# The Wilderness Debate



## Ride Wilderness (Mar 2, 2010)

Hello Fellow MTB'ers:

I wanted to gauge a group opinion of a brewing idea.

As many of you know, the #1 threat to mountain biking in the United States is the Wilderness Act of 1964. In short, the Act prohibits "mechanized travel" within designated Wilderness areas, which many believe to mean only motorized in the original spirit of the law. Bikes were allowed in Wilderness areas until the early 1980's until the Forest Service began interpreting the Act to include mountain bikes. There is significant evidence to support the use of mountain bikes within Wilderness areas, not the least of which is other mechanized travel being allowed (ski bindings, rafting, etc) and the fact that mountain bikes had not been invented in 1964.

Fundamentally, this has put mountain bikers at odds with the Wilderness System. I would bet at least 95% of mountain bikers conceptually _support the preservation of wild lands_, but have trouble supporting a system that shuts them out _permanently_ to those lands on their mountain bikes. The Wilderness lobby advertise their intent as preserving our cherished lands from the long arm of the extractive industries (gas/oil, mining, logging) and development (roads, construction, etc) with no inherent issue with mountain bikers. That sounds great, but the fact is when an area is designated Wilderness we are OUT. Forever.

IMBA plays an important role in mountain bike advocacy, but has publicly stated that the Wilderness Act is impossible to amend....certainly through legislative channels....and especially given the "green" lobby. IMBA has taken on an important role in proactively fighting to keep access, redraw Wilderness boundaries and promoting new trail construction. Unfortunately, their budget (and subsequent mandate) doesn't leave much to take on the enormous Wilderness lobby and an army of "green" lawyers.

This leads me to ask, why must mountain bikers settle for second class status on federal lands? The Forest Service has found mountain biking to be no more of an impact than hiking, yet we are not allowed in the same wild places. How do you feel about a new organization, separate from IMBA, whose sole purpose is to legally challenge the Wilderness Act of 1964? No trail construction clinics, advocacy road shows or significant infrastructure....just a simple, legal entity dedicated to winning our right to ride mountain bikes in Wilderness. Would you support an organization like this? Would you support it financially?

Sound off. Would love to hear from the stakeholders here.

Ride Wilderness


----------



## Howeler (Sep 23, 2005)

It would take millions and millions of dollars for any affective lobby efforts - and the mountain bike community isn't really that large of a user group. 

All for it though.


----------



## Ride Wilderness (Mar 2, 2010)

Howeler said:


> It would take millions and millions of dollars for any affective lobby efforts - and the mountain bike community isn't really that large of a user group.
> 
> All for it though.


I agree, I think a lobbying/legislative path is a lost cause. What I am suggesting is a legal path through the courts.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

I think your premise is a bit off.



> As many of you know, the #1 threat to mountain biking in the United States is the Wilderness Act of 1964.


That may be true on a local basis in some specific areas, but none of the places that I have lived.

And being in an academic environment, I will say this to you. Do NOT invent statistics to support your claim. If you're going to make a statement, you NEED references to back it up. Posting a poll on this site doesn't count. I don't know how you'd poll a respective cross-section of mountain bikers on this issue, either. Mayhaps it can't be done with the rigor you would need. The Wilderness advocates will take you apart if you make $hit up.

Alternate organizations have been tried before, and failed (MTBAccess?). IIRC, MTBAccess supported the use of legal action. I don't know of anything they ever got done, however.

I won't support an organization unless I know it's going to be effective.

I support IMBA (not constantly, but I do throw them money from time to time) because it has been effective at promoting standards and proven methods to improve trail quality and quantity.

How is your org going to prove to me that it is worth my money? Are you going to show me a list of lawyers working towards your cause? How about some legal documents supporting your efforts? If I had the cash and I could be certain you were serious, I'd front some cash to get the efforts started. But I don't have the sort of startup cash you'd need to get the ball rolling. If you'd find someone to donate legal help to get you started, that'd be great.


----------



## cruso414 (Aug 19, 2004)

I would definitely support it financially and any other way I could.


----------



## 89hawk (Nov 21, 2007)

Look at Blue Ribbon 
http://www.sharetrails.org/

They fight to keep land open to all users. I am a member.


----------



## One Pivot (Nov 20, 2009)

we should find a dirty, sneaky backhanded way to loophole the law and get an amendment on a rider bill to allow mountain biking in wilderness areas. thats how you get politics done in america! 

... partial joke, partial sad truth :lol:


----------



## fesch (Jul 30, 2009)

I think supporting IMBA is the best overall choice. Perhaps they can't get wilderness opened up, but they help keeping national forests from closing off. They have a lot of credibility built up over time, and work (however slow and resource constrained) to enlarge the number of places mountain bikers can ride.


----------



## Ride Wilderness (Mar 2, 2010)

NateHawk said:


> I think your premise is a bit off.
> 
> That may be true on a local basis in some specific areas, but none of the places that I have lived.
> 
> ...


Regarding your comments on a well-staffed legal team and an organized approach, we couldn't be more in agreement. Our goal is not to mount the legal battle here, our goal in this forum is to hear what people think of the concept. I think you're spot on as to what this organization needs to be.


----------



## Ride Wilderness (Mar 2, 2010)

fesch said:


> I think supporting IMBA is the best overall choice. Perhaps they can't get wilderness opened up, but they help keeping national forests from closing off. They have a lot of credibility built up over time, and work (however slow and resource constrained) to enlarge the number of places mountain bikers can ride.


I think continued support for IMBA is essential. What I'm proposing here is a parallel effort that tries to accomplish what they cannot and keeps them insulated as a cooperative organization.

