huge conspiracy, it's simply what the science shows. If you are coming to different conclusions, then either your data is right or it's wrong. There's a subset of people that won't believe it unless they have physically caught on fire. Science is about looking at the data and coming to the best conclusion. It can be wrong. It can change. If you can do better, you should be doing it. It's not some giant conspiracy where scientists are living fat off of grant money and driving around in porsche's. I can attest to this. They do it because they love science and learning new things.
> 
> ...


Asking for family. If the planet is heating, can the Vikings return to Greenland? They returned to Iceland after the last Global Cooling cycle


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

All you ***** got this **** wrong! Carbon footprint only refers to how many carbon bikes you have...


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Not sure why this thread became about global warming......

Lets stick to trail access in the Wilderness and Boycotting Patagonia clothing.

Also, keep the language g-rated please. the language filter seems to be broken along with so many other things on this site.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

Ailuropoda said:


> Your mountain bike tires are not the problem and they do not have an impact. You see, you have bought the premise. It's not a dichotomy; your mountain bike is not harmful to the environment and the solution to "protect" the environment is not to ban them from trails. The converse is true along the Ducks Unlimited model. While it's true that DU is a hunting organization, they have done more to bring back wild birds than organizations like the Sierra Club could even dream about.
> 
> If you let people use nature for recreation, they learn to love and respect it and will take care of it. Nobody is saying not to have some common sense rules. Why let hikers in the wilderness? Why let anybody if you want to keep it totally pristine?


I never said we shouldn't be riding trails in the woods. Posts I've made in this thread were advocating for bike access and even e-bike access. As you said there just needs to be guidelines that make sense.

With that being said we don't need access to every square mile. About 60% of Earth's species have already been exctinct since the industrial revolution due to our activities. Literally every animal on the planet besides humans need some sort of protection from us as this point. If there's a bunch of people in protected wilderness areas trashing the place on a regular basis that's a massive problem.


----------



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

Klurejr said:


> Lets stick to trail access in the Wilderness and Boycotting Patagonia clothing.


Or buying Patagonia clothing.


----------



## mbmb65 (Jan 13, 2004)

Klurejr said:


> Not sure why this thread became about global warming......
> 
> Lets stick to trail access in the Wilderness and Boycotting Patagonia clothing.
> 
> Also, keep the language g-rated please. the language filter seems to be broken along with so many other things on this site.


Seriously, if the resident denier, that meat guy, shows up, this thread will really start to suck.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Klurejr said:


> Also, keep the language g-rated please. the language filter seems to be broken along with so many other things on this site.


Really? You don't say?

I have a lot of expletives built up that I want to unleash. It seems my time has come at last...


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Empty_Beer said:


> nobody rides the PCT! And those dumb enough to risk it would certainly never document it!!


I don't know if you could physically ride the PCT here in WA. Seattle has a population of roughly 6.5 billion people and pretty much all of them are hikers. To say that you'd be wading through a crowd would be an understatement.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

Ailuropoda said:


> Being both an engineer and a physician,


says the guy who thinks a Magna Glacier Point is a "superbike." you're full of hot air. fake credentials, nonsensical arguments.


----------



## Ailuropoda (Dec 15, 2010)

mack_turtle said:


> says the guy who thinks a Magna Glacier Point is a "superbike." you're full of hot air. fake credentials, nonsensical arguments.


Dude...that thread was sarcasm. There is nothing fake about me. PM me, I'll tell you my name (which is not a huge secret) and you can look me up.

Then you can believe what I say...which is what I understand you to mean. In other words, what I say makes sense except you don't think I actually have the credentials so you won't listen to me.


----------



## DrDon (Sep 25, 2004)

mack_turtle said:


> says the guy who thinks a Magna Glacier Point is a "superbike." you're full of hot air. fake credentials, nonsensical arguments.


Careful, your post will be deleted.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

Ailuropoda said:


> Dude...that thread was sarcasm. There is nothing fake about me. PM me, I'll tell you my name (which is not a huge secret) and you can look me up.
> 
> Then you can believe what I say...which is what I understand you to mean. In other words, what I say makes sense except you don't think I actually have the credentials so you won't listen to me.


I misread that Magna post. the sarcasm did not come across as intended. so many people post nonsense in earnest that sometimes it is impossible to tell sarcasm from actual stupidity. most of the time on this forum, when someone prefaces their comment with "i'm an engineer" they are about to say something pompous but uninformed.


----------



## Ailuropoda (Dec 15, 2010)

mack_turtle said:


> I misread that Magna post. the sarcasm did not come across as intended. so many people post nonsense in earnest that sometimes it is impossible to tell sarcasm from actual stupidity. most of the time on this forum, when someone prefaces their comment with "i'm an engineer" they are about to say something pompous but uninformed.


No harm done.


----------



## AndyD66 (Mar 12, 2013)

Catmandoo said:


> No point really. Telling many western outdoorsman that they can't ride/train their horses in areas they've traditionally used, would be about as easy as banning guns. Ain't gonna happen.


Well you could also put that attitude this way: Horses in most of these places have established and original _precedent of use under law_. So changing the law is the correct path, but changing who it applies to is not imo.

They (horses) are also now a tiny percentage, and shrinking, of user days. They used to be more common obviously. Horses do not generally travel faster than people whereas bikes do travel much faster and thus cause much more trail or terrain to be impacted per outing. Horses do not leak oil, and shed aluminum and rubber in their wake. Horses are definitely not sponsoring festivals all over The West that rely on public land recreation as the commercialized product for thousands of attendees. My point is that while the percieved or differences of various impacts might seem locally minor, they must be honestly acknowledged for a national discussion to succeeed. Bikes _do_ have more impact per user-day than people alone or horses. Motorized bikes are, well, _motorized _as a term of law.

Horse poop _is_ less biologically hazardous than dog poop but more importantly it is much less ubiquitous and immediately offensive. Meanwhile, unmentioned so far here is the deliberately diarrea-induced cow **** - a right wing sociallist subsidized disaster for every watershed in America that _is _offensive _is_ ubiquitous,_ is_ bio-toxic, _is_ the cause of the most prominent water supply use and therefore _is_ more and most directly relevant to almost all water quality _and_ quantity discussions in _any _land use concerns in The West including these ones.

Every legal framework of public land use in The West worships cattle, mocks recreation, sells out to extraction, ignores environmental science and cries for water.

The bottom line is OUR preferences is not special in every situation when weighed against THEIR preference.

dogs motorcycles snowmobiles guns bikes drones jeeps trucks campers fires miners instagram photographers etc etc..

Urban interfaces, private easements, city parks, national parks, publicly owned ski areas, privately owned ski areas, sidecountry, backcountry, God's country and Indian country.

In this place those things but in that place these things.

Boulder hates mountain bikers and Park City loves them.

The purpose of _Wilderness designation_ is to protect the organic/native lands involved from almost everything that is not human or hay powered. It is specifically _not _a recreational service designation.

It isn't simple and it isn't easy, but it also isn't a grand conspiracy solely against us or them in most cases. True wilderness IS in fact more threatened by human impact than ever before and every expansion of access or impactful use, regardless of self perception of the user group, will prevail against the integrity of wildness in that wilderness for all the future times.

A motor is a thing under the law, as is a wilderness designation. When we shrug off the one we shrug off the other as well.

Bike users are entitled to the same respect, input and limitations in this endeavor as all other reasonable and established user groups and stakeholders.