Something for everyone to consider: this is how the Wilderness community plays ball. They utilize the courts when they feel their goals have not been satisfied by the federal land managers.


----------



## elder_mtber (Jan 13, 2004)

89hawk said:


> Look at Blue Ribbon
> http://www.sharetrails.org/
> 
> They fight to keep land open to all users. I am a member.


Me too.

Terry


----------



## KRob (Jan 13, 2004)

fesch said:


> I think supporting IMBA is the best overall choice. Perhaps they can't get wilderness opened up, but they help keeping national forests from closing off. They have a lot of credibility built up over time, and work (however slow and resource constrained) to enlarge the number of places mountain bikers can ride.


I agree. Donate directly to their legal fund and talk a couple million of your buddies to kick in $100 each and that will _start_ to make a dent. Even with that much money we're still out-financed by the Sierra Club. Call me pessimistic.

Money is what makes things happen (sad but true). Put enough money behind the initiative and even bikes in wilderness could become a reality.


----------



## reed523 (Nov 8, 2009)

Short answer: No i wouldn't support an additional group especially one attempting to go through the legal system.

Good discussion topic though so here's my 2 cents:
-The IMBA certainly isn't the do all for all organization we all envision in our dreams but i think they do alot more harm than good. I'd also like to think (hope) they are becoming more effective as the organization matures. 

-This crazy idea of throwing money at Washington to solve problems has to stop at some point. I'd much rather win friends by changing peoples lives one at a time by getting them on bikes and then let them have a go at their representatives. 

-I'd love to have access to "big W" wilderness. Last semester i took a grad class on "The Wilderness Act" and it was quite a learning experience. I'm still not pleased that i can't ride my bike in these areas (especially when horses are allowed) but at least i understand the history and some of the reasoning. For me, the ideas of leaving the land untrammeled, with "man's work substantially unnoticeable", and allowing for "outstanding opportunities of solitude" are valid enough that i'm ok riding elsewhere. 

-My perspective is possibly jaded because of my geographic location. Oklahoma has 3 Wilderness areas. Equal or superior riding is available nearby in all 3 cases, so for us, it isn't an issue of lack of access to quality riding. Understanding of course, that "quality riding" is a relative term Oh to live where some of you people do!!


----------



## Sasquatch (Dec 23, 2003)

elder_mtber said:


> Me too.
> 
> Terry


I stay far away from the Blue Ribbon Coalition. It's foolish to put Mountain biking in a coalition with motorized vehicles. I consider myself a hiker on wheels, not a quiet motorcyclist. We need to build relationships with hikers, not motorcyclists if we are to convince Congress to allow bikes in Wilderness.

Do you also support opening Wilderness to motorbikes and ATV use?


----------



## Skookum (Jan 17, 2005)

Sasquatch said:


> I stay far away from the Blue Ribbon Coalition. It's foolish to put Mountain biking in a coalition with motorized vehicles. I consider myself a hiker on wheels, not a quiet motorcyclist. We need to build relationships with hikers, not motorcyclists if we are to convince Congress to allow bikes in Wilderness.
> 
> Do you also support opening Wilderness to motorbikes and ATV use?


i agree that mt. bikers shouldn't pigeon hole themselves in alignment with motos. Just as we shouldn't get too cozy with hiker groups either. Both have their own primary agenda's that usually conflict with what mt. bikers want.

To put it simply Hiker groups are the Hatfields and Moto groups are the McCoys. There are tons of folk, probably Sasquatch himself that don't want anything to do with motos. Hiker green folk can't stand them and put down conditions against a group like lowly mt. bikers. If'n we catch you "cavortin" with dem McCoys we'll shoot yer dawg...

This might seem funny, but what's not funny is how true it is.

But this is moving away from topic a bit, i agree a bit with Sasquatch that mt. bikers should not throw in all their cards with any particular group but where i diverge from his stance is we need to take more stock on our own. Mt. biker groups need to stick up for mt. biker interests. We do need representation that does build relations, but not relations that are built on conditions that give the mt. bike lobby no teeth or claws.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Sasquatch said:


> I stay far away from the Blue Ribbon Coalition. It's foolish to put Mountain biking in a coalition with motorized vehicles. I consider myself a hiker on wheels, not a quiet motorcyclist. We need to build relationships with hikers, not motorcyclists if we are to convince Congress to allow bikes in Wilderness.
> 
> Do you also support opening Wilderness to motorbikes and ATV use?


+2



> -My perspective is possibly jaded because of my geographic location. Oklahoma has 3 Wilderness areas. Equal or superior riding is available nearby in all 3 cases, so for us, it isn't an issue of lack of access to quality riding. Understanding of course, that "quality riding" is a relative term Oh to live where some of you people do!!


Don't let your location distant from most wide open spaces jade you. Many hiking groups and Wilderness advocates HATE bikes and use Wilderness designations as a tool to get us off the trails. I don't pretend to believe that all trails should be open to bikes, but this method is sneaky and underhanded. Getting the interpretation (a simple majority decision) on the ban on "mechanized" travel fixed would remove that tool from their toolbox. I am pretty sure it'd take some of the steam out of the people who use that as a tool...but then Wilderness advocates who actually care about preservation of wild lands would gain many more mountain bikers as supporters.


----------



## Skookum (Jan 17, 2005)

reed523 said:


> Good discussion topic though so here's my 2 cents:


Even though i don't really agree with alot of what you say i really like your responses.

But first, if this group was on the up and up, i personally know lots of people that would support it. And if it passed the smell test i would personally promote it. i honestly don't have a clue of how feasible this notion is, but there... i played along.



reed523 said:


> -This crazy idea of throwing money at Washington to solve problems has to stop at some point. I'd much rather win friends by changing peoples lives one at a time by getting them on bikes and then let them have a go at their representatives.


i really really really like this response.:thumbsup: i'm not going to say kill the lobbying, but i see all groups get so top heavy they forget to provide the fundamental basics. Part of that is to have some fun! Promoting the positive aspect of mt. biking with up to date unfiltered information, providing sustainable support within stewardship efforts, all things that are weak links on the chain of advocacy from where i see things. We don't have to be super awesome at everything, but we shouldn't suck as much as we do either.
Not every problem is so simple but i am a believer that if we streamline our efforts in nurturing more aware riders, refine our networks, and be good at being ready to focus the energy that is harnessed from that. 
Well i know from personal experience, that it's possible, and fruitful.



reed523 said:


> For me, the ideas of leaving the land untrammeled, with "man's work substantially unnoticeable", and allowing for "outstanding opportunities of solitude" are valid enough that i'm ok riding elsewhere.


Not for me. i could debate each point at length but i'll spare both of us, and simply say mt. bikes are a great low impact way to recreate, and appreciate a quiet non-motorized nature experience.


----------



## GregB406 (Dec 19, 2005)

I understand the need for a parallel organization and I would support it. this would be no different than enviromental types belonging to a variety of organizations in order to satisfy their diverse interests.

It would be healthy to fully explore the wilderness act and it's restrictions. And also the present Forest Service definition of mechanised use. We can debate the many details here on this thread, or not. But the question needs to be brought forth nationally once again. IMBA will not do it. At least in the present. So someone else may try.

The Wilderness movement is well funded and very arrogant. Many wilderness professionals will read this thread, and I will catch hell from them in the future for writing this, as I am being monitored. As more wilderness is designated without making adequate consessions to the modest bicyclist requests, the entire wilderness movement becomes poorer for it and the growing trend to question the Act becomes stronger.

The Wilderness Act is perfect, or just about perfect. The way it is being applied and used as the only viable land conservation option is far from perfect though, and that is where we all are losing.


----------



## Ride Wilderness (Mar 2, 2010)

reed523 said:


> Short answer: No i wouldn't support an additional group especially one attempting to go through the legal system.
> 
> Good discussion topic though so here's my 2 cents:
> -The IMBA certainly isn't the do all for all organization we all envision in our dreams but i think they do alot more harm than good. I'd also like to think (hope) they are becoming more effective as the organization matures.
> ...


A few responses:

- IMBA has given up on changing the Wilderness Act. They do an admirable job of working to redraw lines and find compromise, but make no mistake, we are at the negotiating table as a second class user group. I like what they do, but we're losing the larger battle. Bit by bit, year by year we are losing amazing wild places to ride that as of today, we will NEVER ride in again.

- I don't quite understand the recurring theme of "throwing money", and in other posts, any reference to a lobbying effort. This idea is that of mounting a legal challenge, not a legislative movement. Yes, it would most certainly cost money, but not as wasted lobbying /special interest money.


----------



## Thor29 (May 12, 2005)

I'm okay with not riding mountain bikes in Wilderness Areas.
Designating an area as a Wilderness protects the area from the mining and timber industries which is much more important than being able to ride my bike there. 

I used to live in Colorado and there were plenty of trails without having access to the few designated Wilderness Areas. (Although it would be nice to be able to ride the entire Colorado Trail without having to skirt Wilderness Areas).

Now that I live in San Francisco, the number of singletrack trails I can ride is very limited and this is not due to Wilderness designation. It's all local politics. If you can't find any decent trails in Marin County (the supposed birthplace of modern mountain biking) then I'm guessing the mountain bike advocacy groups are so weak an arthritic hamster could stomp them to death. (Metaphorically speaking anyway. I wouldn't want to upset any hamster wranglers out there).


----------



## davidarnott (Feb 28, 2007)

This exactly right here is why mountain biking is screwed and will continue to be screwed into the forseeable future. We love our enemies and hate our allies. We are so screwed.

QUOTE=Sasquatch]I stay far away from the Blue Ribbon Coalition. It's foolish to put Mountain biking in a coalition with motorized vehicles. I consider myself a hiker on wheels, not a quiet motorcyclist. We need to build relationships with hikers, not motorcyclists if we are to convince Congress to allow bikes in Wilderness.

Do you also support opening Wilderness to motorbikes and ATV use?[/QUOTE]


----------



## sxotty (Nov 4, 2005)

I have no problem with motorcyclists, but I don't want them in wilderness areas since they clearly don't belong there. At the same time I obviously think that bikes do. However not all trails should be multiuse. Some should have restrictions to allow those that can't yet play well with others to have their fun too.


----------



## BeanMan (Jul 6, 2006)

I'll break the mold. I use Wilderness areas quite often, by foot. And I think it should stay that way. In Colorado there are many other places for me to ride.


----------



## abegold (Jan 30, 2004)

As long as horses are allowed in Wilderness areas I will oppose the law.
We should oppose allowing these urinating and crapping, post hole digging animals in any wilderness. Then things may change for the better.
Have you ever camped where horses are near? Flies and crap everywhere and it's never cleaned up. This seeds weeds as well.
The horse lobby has many times the $ of the average mountain biker. I once met a competative horse rider who claimed she spent $30,000 a MONTH on her horse, hard to compete with that level of $. I was going to ski at Vail so very probable.
Here in AZ wilderness areas are numerous and people in them are few.