Covid has demonstrated a stunning and historically emergent need for America to re-invigorate our discussions regarding every aspect of development, maintenance, management, funding, ownership and agency structure, education, enforcement, commercial use and, above all else public access, frameworks for every square inch of publicly or privately managed open space, parkland, recreational land and watershed within our borders. A revolutionary re-prioritization of all these managed needs and preferences is entirely justified.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

AndyD66 said:


> Well you could also put that attitude this way: Horses in most of these places have established and original _precedent of use under law_. So changing the law is the correct path, but changing who it applies to is not imo.
> 
> They (horses) are also now a tiny percentage, and shrinking, of user days. They used to be more common obviously. Horses do not generally travel faster than people whereas bikes do travel much faster and thus cause much more trail or terrain to be impacted per outing. Horses do not leak oil, and shed aluminum and rubber in their wake. Bikes do have more impact per user day than people or horses.
> 
> ...


You're wrong. Wilderness is there to protect places. It's now used as a tool to kick out cyclists and protect a select few: hikers and non native horses.


----------



## AndyD66 (Mar 12, 2013)

zorg said:


> You're wrong. Wilderness is there to protect places. It's now used as a tool to kick out cyclists and protect a select few: hikers and non native horses.


Are you looking at the legal and historical framework of the specific protections and intentional limitations afforded to designated Wilderness Areas under the Wilderness Act of 1964?

It seems like a lot of people here generally see Wilderness designation as a rough variation of agency-discretionary recreational land use and management. I don't see it that way at all (because it isn't).

_Wilderness Designation under the law _is often intermixed with the idea or personal views about _wilderness as a_ _general description_. Wilderness Designation is a hard fought and specifically defined and proven term of law in this country. It absolutely and resolutely designates intentionally rigorous restrictions against all additional recreational uses not originally allowed.

Mountain biking didn't exist in 1964 and so it was not then, and cannot now be arbitraily added as, a specifically allowed use. _*Mountain Bikers as a user group can not have been "kicked out" of Wilderness Areas because by specific original intention, they were never allowed in.*_

There is no legal allowance for Wilderness Area managers to arbitrarily decide to allow new uses. Biking cannot, for example, be allowed in one Wilderness area but not in another. But most importantly it cannot be allowed in_ any _Wilderness Area unless congress _specifically_ amends the Wilderness Act law to allow it.

Wilderness is NOT an co-equal variation of Park, Monument, Forest or other similar designations for recreationally accesible lands. "Wilderness" is not merely a restrictive covenant - it is by intent the highest level of un-breachable protection afforded to any of our public lands in this country. Lands that are designated as Wilderness are specifically studied, discussed, fought over and finally voted by congress to be placed into this highest and most legally sacrosanct category.

If someone wants to allow restricted activities on such lands it is perfectly fine to use the legal process to question the application of Wlderness Designation to specific land. (Although, again, the designation was always intended to be non-reversible). But,_ any_ challenge to _any_ protection that is specific to the Wilderness Designation is an _equal_ challenge and threat to _every other _specific protection that exists under the designation.


----------



## SkyAboveDirtBelow (Apr 14, 2019)

zorg said:


> You're wrong. Wilderness is there to protect places. It's now used as a tool to kick out cyclists and protect a select few: hikers and non native horses.


These days wilderness is used to reserve lands so the typical coastal elites who belong to the Sierra Club can visit on vacation and not have to encounter the deplorables who actually live in the area, especially the ones who are not rich enough to keep a horse.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

SkyAboveDirtBelow said:


> These days wilderness is used to reserve lands so the typical coastal elites who belong to the Sierra Club can visit on vacation and not have to encounter the deplorables who actually live in the area, especially the ones who are not rich enough to keep a horse.


I don't live on the coast, am firmly middle class, don't own a horse, and regularly access wilderness areas.

On foot. Like 90% of the other people I see in those areas.

When last I checked, wilderness areas didn't discriminate based on social class or income. If you want to access them, you can.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Shark (Feb 4, 2006)

It makes no sense to allow horses to trample everything, while keeping bikes out to "protect wilderness".

What about forest fires? Wilderness should technically be allowed to burn until nature puts itself out. We rarely allow that to happen.

We only make rules when it's convenient for the group making the rules.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk


----------



## SkyAboveDirtBelow (Apr 14, 2019)

Le Duke said:


> When last I checked, wilderness areas didn't discriminate based on social class or income. If you want to access them, you can.


Not with the modern horse that can be afforded by the everyman, i.e. a mountain bike.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

AndyD66 said:


> Are you looking at the legal and historical framework of the specific protections and intentional limitations afforded to designated Wilderness Areas under the Wilderness Act of 1964?
> 
> It seems like a lot of people here generally see Wilderness designation as a rough variation of agency-discretionary recreational land use and management. I don't see it that way at all (because it isn't).
> 
> ...


Dude, you need to brush up before coming in and spreading incorrect information


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

AndyD66 said:


> Bikes _do_ have more impact per user-day than people alone or horses.


Care to provide factual data to support this?


----------



## D. Inoobinati (Aug 28, 2020)

Curveball said:


> Care to provide factual data to support this?


There is NO "factual" data to support this, whatever that means. It's wrong to assume, however, that ALL mountain biking, in ALL terrains, has similar effects. Here's a reading list, as dated as it is, to get you started:

_*Cessford, G.R. (1995a): `Off-Road Impacts of Mountain Biking: A Literature Review and Discussion.' Science and Research Series No. 92. Science and Research Division. Department of Conservation.*_
*DeLuca, T. H., Patterson, IV, W. A., Freimund, W. A. and Cole, D. N. (1998). Influence of llamas, horses, and hikers on soil erosion from established recreation trails in western Montana. Environmental Management 22, 255-262.
Keller, K.J.D. (1990): Mountain Bikes on Public Lands: A Manager's Guide to the State of Practice. Bicycle Federation of America. Washington D.C.
Quinn, N.W., Morgan, R.P.C. and Smith A.J. 1980. Simulation of soil erosion induced by human trampling. Journal of Environmental Management 6:209-212
Thurston, E. & Reader, R.J. (2001): Impacts of Experimentally Applied Mountain Biking and Hiking on Vegetation and Soil of a Deciduous Forest. Environmental Management, Vol. 27, No. 3, 397-409.
Weaver, T & Dale, D. (1978): Trampling Effects of Hikers, Motorcycles and Horses in Meadows and Forests.† Journal of Applied Ecology, Vol. 15, 451-457.
Weir, D.V. (2000): A Guide to The Impacts of Non-Motorized Trail Use. Donald V. Weir and Associates, Edmonton, Canada
White, D. D., M. T. Waskey, et al. (2006). A comparative study of impacts to mountain bike trails in five common ecological regions of the Southwestern U.S. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 24(2): 20.
Wilson, J. P. and J. P. Seney (1994). Erosional impact of hikers, horses, motorcycles, and off-road bicycles on mountain trails in Montana. Mountain Research and Development 14(1): 77-88.*
_*Yorks, T.P. et. al. 1997. Toleration of traffic by vegetation: life form conclusions and summary extracts from a comprehensive data base. Environmental Management. 21(1): 121-131*_

For anyone else interested in more "facts" , just copy/paste any of the titles above into google, like, here.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

D. Inoobinati said:


> It's wrong to assume, however, that ALL mountain biking, in ALL terrains, has similar effects.


I don't think anyone assumes any of that. I think most people understand that soil type, grade, precipitation patterns, number of users, user type, etc. all have different effects.


----------



## D. Inoobinati (Aug 28, 2020)

You wouldn't think that reading through this and similar threads. Or talking to hikers and dog walkers on the trails.