----------



## Ride Wilderness (Mar 2, 2010)

BeanMan said:


> I'll break the mold. I use Wilderness areas quite often, by foot. And I think it should stay that way. In Colorado there are many other places for me to ride.


I think this is an important point to address. I would agree with this IF there were no more Wilderness proposals on the table. I would be totally fine with the amount of riding I have to access and enjoy Wilderness by foot. Unfortunately, this is not the case. There are more than 2 million acres in Colorado alone _right now_ in the crosshairs with even more being discussed. This is why I feel the issue is so important. We're slowly but surely losing rideable lands forever.


----------



## sxotty (Nov 4, 2005)

Like I said not all trails should see all use. Allowing biking in wilderness doesn't imply there are not hiking only areas still. Maybe they should just come up with a new designation. Everytime I am walking on a road dug by a bulldozer in a wilderness area I shake my head at the stupidity of it.


----------



## willapajames (Dec 18, 2005)

There are some wilderness areas I would definitely like to ride in, but I also think they should be kept foot-only. Allowing bikes seems like it might open the door for ATV's and dirt bikes, and that would be horrible.
I really, really wish they would kick horses out of wilderness areas though. They cause way more erosion than a bike ever does.


----------



## Howley (Nov 23, 2005)

*Go To Court*

Idaho is a State with a lot to lose from Proposed Wilderness-Exesting Wilderness not so much but if you want to challange the dfinition of mechanical transport then get busted ridding in proposed or official Wilderness and go to court-Find a leagl team to take the case pro bono and see what happens.

Take a look here and ask these folks if a politial campaign or court battle is worth it.

Bicycling and Wilderness

http://www.wildernessbicycling.org/

some times the unfunded challange will bring attantion to the issue and let the court of public opinion decide. Get ready for WAR.


----------



## dstepper (Feb 28, 2004)

*Another Washington Land Grap*

*Washington Times
March 2, 2010*

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/02/white-house-land-grab/

By Sen. Jim DeMint

You'd think the Obama administration is busy enough controlling the banks, insurance companies and automakers, but thanks to whistleblowers at the Department of the Interior, we now learn they're planning to increase their control over energy-rich land in the West.

A secret administration memo has surfaced revealing plans for the federal government to seize more than 10 million acres from Montana to New Mexico, halting job- creating activities like ranching, forestry, mining and energy development. Worse, this land grab would dry up tax revenue that's essential for funding schools, firehouses and community centers.

President Obama could enact the plans in this memo with just the stroke of a pen, without any input from the communities affected by it.

At a time when our national unemployment rate is 9.7 percent, it is unbelievable anyone would be looking to stop job-creating energy enterprises, yet that's exactly what's happening.

The document lists 14 properties that, according to the document, "might be good candidates" for Mr. Obama to nab through presidential proclamation. Apparently, Washington bureaucrats believe it's more important to preserve grass and rocks for birdwatchers and backpackers than to keep these local economies thriving.

Administration officials claim the document is merely the product of a brainstorming session, but anyone who reads this memo can see that it is a wish list for the environmentalist left. It discusses, in detail, what kinds of animal populations would benefit from limiting human activity in those areas.

The 21-page document, marked "Internal Draft-NOT FOR RELEASE," names 14 different lands Mr. Obama could completely close for development by unilaterally designating them as "monuments" under the 1906 Antiquities Act.

It says all kinds of animals would be better off by doing so, like the coyotes, badgers, grouse, chickens and lizards. But giving the chickens more room to roost is no reason for the government to override states' rights.

Rep. Robert Bishop, Utah Republican, made the memo public because he didn't want another unilateral land grab by the White House, like what happened under former Presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter.

Using the Antiquities Act, President Carter locked up more land than any other president had before him, taking more than 50 million acres in Alaska despite strong opposition from the state.

President Clinton used the authority 22 times to prohibit hunting, recreational vehicles, mining, forestry and even grazing in 5.9 million acres scattered around the country. The law allowed him to single-handedly create 19 new national monuments and expand three others without consulting anyone.

One of the monuments President Clinton created was the Grande Staircase-Escalante in Utah, where 135,000 acres of land were leased for oil and gas and about 65,000 barrels of oil were produced each year from five active wells. But, President Clinton put an end to developing those resources.

President Obama could do the same in other energy-rich places unless Congress takes action. At least 13.5 million acres are already on his Department of Interior's real estate shopping list.

This includes a 58,000-acre area in New Mexico. The memo said this should be done so the lesser prairie chicken and the sand dune lizard will be better protected. Are these animals going extinct? No. The bureaucrats wrote that the land should be locked up to "avoid the necessity of listing either of these species as threatened or endangered."

In Nevada, the Obama administration might make another monument in the Heart of the Great Basin because it, supposedly, is a "center of climate change scientific research."

In Colorado, the government is considering designating the Vermillion Basin as a monument because it is "currently under the threat of oil and gas development."

Americans should be wary of any plans a president has to seize land from the states without their consent. Any new plans to take away states' freedom to use land as they see fit must be stopped.

That's why I sponsored an amendment to block Mr. Obama from declaring any of the 14 lands listed in the memo as "monuments." Unfortunately, the Senate, led by Democrats, rejected it on Thursday evening by a vote of 58-38.

It was particularly disappointing that the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, of Nevada, voted against the amendment. The government owns more than 80 percent of the land in Nevada and the unemployment rate there is 12.8 percent. Surely it would help job prospects if more land were open for business.

This is a nationwide problem. The government currently owns 650 million acres, or 29 percent of the nation's total land.