----------



## milehi (Nov 2, 1997)

I no longer care, and haven't for a long time. Since the late 80s I've been kicked off trails because of "endangered" species like the kangaroo rat only to see industrial parks built on that land. Ironically, Jensen's is on such land. The PCT runs behind my house. You bet I ride it, in the off season. Build user generated trails in the national forest? You bet! It's an unpopular opinion but I ride where I want through civil disobedience.


----------



## D. Inoobinati (Aug 28, 2020)

Congratulations.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

AndyD66 said:


> Mountain biking didn't exist in 1964 and so it was not then, and cannot now be arbitraily added as, a specifically allowed use. _*Mountain Bikers as a user group can not have been "kicked out" of Wilderness Areas because by specific original intention, they were never allowed in.*_
> 
> There is no legal allowance for Wilderness Area managers to arbitrarily decide to allow new uses. Biking cannot, for example, be allowed in one Wilderness area but not in another. But most importantly it cannot be allowed in_ any _Wilderness Area unless congress _specifically_ amends the Wilderness Act law to allow it.


Ummm... bicycling and bicycling on dirt existed from the late 1800's through 1964. This has been highly documented.

Double ummm... Congress never prohibited human powered bicycling in Wilderness. That was done by the USFS 20 years after the Wilderness Act of 1964 passed, after some successful and unopposed lobbying by the Sierra Club. This has been highly documented.

Whatever. Most members of congress are too afraid to piss off the Sierra Club and non-biking constituents to support re-affirming bicycling in these public lands. Thus, people will just poach... and the same congress won't fund the USFS in such a way that non-issues like bicycling on Wilderness singletrack will be enforced (not that 99% of USFS rangers even care about bicycles passing through trails in Wilderness).


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Varaxis said:


> What about biking is a good thing for the land/nature? You can access it on foot like non-cyclists.


I missed this thread when it was 'live'.

Just read through it and learned a few things.

Also wanted to highlight the quote above. No one's being prevented from accessing wilderness -- you just can't take your bike in with you.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

zorg said:


> the one thing that's absolutely certain is that unless we restore cycling opportunities in Wilderness, we will keep losing trails, one new Wilderness at a time. It's been going on for 40 years and shows no sign of abating. I can't understand while any MTBer would be happy with that outcome.


It makes me happy to see trails being taken away. We're a plague on the land, on the animals, and on each other. We deserve fewer trails, not more.

When we learn to treat all of the above with respect, instead of just _me-me-me-mine-mine-mine-now-now-now, _then maybe we can begin to discuss expansion.


----------



## D. Inoobinati (Aug 28, 2020)

mikesee said:


> ...No one's being prevented from accessing wilderness -- you just can't take your bike in with you.


Correct.

and

This thread ain't dead; just lying in wait.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

mikesee said:


> It makes me happy to see trails being taken away. We're a plague on the land, on the animals, and on each other. We deserve fewer trails, not more.
> 
> When we learn to treat all of the above with respect, instead of just _me-me-me-mine-mine-mine-now-now-now, _then maybe we can begin to discuss expansion.


While your self flagellate to atone for your imaginary sins, the rest of us normal folks will enjoy riding trails everywhere.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

zorg said:


> While your self flagellate to atone for your imaginary sins


If self flagellation is a euphemism for hike, ski, and packraft through deep wilderness, going a week+ without seeing other people, then yeah -- you nailed it. That's exactly what I'm doing.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

mikesee said:


> It makes me happy to see trails being taken away. We're a plague on the land, on the animals, and on each other. We deserve fewer trails, not more.
> 
> When we learn to treat all of the above with respect, instead of just _me-me-me-mine-mine-mine-now-now-now, _then maybe we can begin to discuss expansion.


Pretty sure packrafting a body of water is far more intrusive for wildlife then riding your bike on a trail. Not sure how you rationalize that bikes are banned from Wilderness, but the same concepts could easily be applied to packrafting. Good thing only devices that are exclusively mechanicly powered by internal sources are actually banned in Wilderness (check out the DOA policies), otherwise you might have to keep your little water toy at home.


----------



## eri (Sep 4, 2012)

Curveball said:


> This is what changed my perspective on it. I was in favor of wilderness access until e-bikes started becoming so prevalent that I couldn't see any way that they could be kept out of wilderness while allowing regular bikes.


I was also living a fantasy that mtb was compatible with wilderness. What changed my mind was exposure to actual ebikers, realized the wilderness system weve got now is too precious to compromise with bikes. Fact is now i bucket most mtbers in with the ebikers. Im surprised but id rather walk than share an mtb trail with a motorbike.


----------



## WHALENARD (Feb 21, 2010)

eri said:


> I was also living a fantasy that mtb was compatible with wilderness. What changed my mind was exposure to actual ebikers, realized the wilderness system weve got now is too precious to compromise with bikes. Fact is now i bucket most mtbers in with the ebikers. Im surprised but id rather walk than share an mtb trail with a motorbike.


Hard to argue with any of that. 

Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using Tapatalk


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

eri said:


> I was also living a fantasy that mtb was compatible with wilderness. What changed my mind was exposure to actual ebikers, realized the wilderness system weve got now is too precious to compromise with bikes. Fact is now i bucket most mtbers in with the ebikers. Im surprised but id rather walk than share an mtb trail with a motorbike.


The Sierra Club's Michael McClosky, along with other leaders of Conservation groups, petioned Congress back in 1966 the delusion that the Wilderness Act of 1964 banned bikes. Their petitions were promptly shut down by the Congresspeople who wrote the Wilderness Act. The concept of bikes being banned in Wilderness has no legs to hike on.


----------



## jestep (Jul 23, 2004)

figofspee said:


> Pretty sure packrafting a body of water is far more intrusive for wildlife then riding your bike on a trail. Not sure how you rationalize that bikes are banned from Wilderness, but the same concepts could easily be applied to packrafting. Good thing only devices that are exclusively mechanicly powered by internal sources are actually banned in Wilderness (check out the DOA policies), otherwise you might have to keep your little water toy at home.


Love to see some reasoning behind this... Packrafting does no damage to trails, most animals avoid lakes and rivers during much of the day to avoid predators and avoid them when humans are near them in general, floating around on one during the day seems about as high impact as a jet flying over at 30,000ft.


----------



## Sir kayakalot (Jul 23, 2017)

figofspee said:


> Pretty sure packrafting a body of water is far more intrusive for wildlife then riding your bike on a trail. Not sure how you rationalize that bikes are banned from Wilderness, but the same concepts could easily be applied to packrafting. Good thing only devices that are exclusively mechanicly powered by internal sources are actually banned in Wilderness (check out the DOA policies), otherwise you might have to keep your little water toy at home.


I don’t understand your thinking here. Have you packrafted before? Other than getting out of the boat there is literally no way to tell that you were ever there. Most critters encountered will either stare at you as you go by or run a short distance and stop until you go past.


----------



## Shark (Feb 4, 2006)

Horses do exponentially more damage to trails than bikes do.

I'll agree with no bikes when there are also no horses.

Then the trails will be so overgrown that nobody will use them.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk


----------



## Shark (Feb 4, 2006)

Sir kayakalot said:


> I don’t understand your thinking here. Have you packrafted before? Other than getting out of the boat there is literally no way to tell that you were ever there. Most critters encountered will either stare at you as you go by or run a short distance and stop until you go past.


So, kind of like on a bike in the woods? 

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk


----------



## Sir kayakalot (Jul 23, 2017)

Shark said:


> So, kind of like on a bike in the woods?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk


Sorta. When I ride my remote trails, I can tell when other bikes have been there recently. When I kayak or raft the creeks and rivers, I usually don’t see any signs of anyone having been there recently.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

jestep said:


> Love to see some reasoning behind this... Packrafting does no damage to trails, most animals avoid lakes and rivers during much of the day to avoid predators and avoid them when humans are near them in general, floating around on one during the day seems about as high impact as a jet flying over at 30,000ft.


Not to get bogged down on a tangent, but you have some pretty bad faith arguments. You say predators are near the water, are predators not animals? Why are predators near the water, is it perhaps because that's where all the prey go? The best food and water resources are near the water, and you admit human presence scares them off, yet you think it's as intrusive as flying in a plane. Bad, bad, bad faith arguments.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

Sir kayakalot said:


> Sorta. When I ride my remote trails, I can tell when other bikes have been there recently. When I kayak or raft the creeks and rivers, I usually don’t see any signs of anyone having been there recently.


Just because you don't see things like water pollution, disrupted algae, disturbed fish, disturbed ungulates, disturbed predators, disturbed waterfowl doesn't mean it's not there. Packrafters like Mikesee are also typically camping by these high value wildlife areas so their disruption is far more widespread then literally any other trail user. Hiking out to these remote sanctuaries for playing in the water also has more impact then day biking just by itself. Don't get me wrong, I don't wish to discourage, shame, or limit your desire or ability to explore the Wilderness, I just thought it was funny how a much darker pot was calling a kettle black.


----------



## Sir kayakalot (Jul 23, 2017)

Ok


----------



## WHALENARD (Feb 21, 2010)

Anybody else find it funny that an outdoor enthusiast group is arguing about these things?

Meanwhile... mining, logging, open range, fracking, runaway urban and suburban growth, insane water extraction for filberts in the desert, and so on.

Almost as if... by design.

Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using Tapatalk


----------



## Sir kayakalot (Jul 23, 2017)

WHALENARD said:


> Anybody else find it funny that an outdoor enthusiast group is arguing about these things?
> 
> Meanwhile... mining, logging, open range, fracking, runaway urban and suburban growth, insane water extraction for filberts in the desert, and so on.
> 
> ...


Excellent point. We could have some seriously good threads on each of those, especially the mining and water extraction


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

WHALENARD said:


> Anybody else find it funny that an outdoor enthusiast group is arguing about these things?
> 
> Meanwhile... mining, logging, open range, fracking, runaway urban and suburban growth, insane water extraction for filberts in the desert, and so on.
> 
> ...


Americans are programmed to hate cyclists and cycling and other countries end up emulating much of US programmed behaviors. Bicycles are the solution to many of the problems you mentioned but the automobile industial complex has ironed out any widespread attractiveness of cycling. This is how you get people arguing against bike access on a bicycling forum. This is how you get a politically impotent bike industry that just accepts being the doormat of society. This is all be design, but it was a long time ago and we will be going through a lengthy process in overturning it thanks to the internet and ebikes.


----------



## dir-T (Jan 20, 2004)

WHALENARD said:


> Meanwhile... mining, logging, open range, fracking, runaway urban and suburban growth, insane water extraction for filberts in the desert, and so on.


The collective "we" are responsible for creating the demand for those things too. What's your solution?


----------



## eri (Sep 4, 2012)

WHALENARD said:


> Anybody else find it funny that an outdoor enthusiast group is arguing about these things?
> 
> Meanwhile... mining, logging, open range, fracking, runaway urban and suburban growth, insane water extraction for filberts in the desert, and so on.
> 
> ...


i think that following this discussion is helping me consolidate my thoughts.

A big change came for me when new trails were added locally across the most awful fresh clearcuts. Now the forest is 15 yo trees with stumps, ground is dead tilled earth and bushes. I simply wont ride there it hurts me to see, fortunately weve got some trails in 50 year old forest that are ok and the trails try to visit the older forest. And if i drive 90 minute i can ride in never logged old growth. Even That slightly older forest with salal and diversity is soothing for me and a big part of why i ride.

ive stopped giving to mtb orgs and instead funding orgs that keep logging practices accountable. Lot of corruption goes to feeding a small number of timber companies.

Now the punch line: theres a huge amount of stoke about the trails in the clearcut place, riders are so excited and i cant sympathize at all, made me realize im not doing the same ‘sport’. I dont give a damn about the trail when the surroundings are destroyed and smell like gear oil. I guess im pleased that the new trails draws that wrong sort of person off the overgrown trails i enjoy.

wrt wilderness and bikes: i think id be an appropriate user of trails in wilderness - its pretty much my church - but im also the exception. Cutting everyone loose there on bikes and ebikes would ruin what makes it special to me today. Im fine not riding those trails even though my knees hate to walk. I sure wish we could ban the horses but not a problem when the trails are steep enough.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

eri said:


> i think that following this discussion is helping me consolidate my thoughts.
> 
> A big change came for me when new trails were added locally across the most awful fresh clearcuts. Now the forest is 15 yo trees with stumps, ground is dead tilled earth and bushes. I simply wont ride there it hurts me to see, fortunately weve got some trails in 50 year old forest that are ok and the trails try to visit the older forest. And if i drive 90 minute i can ride in never logged old growth. Even That slightly older forest with salal and diversity is soothing for me and a big part of why i ride.
> 
> ...


That's just it with bikes too, there are many trails in Wilderness and national forest where bikes are banned by the very nature that the logistics are not conducive to riding bikes. Am I going to take a 50 pound ebike on a trail with a downed tree every 100 feet? Probably not, and even if I do there will be so few people to follow that it wouldn't change the ambiance. The thing that makes these areas untrammeled for me is the untamed lawless of nature. Gentrifying nature by micromanaging human behavior is the antithesis of what Wilderness is. Mother Nature doesn't give a damn about ambiance.


----------



## Sir kayakalot (Jul 23, 2017)

eri said:


> i think that following this discussion is helping me consolidate my thoughts.
> 
> A big change came for me when new trails were added locally across the most awful fresh clearcuts. Now the forest is 15 yo trees with stumps, ground is dead tilled earth and bushes. I simply wont ride there it hurts me to see, fortunately weve got some trails in 50 year old forest that are ok and the trails try to visit the older forest. And if i drive 90 minute i can ride in never logged old growth. Even That slightly older forest with salal and diversity is soothing for me and a big part of why i ride.
> 
> ...


I get what you’re saying but clear cut when done right has a lot of benefits. There is a huge difference in the amount of wildlife around clear cuts. Not to mention I need lumber when I’m remodeling my house or building something.


----------



## WHALENARD (Feb 21, 2010)

dir-T said:


> The collective "we" are responsible for creating the demand for those things too.


That's a false premise though or at least it's much more complicated than that.

The world's top 16% consume 80% of the world's resources. Then we would have to dissect what exactly drives consumerism. Is it the collective "we" or are there other forces at work? 

My solution is simple, we need to bridge the wealth gap. How you do that is beyond me. The extreme upper class is down 4% in roughly 20 years. So the trajectory of the pool of the extreme wealthy and resource consumption are both headed in the wrong direction and seemingly inextricably linked. 

Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using Tapatalk


----------



## WHALENARD (Feb 21, 2010)

eri said:


> i think that following this discussion is helping me consolidate my thoughts.
> 
> A big change came for me when new trails were added locally across the most awful fresh clearcuts. Now the forest is 15 yo trees with stumps, ground is dead tilled earth and bushes. I simply wont ride there it hurts me to see, fortunately weve got some trails in 50 year old forest that are ok and the trails try to visit the older forest. And if i drive 90 minute i can ride in never logged old growth. Even That slightly older forest with salal and diversity is soothing for me and a big part of why i ride.
> 
> ...