Federal bureaucrats shouldn't be wasting time thinking up ways to acquire more, especially in the middle of a recession. Taking the nation's resources offline will stifle job creation and dry up tax revenues.

If anything, the government should be selling land off, not locking more up. By voting against my amendment, the Democrats tacitly endorsed Mr. Obama's secret plan to close off millions more acres to commerce.

If enacted, the plan would mean fewer jobs for Americans.

The Democratic Congress refused to stop it, but one sure way Americans could help block it is if they decide some Democrats should lose their jobs on November.

Sen. Jim DeMint, South Carolina Republican, is chairman of the U.S. Senate Steering Committee, a caucus of conservative senators.


----------



## Thor29 (May 12, 2005)

That Washington Times article is a typical load of right-wing crap.
The mining and timber industries have always had way more power than environmentalists in the USA.
It is especially telling that Clinton was used as an example because he did very little to help protect our wild lands during his administration. The Grand Staircase/Escalante deal was one of the few good things that was done.

Notice also that the person writing the article is a senator. Politicians love raping the last remaining wild lands because the rapists contribute huge amounts of money to their campaigns. They don't really care about jobs or anything else. It's just more greed.

The fact that this article was brought up is exactly why I oppose fighting Wilderness designation in the name of mountain biking. As you can see, we end up aligning ourselves with the sort of people who would then turn those areas into stripmines and clearcuts. If you want to fight for mountain bike access in Wilderness, then okay. But as much as I love mountain biking, I love wilderness more and would rather not ride than see any more destruction.


----------



## sxotty (Nov 4, 2005)

Funny about the "land grab" when it is my federal land they are "Grabbing" for me away from private companies. Hard to get my hackles up when I hear they try to get a better deal on the public land rent that private entities pay.


----------



## wv_bob (Sep 12, 2005)

dstepper said:


> You'd think the Obama administration is busy enough ...


Anytime I read something that starts like that - or in the reverse, blaming the republicans - I just stop reading because I know the whole argument is gonna be based on "I hate the other side, why can't I do what I want and to hell with the consequences"


----------



## thorkild (Jul 22, 2008)

Probably not going to win the legal challenge (The feds will likely get some kind of deference on the interpretation and "mechanized" reasonably covers bicycles). Maybe can get the agencies themselves to take another look at the definition, but this would involve a long and very carefully executed PR campaign. Like it or not, money and PR is the way things get done in this country. Its the way things ALWAYS have gotten done, not a recent phenomenon.

Mountain biking is simply collateral damage in the wilderness debate. Wilderness is the most effective tool at protecting federal lands from resource extraction and development. For that reason, it is the tool used most heavily by groups like the Sierra Club and the tool most hated by the mining/timber industries. I don't doubt that many members of environmental groups like the idea of no mountain bikes in the wilderness (and it appears that some of the posters here agree), but they aren't proposing wilderness to stop bikes. Where it becomes frustrating is that if mountain bikes start pushing for wilderness access, the groups that currently advocate the strongest will not see any reason to let the bikers in and will actively oppose the change. The real issue then is how do mountain bikers go about getting a stake at the negotiating table? This can only be accomplished through money and political clout, essentially convincing the envrionmental groups to choose the lesser of two evils (accepting mountain bikes in wilderness areas in order to ensure that more wilderness will be designated versus having mountain bikers align with development and industry groups to oppose wilderness). The problem is that mountain bikers are a LONG way from having enough power for anyone else to care...


----------



## canuckjgc (Jun 22, 2007)

Although I'm not subject to this act being in Canada, I have to agree with those that argue that allowing MTB's is the thin edge of the wedge. Personally, I enjoy having wilderness areas where MTB's are not allowed and my kids and I can hike without fear of some yahoo flying around the corner.

A poster mentioned that MTB's were not around in 1964. True, but let's face it, the modern lightweight MTB with full suspension can get pretty darn close (or even exceed in some cases) motorbike speeds on tight trails, especially downhill ones. 

We all know the speeds you can hit on trails are pretty unreal, and motorbikes would have a hard time keeping up in tight narrow trails, so just because it doesn't have a piston motor doesn't mean it shouldn't be considered mechanized. MTB's will only get lighter and faster, and as a long time MTBer, I don't want them ripping around everywhere. Environmental impact aside, hikers and MTBers dont mix on certain trails. 

I'm not part of the horsy crowd, but I've run into many on the trail, and they are always clip clopping along at maybe 3mph -- not even close to the speeds MTBers are doing on the same trails.


----------



## One Pivot (Nov 20, 2009)

the best, by far, option for safe interaction between bikes, hikers, and other trail users.. is bike specific trails.

some of these parks and wilderness areas are HUGE. theres plenty of space for bike specific trails. in some places they just need to bang a sign into the ground and let volunteer groups maintain and build trails. some places its logistically harder, some places easier, but its the best option.

we cant win battles with the huge sierra clubs and horse freak clubs. they'd probably like us off their trails too.. we can compromise by giving us _different_ access.


----------



## canuckjgc (Jun 22, 2007)

I agree about different access absolutely. Also, in BC we've been able to get increased bike access and greenways around Vancouver (cycle paths) by pushing the fact that biking is healthy (reduces health care costs) and environmentally friendly (no emissions compared to motorized transport) and a tourist draw (north shore). 

The health care argument may not get much traction in the US though with private health care. If you can argue that special access MTB trails brings in tourists you'll get attention from decision makers.