Again, it's hard to argue with any of that and I observe exactly the same thing. The patch you speak to that's local for me is called "Cold Creek" or the "Yacolt Burn" where the famed "Thrillium" trail is. It's an absolute desertified wasteland, the same at just about anything surrounding Bend Oregon speaking to another popular destination. Yet recreators fight tooth and nail over the scraps left to them to recreate on forgoing the bigger picture of the public lands. This is basically my point that you are responding to. 

Access to the wilderness lands aren't as clear cut in my brain. Just for an example, I rode Boulder White Cloud the season before it closed. There were spots where route finding was necessary and you lost the trail. That's how little traffic it saw. My theory is those back country experiences only appeal to so many people, e-bike, mountain biker, horseback, or otherwise. 

What I see that brings people, crowds, and destruction is building sheit, specifically pavement, roads, and facilities. This is easily observed in just about any national park. They've turned into an absolute shitshow. But walk a mile into any trailhead and there's basically nobody there. 

Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using Tapatalk


----------



## dir-T (Jan 20, 2004)

WHALENARD said:


> My solution is simple, we need to bridge the wealth gap. How you do that is beyond me. The extreme upper class is down 4% in roughly 20 years. So the trajectory of the pool of the extreme wealthy and resource consumption are both headed in the wrong direction and seemingly inextricably linked.


I'm afraid I don't follow.

Yes, the minority of the population consumes the majority of the resources. That minority consists of industrialized nations with the US bearing most of the blame, (that's the "we" that I referred to). 

Are you suggesting that only the very wealthy consume resources - like bicycles, computers, cars, bikes, power, fuel, etc.?


----------



## WHALENARD (Feb 21, 2010)

dir-T said:


> Are you suggesting that only the very wealthy consume resources - like bicycles, computers, cars, bikes, power, fuel, etc.?


No. I'm suggesting the top 16% consume as much as the remaining 84% which isn't exactly the collective "we". Also was just pointing out that ratio is headed in the wrong direction as just 20 years ago it was 20/80, so on and so forth. 
Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using Tapatalk


----------



## dir-T (Jan 20, 2004)

WHALENARD said:


> No. I'm suggesting the top 16% consume as much as the remaining 84% which isn't exactly the collective "we". Also was just pointing out that ratio is headed in the wrong direction as just 20 years ago it was 20/80, so on and so forth.
> Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using Tapatalk


I don't think shrinking the wealth gap will fix that - unless that top 16% becomes so broke that they can no longer afford to consume. I think it's safe to assume that if people in less developed countries gain wealth, they will also trend toward a more consumptive lifestyle.

This is an old article but probably still valid to illustrate my logic; Use It and Lose It: The Outsize Effect of U.S. Consumption on the Environment

_A child born in the United States will create thirteen times as much ecological damage over the course of his or her lifetime than a child born in Brazil,” reports the Sierra Club’s Dave Tilford, adding that *the average American will drain as many resources as 35 natives of India* and consume 53 times more goods and services than someone from China._

_Americans have been in using and abusing natural resources. For example, between 1900 and 1989 U.S. population tripled while its use of raw materials grew by a factor of 17. “*With less than 5 percent of world population, the U.S. uses one-third of the world’s paper, a quarter of the world’s oil, 23 percent of the coal, 27 percent of the aluminum, and 19 percent of the copper,” he reports. “Our per capita use of energy, metals, minerals, forest products, fish, grains, meat, and even fresh water dwarfs that of people living in the developing world*._

They are talking about the AVERAGE American, not the uber-wealthy. How one can promote a less wasteful, less consumptive society is beyond me but I think any efforts to that end need to target Americans, all of 'em, first. "We" are at fault.


----------



## WHALENARD (Feb 21, 2010)

dir-T said:


> How one can promote a less wasteful, less consumptive society is beyond me but I think any efforts to that end need to target Americans, all of 'em, first. "We" are at fault.


I'm with you there,100%.



Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using Tapatalk


----------



## eri (Sep 4, 2012)

Sir kayakalot said:


> I get what you’re saying but clear cut when done right has a lot of benefits. There is a huge difference in the amount of wildlife around clear cuts. Not to mention I need lumber when I’m remodeling my house or building something.


could be the current logging status quo is optimal. Could be that some limited clearcut is healthy. But it looks to me like a charade put on by those that benefit, resource version of trickle down economics. I remember when the logging lobby was pressing hard to open rainier park to it. Because jobs and theres no more good forest and their way of life will end. Would gave delayed their demise for twenty years…

mostly though i cant sympathize with folks that think its a good idea to build trails in a clearcut. I know wood is expensive but id rather they not cut the forest around my favorite trails. Now ive got fond memories of cedar filled ravines from 3 years ago that are now blighted hellscapes.

dont get me started on bc where the locals dont even know what old growth means.Took a trip a few years ago and washington is a forest eden in comparison.

anyway, sorry to distract from the ebike hate.


----------



## Shark (Feb 4, 2006)

dir-T said:


> I don't think shrinking the wealth gap will fix that - unless that top 16% becomes so broke that they can no longer afford to consume. I think it's safe to assume that if people in less developed countries gain wealth, they will also trend toward a more consumptive lifestyle.
> 
> This is an old article but probably still valid to illustrate my logic; Use It and Lose It: The Outsize Effect of U.S. Consumption on the Environment
> 
> ...


But when you tell people to stop having so many greasy kids, everyone gets insulted and angry....

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk


----------



## Ailuropoda (Dec 15, 2010)

The problem is that a lot of you buy into the premise that hiking, mountain biking, or riding horses causes environmental damage or has any impact on the environment. It doesn't. I was thinking about this the other day while riding the Black Canyon Trail which is north of Phoenix. In a few spots recent rain had left the trail muddy and there were deep ruts and some disturbed mud...but when you step back and look at the surrounding 1000 square miles of desert against ten square feet of disturbed mud is that really an impact? Big deal. It's not like we're strip mining for copper. 

All of the mountain bike organizations and normal people everywhere have surrendered the premise of the argument to extremists. They are making you accept their flawed premise which many of you do. So, while nobody likes riding through muddy, rutted sections of trail, this is just an aesthetic problem.

I don't even think eBikes cause real damage to the environment either except for a few square feet of dirt moved here or there. I don't mind sharing trails with them, either. It just doesn't bother me....except I'm still perplexed why we call it "mountain biking" if there's a motor involved.


----------



## D. Inoobinati (Aug 28, 2020)

Ailuropoda said:


> ....except I'm still perplexed why we call it "mountain biking" if there's a motor involved.


Exactly. It's like the eMtb crowd have invented an Escher-esque argument....you know, it looks good from up close but definitely wrong from afar:

Electric motor-driven mountain bikers want to call what they do, "mountain biking" because their bike has two wheels and pedals, but when you call out their use of a motor, they say, "that's not a motor".


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

D. Inoobinati said:


> Exactly. It's like the eMtb crowd have invented an Escher-esque argument....you know, it looks good from up close but definitely wrong from afar:
> 
> Electric motor-driven mountain bikers want to call what they do, "mountain biking" because their bike has two wheels and pedals, but when you call out their use of a motor, they say, "that's not a motor".


It is mountain biking in the legal sense and that is all that matters. You want to distinguish mountain biking from emtb, fine, good luck with getting an act of Congress to back that up. You want to ban bikes in Wilderness, fine, good luck with getting an act of Congress to back you up. If your arguments won't hold up in court, hen there is no point in bringing them up in these types of discussions, the only person you are discouraging is yourself.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

figofspee said:


> It is mountain biking in the legal sense and that is all that matters. You want to distinguish mountain biking from emtb, fine, good luck with getting an act of Congress to back that up. You want to ban bikes in Wilderness, fine, good luck with getting an act of Congress to back you up. If your arguments won't hold up in court, hen there is no point in bringing them up in these types of discussions, the only person you are discouraging is yourself.


Mountain bikes are banned in Wilderness. If you are caught riding one in a designated Wilderness, then you would likely lose in court.


----------



## jestep (Jul 23, 2004)

Curveball said:


> Mountain bikes are banned in Wilderness. If you are caught riding one in a designated Wilderness, then you would likely lose in court.


Yeah, had me scratching my head a bit on that one, the whole point of this and several other threads was "discussing" using that word liberally, whether bikes should be allowed.


----------



## watermonkey (Jun 21, 2011)

figofspee said:


> It is mountain biking in the legal sense and that is all that matters. You want to distinguish mountain biking from emtb, fine, good luck with getting an act of Congress to back that up. You want to ban bikes in Wilderness, fine, good luck with getting an act of Congress to back you up. If your arguments won't hold up in court, hen there is no point in bringing them up in these types of discussions, the only person you are discouraging is yourself.


You're full of $h!t, and being deliberately obstuse. Nowhere have they been declared a mountain bike in the legal sense, and definitely not by any act of Congress. Some have been deliberately classified not as a Motor Vehicle, as defined by vehicle classifications. And the BLM decision has not declared ebikes the same as mountain bikes. They've classified them as NOT being OHV's, but dropped the blanket "an ebike is a mountain bike and can go anywhere a mountain bike is allowed to go". BLM maintains a "white list" of ebike permissible trails where they can be ridden on non-motorized trails. Literally the opposite of declaring them the same as a bicycle. From their website, 
*"Non-motorized trails*
Contact your local BLM office for more information.

E-bikes are allowed on trails limited to bicycles and non-motorized travel ONLY IF a BLM Manager has issued a written decision authorizing e-bike use in accordance with applicable laws and regulations."

....https://www.blm.gov/programs/recreation/e-bikes

Are you able to differentiate between a white list and black list, or do I need to spell it out for you in mono-syllabic words and pictures drawn in crayon?


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

I would explain it to you guys, but frankly I don't care if you are armed with the legal realities surrounding the issue, nor are you demonstrating the capabilities of processing the information.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

figofspee said:


> I would explain it to you guys, but frankly I don't care if you are armed with the legal realities surrounding the issue, nor are you demonstrating the capabilities of processing the information.


Are you implying that you don't care about the legal realities of the issue?


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

Curveball said:


> Are you implying that you don't care about the legal realities of the issue?


No, I don't care that you don't understand how the lagal system works. Fewer people riding their ebikes is fine with me.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

figofspee said:


> No, I don't care that you don't understand how the lagal system works. Fewer people riding their ebikes is fine with me.


I like drunk posting as much as the next guy, but your post is really off the rails.


----------



## eri (Sep 4, 2012)

Curveball said:


> I like drunk posting as much as the next guy, but your post is really off the rails.


Its cognitive dissonance


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

Curveball said:


> I like drunk posting as much as the next guy, but your post is really off the rails.


If my post is incoherent to you, well, I guess you make my point.



eri said:


> Its cognitive dissonance


Care to demonstrate where I have been inconsistent? I have hundreds of posts, surely you would be able to back up that statement with evidence.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Is Tungsten back with a new name?


----------



## unrooted (Jul 31, 2007)

Does anyone have an update on the fight for allowing bikes in the wilderness? Is IMBA still doing their best to stop it?


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

unrooted said:


> Does anyone have an update on the fight for allowing bikes in the wilderness? Is IMBA still doing their best to stop it?


Bikes in wilderness bill


----------



## Ailuropoda (Dec 15, 2010)

In regard to eBikes, another thing I want to point out is the misguided justification for their use. I'm not saying people shouldn't ride them but if you do embrace the motor (so to speak) and stop making excuses. For my part, I have never in my thirty years of cycling wanted a motor on my bike for any reason...and this includes grinding 15 mile climbs on the Tour Divide where every part of my body was suffering. In other words, it does not follow logically that, because eBikes exist and they make cycling easier people will automatically want one in the name of progress. It's not progress. Recreational cycling without a motor is a complete activity and, in spite of technological advances in bicycles, cannot be perfected or even improved with a motor. It simply becomes a different activity; certainly one with some common features to cycling but not the same thing.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Ailuropoda said:


> In regard to eBikes, another thing I want to point out is the misguided justification for their use. I'm not saying people shouldn't ride them but if you do embrace the motor (so to speak) and stop making excuses. For my part, I have never in my thirty years of cycling wanted a motor on my bike for any reason...and this includes grinding 15 mile climbs on the Tour Divide where every part of my body was suffering. In other words, it does not follow logically that, because eBikes exist and they make cycling easier people will automatically want one in the name of progress. It's not progress. Recreational cycling without a motor is a complete activity and, in spite of technological advances in bicycles, cannot be perfected or even improved with a motor. It simply becomes a different activity; certainly one with some common features to cycling but not the same thing.


I'm not going to disagree with you on this. However you or I may feel about it, e-bikes are becoming very popular, and their increased use very much complicates, or even negates, access to wilderness areas.


----------



## office (Aug 8, 2007)

Wilderness is such a bogus designation. In north parts of Los Angeles there's "wilderness" areas that are just scrub brush land adjacent to suburban sprawl. No reason bikes should be excluded there.

We're not asking to ride around pristine waterfall trails in the Yosemite backcounty.


----------



## Impetus (Aug 10, 2014)

office said:


> Wilderness is such a bogus designation. In north parts of Los Angeles there's "wilderness" areas that are just scrub brush land adjacent to suburban sprawl. No reason bikes should be excluded there.


This condition exists in so many places. In Sedona, wilderness is automatically designated as anything above 4000' ASL, there are miles-long trails that simply climb over a saddle, and are thusly bisected by a very short wilderness area, rendering them impassable by bikes. Maybe 100 yds in a 5 mile long trail. 
There are sections of the Arizona Trail that (for some reason) pass through a wilderness area, making the only way to traverse the trail being a diversion miles out of the way on roads, often pavement. There's no concern for it, that section of trail might see one hundred bikes PER YEAR. every one of them being bike packers.




office said:


> *We're not asking to ride around pristine waterfall trails in the Yosemite backcounty.*


Sadly, this is precisely what opponents to Wilderness access want to highlight, as untrue as it is. The whole argument is as rife with fallacy and oversimplification as any outdoor issue could possibly be. 
Opponents want to publicize the (untrue) notion that giving bikes access to wilderness areas would result in bus-loads of #endurobros shuttling these areas. 
They either don't read the bill, or don't care what it says, and aren't willing to admit that the whole thing is built on a case of land-manager discretion to "allow or dis-allow" based on potential impact or need. 

I absolutely concede that while 5 years ago I was hardcore in favor of the bill; the rise of ebikes, (like all things bike related) has been complicated the discussion.


----------



## D. Inoobinati (Aug 28, 2020)

For what it's worth, we have "wilderness" just east of a major metropolitan area, edged by growing hoardes of e-bikers on one side, accessible from the other by a paved road, even a tram, to its summit. Thankfully, mountain bikers can't influence land managers to allow bike access through this resource.


----------



## milehi (Nov 2, 1997)

Impetus said:


> This condition exists in so many places. In Sedona, wilderness is automatically designated as anything above 4000' ASL, there are miles-long trails that simply climb over a saddle, and are thusly bisected by a very short wilderness area, rendering them impassable by bikes. Maybe 100 yds in a 5 mile long trail.
> There are sections of the Arizona Trail that (for some reason) pass through a wilderness area, making the only way to traverse the trail being a diversion miles out of the way on roads, often pavement. There's no concern for it, that section of trail might see one hundred bikes PER YEAR. every one of them being bike packers.
> 
> 
> ...