----------



## Sasquatch (Dec 23, 2003)

abegold said:


> As long as horses are allowed in Wilderness areas I will oppose the law.
> We should oppose allowing these urinating and crapping, post hole digging animals in any wilderness. Then things may change for the better.
> Have you ever camped where horses are near? Flies and crap everywhere and it's never cleaned up. This seeds weeds as well.
> The horse lobby has many times the $ of the average mountain biker. I once met a competative horse rider who claimed she spent $30,000 a MONTH on her horse, hard to compete with that level of $. I was going to ski at Vail so very probable.
> Here in AZ wilderness areas are numerous and people in them are few.


I agree with you completely. From an impact standpoint, horses are so much worse than hikers or bikers. They also allow people to carry 100s of pounds of modern conveniences out into the wilderness instead of roughing it and living simple. I think that only seriously handicapped people should be allowed to bring horses into Wilderness. Fat and Lazy doesn't count, and neither does old and weak.


----------



## Lawson Raider (Jul 24, 2006)

Thor29 said:


> That Washington Times article is a typical load of right-wing crap.
> The mining and timber industries have always had way more power than environmentalists in the USA.
> It is especially telling that Clinton was used as an example because he did very little to help protect our wild lands during his administration. The Grand Staircase/Escalante deal was one of the few good things that was done.
> 
> ...


It is wrong why any President would want to grab land just because the possibility an animal might go extinct or endangered.


----------



## knutso (Oct 8, 2008)

Wilderness this ... No bikes that ... If there are trails or some singletrack that you want to ride, well than ride ... Did george washington let the limeys tell him he couldnt row across the delaware ? .. No way! He waited until late night on a freezing christmas when no one else had the scrote to paddle and he laid down some law that we, today, can all be thankful for. If it is rainy and cold and no one else has the gall to get up on the trails go ahead and ride, no one is watching and no one cares ... If it is a nice sunny weekend than it is probaly best to lay off and let the hikers have there day in the sun ... Point being: the trails exist and are real, everyone's tax dollars went to pay for them. The rules only exist in the minds of those who choose to harbor them. Take responsibility for yourself and your rights and govern your own nation of self and always do the right thing ! And if any $30,000 horse of brit gets in your way then either take them to court or just avoid there pandering and rule - ladden smite until you can take YOUR FAIR SHARE of time in the wilderness. Equal rights and justice.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

thorkild said:


> Probably not going to win the legal challenge (The feds will likely get some kind of deference on the interpretation and "mechanized" reasonably covers bicycles). Maybe can get the agencies themselves to take another look at the definition, but this would involve a long and very carefully executed PR campaign. Like it or not, money and PR is the way things get done in this country. Its the way things ALWAYS have gotten done, not a recent phenomenon.
> 
> Mountain biking is simply collateral damage in the wilderness debate. Wilderness is the most effective tool at protecting federal lands from resource extraction and development. For that reason, it is the tool used most heavily by groups like the Sierra Club and the tool most hated by the mining/timber industries. I don't doubt that many members of environmental groups like the idea of no mountain bikes in the wilderness (and it appears that some of the posters here agree), but they aren't proposing wilderness to stop bikes. Where it becomes frustrating is that if mountain bikes start pushing for wilderness access, the groups that currently advocate the strongest will not see any reason to let the bikers in and will actively oppose the change. The real issue then is how do mountain bikers go about getting a stake at the negotiating table? This can only be accomplished through money and political clout, essentially convincing the envrionmental groups to choose the lesser of two evils (accepting mountain bikes in wilderness areas in order to ensure that more wilderness will be designated versus having mountain bikers align with development and industry groups to oppose wilderness). The problem is that mountain bikers are a LONG way from having enough power for anyone else to care...


As stated above, part of the reason to go legal is because we lack the clout otherwise to affect change.

It is a big problem that some use Wilderness designation to specifically force bikes out of a particular area. Considering the relative impact of bikes compared to other users (as already described), concessions should be given to bicycles for existing trails at the bare minimum.


----------



## GregB406 (Dec 19, 2005)

Remember, the wilderness act does not need to be changed. The problem presently lies in the Forest Service definition of "mechanized". That is the legal challenge. That is why a legal challenge would be most appropriate.

If bicycles must be banned, then many other transportation methods must also be banned. At least we then wouldn't be alone.

From wilderness bicycling website:

Only national forests had Wilderness in the initial Act and the U.S. Forest Service was charged with implementing the law. The agency wrote rules that provided more specific interpretation to the Act. Regarding mechanical transport, the rule, published in 1966, specified that “Mechanical transport, as herein used, shall include any contrivance which travels over ground, snow, or water on wheels, tracks, skids, or by floatation and is propelled by a nonliving power source contained or carried on or within the device.” (emphasis added) The word “and” is critical here, for it means a device is not mechanical if its power source is alive. This rule remains in the Code of Federal Regulations at 36CFR Sec. 293.6(a). In the mid-1980s, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and the National Park Service adopted identical language, except they added the clause, “or is a bicycle or a hang glider.”


----------



## rayray74 (Sep 18, 2005)

I actually let my IMBA membership lapse this year. I'll get around to sending it in because I do like some of the things they are doing. I really like the "ride center" idea. I wish they would change their stance on Wilderness, but If it takes another organization to fight the Wilderness battle, I would support it too. At the very least mountain bikes need to be made an exception to new Wilderness areas, just like there are exceptions for snowmobiles, motorboats and jet boats in some Wilderness areas.


----------



## Skookum (Jan 17, 2005)

Thor29 said:


> The fact that this article was brought up is exactly why I oppose fighting Wilderness designation in the name of mountain biking. As you can see, we end up aligning ourselves with the sort of people who would then turn those areas into stripmines and clearcuts. If you want to fight for mountain bike access in Wilderness, then okay. But as much as I love mountain biking, I love wilderness more and would rather not ride than see any more destruction.