Here we have morons on ebikes riding into wilderness around Big Bear and posting it on FB. They get rabid when someone gently reminds them its off limits. It's rampant enough that I've decided it's their mindset as a user group. All trails in the BB Valley are off limits to ebikes...as they should be. The Valley swells to 100,000* more people hiking and biking on the weekends and there's no place for bikes with motors with unskilled and uneducated riders on the trails.

*The most heavily visited tourist area in the US in 2020.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

milehi said:


> Here we have morons on ebikes riding into wilderness around Big Bear and posting it on FB. They get rabid when someone gently reminds them its off limits. It's rampant enough that I've decided it's their mindset as a user group. All trails in the BB Valley are off limits to ebikes...as they should be. The Valley swells to 100,000* more people hiking and biking on the weekends and there's no place for bikes with motors with unskilled and uneducated riders on the trails.
> 
> *The most heavily visited tourist area in the US in 2020.


While all that may be true, there's really not much that can actually be done about it.


----------



## milehi (Nov 2, 1997)

Curveball said:


> While all that may be true, there's really not much that can actually be done about it.


You're right. Nothing. Unless they cause a crash resulting in injury or one rides out beyond cell service (easy to do) and their motor battery dies, and they die of exposure. Many take this mountain and the rapid weather changes, and 7000' elevation difference for granted and they pay...all the time. Bike shops also look the other way in the name of profit although I'm aware of the feast or famine that businesses operating up here face.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

and 30 years later, the debate continues. The bike ban was never about preserving wilderness, so much as it was about preserving exclusive access for well connected legacy user groups. The rest is rationalizing.


----------



## D. Inoobinati (Aug 28, 2020)

zorg said:


> and 30 years later, the debate continues. The bike ban was never about preserving wilderness, so much as it was about preserving exclusive access for well connected legacy user groups. The rest is rationalizing.


Agreed. In addition to bikes and motorized vehicles, horses and hunting should also be prohibited in federal wilderness.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

Bikes definitely should be allowed on Wilderness, just so we're clear


----------



## milehi (Nov 2, 1997)

D. Inoobinati said:


> Agreed. In addition to bikes and motorized vehicles, horses and hunting should also be prohibited in federal wilderness.


Why hunting? It's conservation.


----------



## Yootah (Jun 30, 2017)

"Wilderness" the way it is currently managed and promoted in the US is a political fundraising tool, not conservation. And Patagonia makes its money using virtue signalling to sell overpriced t-shirts to trendy self-styled conservationists who don't understand, or don't care, how they're being used.

There is a place for actual wilderness in our lives. They should be wild, remote, and primitive places with no bikes, no horses, no improvements at all. Very very few currently designated "Wilderness" areas in the US actually qualify as Wilderness under the current legal definition, much less as actual wild places.


----------



## cookieMonster (Feb 23, 2004)

D. Inoobinati said:


> Agreed. In addition to bikes and motorized vehicles, horses and hunting should also be prohibited in federal wilderness.


Agreed, as long as they also prohibit all other activities as well.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

Except historically wilderness areas were inhabited. Wilderness free of humans is a 19th century European construct.


----------



## unrooted (Jul 31, 2007)

Wilderness is just a designation, and the definition SHOULD be defined by the residents in this country…not by politicians, or the most well funded lobbyists, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t become the well funded lobbyists that get what we want. I think we need new trails that are only for mountain bikes in wilderness.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

milehi said:


> Why hunting? It's conservation.


Really have to ask the vegan...


----------



## BujiBiker (Jun 7, 2019)

I was for the “no wheels” wilderness until I found out about the exclusion(s). The Frank Church has an airstrip. You can fly planes in and out for scientific endeavors. If I have to carry all my stuff, so should you. Pretty simple.


----------



## Yootah (Jun 30, 2017)

BujiBiker said:


> I was for the “no wheels” wilderness until I found out about the exclusion(s). The Frank Church has an airstrip. You can fly planes in and out for scientific endeavors. If I have to carry all my stuff, so should you. Pretty simple.


Wildernesses everywhere are cherrystemmed with roads, compromises made when they put the Wilderness in and knew it wouldn't fly because it was already crisscrossed with roads. So they conveniently excluded a bunch of squiggly road shaped areas from the "Wilderness" in order to get it to pass. I'll say it again, these Wilderness areas are just political tools, not conservation tools, and if they can cherrystem roads for cars through Wilderness areas they can damned well cherrystem trails for mountain bikes.


----------



## eri (Sep 4, 2012)

Travel the world you’ll realize our public lands are incredibly special and unique.

Go to bc and people have literally never seen old growth. Europes alps are covered in paved highways, hotels, bars. So many places there’s no place to get away from humanity.

Is my main argument against ebikes is that the parks and public lands are just too small. Makes me happy now that bicycles aren’t allowed in wilderness. Maybe I’d vote to require mt kailish style travel by prostrating yourself after each step.


----------



## jestep (Jul 23, 2004)

Yootah said:


> Wildernesses everywhere are cherrystemmed with roads, compromises made when they put the Wilderness in and knew it wouldn't fly because it was already crisscrossed with roads. So they conveniently excluded a bunch of squiggly road shaped areas from the "Wilderness" in order to get it to pass. I'll say it again, these Wilderness areas are just political tools, not conservation tools, and if they can cherrystem roads for cars through Wilderness areas they can damned well cherrystem trails for mountain bikes.


I don't think all wilderness areas are the same. The ones I frequently go to don't have anything that resembles a road except some decaying horizontal cuts last used for mining in the late 1800's. But, based on a lot of what I'm hearing of blanket and arbitrary declarations, it seems like some states and areas have greatly abused the concept to the detriment of reasonable usage and simple logic.


----------



## 93EXCivic (Mar 12, 2018)

I think most bs thing with the Wilderness areas is when an area that allowed biking prior becomes Wilderness and therefore bikes are banned. I think at the very least that there should be exceptions for that case.


----------



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

Yootah said:


> I'll say it again, these Wilderness areas are just political tools, not conservation tools




They are both.


----------



## Impetus (Aug 10, 2014)

eri said:


> Travel the world you’ll realize our public lands are incredibly special and unique.
> 
> Go to bc and people have literally never seen old growth. Europes alps are covered in paved highways, hotels, bars. So many places there’s no place to get away from humanity.
> 
> Is my main argument against ebikes is that the parks and public lands are just too small. Makes me happy now that bicycles aren’t allowed in wilderness. Maybe I’d vote to require mt kailish style travel by prostrating yourself after each step.


Maybe your language is just careless, or maybe you're using imprecise or purposefully incorrect verbage to carry your point and further your agenda as "anti-wilderness bill" but this is very close to the points I made a page ago-
No one, I repeat, NO ONE who is seriously engaged in the conversation about this bill is arguing to allow bikes in 'parks' where they are not currently allowed, which I infer you're intimating National Parks. This is not an argument for accessing the trails in Yellowstone, Zion, Arches, Mt Rainier, Grand Canyon, etc.

I don't know where you live, nor does it matter, but I can tell you from personal experience that there are HUGE chunks of this country, particularly the desert southwest and Rocky Mountains that have arbitrarily been designated as off-limits to any improvement (which I totally support) and are accessible by horses, airplanes and helicopters, but not a bicycle. 
Again- to be very very clear: In Arizona where I live we're talking about areas that are 25k-100k acres, and already have trails and roads in them, used by hikers and equestrians, but bikes are excluded solely due to an error in the language used in the original bill.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

Wilderness and areas managed as such represent ~30% of all park land in the lower 48. The bike ban makes no sense. On top of that, requiring that W is managed with 19th century tools means that trails are in bad shape. It only makes sense for enviro zealots who believe in a wilderness that historically never existed.