This is a falsehood. There are numerous designations besides Wilderness Designation that protect the environment. This line of thought is one that is used quite a bit by conservation types who want to promote Wilderness as the bestest ever. It's like the argument that if you masturbate somewhere a kitten will die, it's funny AND not true.



thorkild said:


> Wilderness is the most effective tool at protecting federal lands from resource extraction and development.


i think the ONLY reason why is that it is permanent. If there are other reasons please enlighten me, but to me the reason why Greens like it so much is they don't have to spend time and resources going back to the table every 15 years when the management plans come up for revision.

SO...

i've read a proposal on a conservation site about the prospect of a Wilderness Lite. Why couldn't it be feasible for a Designation to be constructed where there were stringent environmental protections, but lose the let's not fight the fire until it reaches the border, or let's not allow chainsaws and wheelbarrows for trail work, and of course the blanket ban on bikes. You know all the things that make Wilderness REALLY STUPID.



thorkild said:


> The problem is that mountain bikers are a LONG way from having enough power for anyone else to care...


No that's not true, we have power, we're just not using it effectively at all. First matter of business is to educate, and find a common message within our own community. And that message should be a true honest exclamation that mt. bikers want to preserve access. And no we're not less caring for the environment for wanting that.


----------



## archer (May 20, 2004)

Thor29 said:


> That Washington Times article is a typical load of right-wing crap.
> The mining and timber industries have always had way more power than environmentalists in the USA.
> It is especially telling that Clinton was used as an example because he did very little to help protect our wild lands during his administration. The Grand Staircase/Escalante deal was one of the few good things that was done.
> 
> ...


Dude CHILL!

Clinton signed a lot of midnight executive orders, just like his pardons, that probably still haven't been corrected that included government land grabs.

Without recreational use of wilderness areas the folks who clearcut will just do so without anyone noticing. Happened to a friend's property in GA and there are lots of areas there where legally or not the trees past the first crest from the highway have been clearcut away.

Mining and logging can be done correctly but it isn't always likely if nobody is watching.

Most of the fires we've had in CA wouldn't have been nearly as bad if someone cleaned things out once in a while.


----------



## thefriar (Jan 23, 2008)

Quick question, and maybe I'll start another thread, but the almighty dollar has a ton of clout. I've thought about how much exposure the world has to mtb, my wife and I have kept casual track of mtbs included in mainstream ads. Last night I was watching an ad for Texas tourism, it heavily featured mountain biking, I know adds for Pennsylvania, Colorado, and Utah do the same thing. 

What other state tourism agencies feature mountain biking? If they're including it in their marketing, its obviously something that they feel motivates and generates interest in their state. 

I know IMBA has already stated the economic impact case for having trails, but what about going beyond just local govt's and going straight to tourism agencies? Partner with them as a back-channel into the businesses that support those agencies and their communities, they have the reach and built in constituency. Reverse grass roots if you will, small and local business is a very very touchy group for politicians b/c they generate the most jobs, get buy in there and use that to help influence...


----------



## canuckjgc (Jun 22, 2007)

If the Act is written with general language, and the Forest Service can write the interpretive rules, then what would stop them from just changing the "mechanical transport" rule in the face of litigation to include bicycles?

I don't know what you are trying to argue. If you are trying to argue that "mechanical transport" should never include bicycles (no matter what interpretive rules are passed) that will be nearly impossible to do. The dictionary describes "mechanical" (in part) as:

caused by or derived from machinery: mechanical propulsion. 
brought about by friction, abrasion

Seems like bicycles fit nicely within mechanical to me. Things like skis and rafts (mentioned earlier) do not seem to fit as they do not have propulsion derived from machinery or brought about by friction.

If you were litigating the fact that rights are being violated, then fine. The Wilderness Act itself seems to be general enough to prohibit bikes. If you arguing about Forest Service interpretations that can be changed in an instant to better clarify that bikes are mechanical transport, then you are wasting your time.

I don't think there are any fundamental rights to ride bikes in wilderness areas.



GregB406 said:


> Remember, the wilderness act does not need to be changed. The problem presently lies in the Forest Service definition of "mechanized". That is the legal challenge. That is why a legal challenge would be most appropriate.
> 
> If bicycles must be banned, then many other transportation methods must also be banned. At least we then wouldn't be alone.
> 
> ...


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

canuckjgc said:


> If the Act is written with general language, and the Forest Service can write the interpretive rules, then what would stop them from just changing the "mechanical transport" rule in the face of litigation to include bicycles?
> 
> I don't know what you are trying to argue. If you are trying to argue that "mechanical transport" should never include bicycles (no matter what interpretive rules are passed) that will be nearly impossible to do. The dictionary describes "mechanical" (in part) as:
> 
> ...


The original rules (the wording that sounds as if it permits bicycles and hang gliders and such) were part of the original Act. Think of it this way: the feds have this great idea about creating this thing called Wilderness. They have some general ideas, but don't really know how to put it into practice. They defer to a land management agency to write the specific rules to govern this new designation. Those rules are now part of the Act. Subsequently, in 1980 some people come along and publish a new "official interpretation" of those same rules. The original Act is a law, and changing it would require legislative action. However, the interpretation is not a law. A court case addressing that the interpretation does not agree with the written text of the original Act would set things straight.

After a court case such as this, the Wilderness people would have to change the law by getting a new law passed. That's a bit more of a challenging task than just getting an interpretation passed. I'm sure they'd try, however, and we'd have a whole new battle on our hands requiring lobbying efforts.