----------



## eri (Sep 4, 2012)

Impetus said:


> Maybe your language is just careless, or maybe you're using imprecise or purposefully incorrect verbage to carry your point and further your agenda as "anti-wilderness bill" but this is very close to the points I made a page ago-
> No one, I repeat, NO ONE who is seriously engaged in the conversation about this bill is arguing to allow bikes in 'parks' where they are not currently allowed, which I infer you're intimating National Parks. This is not an argument for accessing the trails in Yellowstone, Zion, Arches, Mt Rainier, Grand Canyon, etc.
> 
> I don't know where you live, nor does it matter, but I can tell you from personal experience that there are HUGE chunks of this country, particularly the desert southwest and Rocky Mountains that have arbitrarily been designated as off-limits to any improvement (which I totally support) and are accessible by horses, airplanes and helicopters, but not a bicycle.
> Again- to be very very clear: In Arizona where I live we're talking about areas that are 25k-100k acres, and already have trails and roads in them, used by hikers and equestrians, but bikes are excluded solely due to an error in the language used in the original bill.


On re-read I thought I was pretty clear - except for the major faux pas of using the words 'ebike' and 'park' in the same sentence.

Our 'conserved' public lands are huge compared to most places on the globe but I think they are already too small for a person on foot, let alone a dude on a bike. I think people should be able to walk away from the roads for days and not risk running into day trippers on bicycles.

I live in the pnw but travelled a lot. Never been more than 50 miles south of the northern border of az. I don't know what specific area youre talking about. Maybe I'd agree with you about some specific area. Broadly speaking though we've got too many people on this planet and our remote areas are too small and too few.


----------



## inonjoey (Jul 19, 2011)

zorg said:


> Wilderness and areas managed as such represent ~30% of all park land in the lower 48. The bike ban makes no sense. On top of that, requiring that W is managed with 19th century tools means that trails are in bad shape. It only makes sense for enviro zealots who believe in a wilderness that historically never existed.


Pretty much sums it up.

I would also add that from my perspective, keeping people out of the wilderness due to some sense of “purity” negatively impacts the preservation and care of said wilderness; people don’t care for what they don’t appreciate and use.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

eri said:


> On re-read I thought I was pretty clear - except for the major faux pas of using the words 'ebike' and 'park' in the same sentence.
> 
> Our 'conserved' public lands are huge compared to most places on the globe but I think they are already too small for a person on foot, let alone a dude on a bike. I think people should be able to walk away from the roads for days and not risk running into day trippers on bicycles.
> 
> I live in the pnw but travelled a lot. Never been more than 50 miles south of the northern border of az. I don't know what specific area youre talking about. Maybe I'd agree with you about some specific area. Broadly speaking though we've got too many people on this planet and our remote areas are too small and too few.


The wilderness areas in the PNW are overrun with hikers. It would be a miserable experience to ride a trail here while stopping every 20 feet, or less, to let another huge group of hiker past. The whole concept of solitude is long gone.


----------



## eri (Sep 4, 2012)

Curveball said:


> The wilderness areas in the PNW are overrun with hikers. It would be a miserable experience to ride a trail here while stopping every 20 feet, or less, to let another huge group of hiker past. The whole concept of solitude is long gone.


No, not generally. Sure there’s spots that are inundated. Other excellent places I literally hike for days on old trails and never see another person. Would make awesome biking except I don’t because it’s not allowed. Breaks my heart that I can’t ride there, but that remoteness is precious.

I have no doubt that future generations will appreciate the same remoteness and exploration.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

eri said:


> No, not generally. Sure there’s spots that are inundated. Other excellent places I literally hike for days on old trails and never see another person. Would make awesome biking except I don’t because it’s not allowed. Breaks my heart that I can’t ride there, but that remoteness is precious.
> 
> I have no doubt that future generations will appreciate the same remoteness and exploration.


In WA you can't find parking at the wilderness trailheads unless you get there very early on a weekday. It can be very hard to find a campsite that isn't taken already. Steady streams of hikers going up and down the mountains. Maybe OR and ID are better than here.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

If solitude is the goal of wilderness, institute permits. That being said with 330M folks in this country, it's not realistic


----------



## eri (Sep 4, 2012)

Curveball said:


> In WA you can't find parking at the wilderness trailheads unless you get there very early on a weekday. It can be very hard to find a campsite that isn't taken already. Steady streams of hikers going up and down the mountains. Maybe OR and ID are better than here.


Lots of examples that aren’t like that. Norse peaks, William Douglas and the mt adams wilderness. Head over one valley from the pct and it’s pretty quiet.

I sort of hope the huge influx of hikers isn’t the new normal but on the other hand it means the preservation is being appreciated.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

eri said:


> Lots of examples that aren’t like that. Norse peaks, William Douglas and the mt adams wilderness. Head over one valley from the pct and it’s pretty quiet.
> 
> I sort of hope the huge influx of hikers isn’t the new normal but on the other hand it means the _preservation is being appreciated_.


Maybe over-appreciated. I can't imagine that the hoards of people are good for the wildlife. Not to mention all the human waste.


----------



## eri (Sep 4, 2012)

Curveball said:


> Maybe over-appreciated. I can't imagine that the hoards of people are good for the wildlife. Not to mention all the human waste.


I don’t have any argument against turning everything into a theme park - except it’s not what I like. I prefer solitude and the appearance of diversity but that’s just my opinion. There’s some aspect of old growth ecology makes me excited. It’s me, what I like. Talk to people that live with wolves and they want them gone - apparently aren’t good neighbors.

Used to be 4 days into a Yellowstone ski trip you’d get buzzed by snowmobiles. Talk about a bummer. Ditto in what’s now called bears ears, 3 days alone and there’s a swarm of atvs working their way up our canyon. Somehow that’s been banned but a bunch of locals are frosted by their stolen recreation and I totally see why.

Is selfish that young fit people can enjoy a place and old decrepit folks can’t. Got to decide as a society if that sort of solitude and adventure is something we desire. As big as our wilderness appears it’s actually really small.

im super thankful that we have the unpopulated regions we do in the usa. In Europe the valleys were all lived in and now it’s vacation villages. It’s a rare col that has no resort condos, giant paved parking lot and a ski area.

I wish the rules could make more sense, be less strict and absolute, why ban someone from a short connector over 4k feet? Who cares if I ride my bike on this abandoned trail? but I’m hesitant to change anything because I don’t trust enforcement is prepared to step up. We need a way to slow people down, not speed them up. I think it was ebikes that changed my mind.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

eri said:


> I don’t have any argument against turning everything into a theme park - except it’s not what I like. I prefer solitude and the appearance of diversity but that’s just my opinion. There’s some aspect of old growth ecology makes me excited. It’s me, what I like. Talk to people that live with wolves and they want them gone - apparently aren’t good neighbors.
> 
> Used to be 4 days into a Yellowstone ski trip you’d get buzzed by snowmobiles. Talk about a bummer. Ditto in what’s now called bears ears, 3 days alone and there’s a swarm of atvs working their way up our canyon. Somehow that’s been banned but a bunch of locals are frosted by their stolen recreation and I totally see why.
> 
> ...


I prefer the high country. The meadows. The snowfields. The glaciers. Unfortunately, everyone else does too it seems.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

Solitude and public good are rarely synonym. Bikes should be legal in most wilderness areas. They used to be. Frankly most trails in W are not bike friendly anyway.


----------