----------



## Pabs (Aug 4, 2007)

There are a lot of dangerous and unknown consequences thta could result from removing use limitations on wilderness lands. I mountain bike but support the ban.


----------



## rayray74 (Sep 18, 2005)

"There are a lot of dangerous and unknown consequences thta could result from removing use limitations on wilderness lands. I mountain bike but support the ban."

Like what? I hear this argument all the time, but no one can even seem to speculate what these "consequences" are. If anything, I think allowing bikes on a case by case basis would be very good for Wilderness because all of the mountain bikers that oppose Wilderness, and I bet there are a lot, would then be more likely to support it.


----------



## wild_ride (Mar 5, 2010)

Alaska has over 1/2 of all the federally protected wilderness (http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS&sec=fastfacts)

From 1988 through 1995 a few of us were riding across Designated Wildernss in the Brooks Range and Wrangell-St. Elias. So I wrote a letter to our Senator Ted Stevens about the legality of riding bikes in Designated Wildenrss in Alaska, which is different than the Lower 48.

People take snow machines in winter and land airplanes for instance.

Well here's what he said: Basically that bikes were OK except in Denali, Katmai, and Glacier Bay NP WIlderness.

If you want to see the official response I got, check my blog:
http://packrafting.blogspot.com/2009/08/senator-stevens-and-wilderness.html


----------



## Skookum (Jan 17, 2005)

rayray74 said:


> Like what? I hear this argument all the time, but no one can even seem to speculate what these "consequences" are. If anything, I think allowing bikes on a case by case basis would be very good for Wilderness because all of the mountain bikers that oppose Wilderness, and I bet there are a lot, would then be more likely to support it.


i think i already covered it, many kittens will die...


----------



## reed523 (Nov 8, 2009)

thefriar said:


> Quick question, and maybe I'll start another thread, but the almighty dollar has a ton of clout. I've thought about how much exposure the world has to mtb, my wife and I have kept casual track of mtbs included in mainstream ads. Last night I was watching an ad for Texas tourism, it heavily featured mountain biking, I know adds for Pennsylvania, Colorado, and Utah do the same thing.
> 
> What other state tourism agencies feature mountain biking? If they're including it in their marketing, its obviously something that they feel motivates and generates interest in their state.
> 
> I know IMBA has already stated the economic impact case for having trails, but what about going beyond just local govt's and going straight to tourism agencies? Partner with them as a back-channel into the businesses that support those agencies and their communities, they have the reach and built in constituency. Reverse grass roots if you will, small and local business is a very very touchy group for politicians b/c they generate the most jobs, get buy in there and use that to help influence...


I like the way you think. You're absolutely right about tourism (and other groups) for using bikes to improve their marketing efforts. So what's the next step? Let me know if you carry this thought into another thread.


----------



## rayray74 (Sep 18, 2005)

Shoot&#8230;.I guess we better back off. What if one was huckin kitty? I just couldn't live with myself&#8230;.


----------



## hikerdave (Mar 8, 2006)

Ride Wilderness said:


> Hello Fellow MTB'ers:
> 
> I wanted to gauge a group opinion of a brewing idea.
> 
> ...


No one is chained to their bike.

Once you step off of your bicycle you have just as many rights as anyone else in a wilderness area.

Try walking once in a while. You just might like it.


----------



## M_S (Nov 18, 2007)

GregB406 said:


> Remember, the wilderness act does not need to be changed. The problem presently lies in the Forest Service definition of "mechanized". That is the legal challenge. That is why a legal challenge would be most appropriate.
> 
> If bicycles must be banned, then many other transportation methods must also be banned. At least we then wouldn't be alone.
> 
> ...


While it is true that the interpretation of the term _mechanized_ bans bicycles from Wilderness, those advocating legal recourse to force a different interpretation clearly have no real understanding of the legal precedent which would apply.

While this issue specifically has not been litigated, the general area of administrative discretion has been very well established by the courts. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) are extremely well defined laws by the courts. Courts have established that all an agency needs to do in order to avoid a ruling declaring its decision is _arbitrary and capricious_ (look it up) is to establish that its decision is _reasonable_. The point being; courts have left a lot of leeway for agencies to determine what is appropriate, as long as they are within the bounds of the relevant guiding statutes (in this case, mostly the Wilderness Act). District courts have left up to agencies decisions regarding public lands which, frankly, are far more important than mountain biking (sorry, it's true).

IMBA knows this. But apparently the RideWilderness does not. Anyways, here's the short, easy version: * A change in interpretation must come from within the agencies, It will not be imposed by courts.* You can argue that the agency decision is somewhat inconsistent by saying, perhaps that skis are a form of mechanization. However it is simply not so out of line with the Act as to warrant court action.

I potentially support limited bicycle access in some Wilderness areas, however it has to be done the right way. And for the most part, I support the use of alternative designations such as Recreation Areas where appropriate. This is more applicable to some lands which do not necessarily meet Wilderness criteria but are worth protecting to a large degree. But that is another debate.


----------



## BumpityBump (Mar 9, 2008)

hikerdave said:


> No one is chained to their bike.
> 
> Once you step off of your bicycle you have just as many rights as anyone else in a wilderness area.
> 
> Try walking once in a while. You just might like it.


I whole heartedly agree with this statement. I love to ride my bike, but I also love heading into remote wilderness with a pack on my back, hiking boots on my feet, and a smile on my face. I honestly don't feel like I am missing out by not being able to bike into an area that I can access on foot anyway and I have many trail options for riding if that's what I want to do.

I do realize some riders have lost access to trails they have ridden legally for some time, and I can feel their pain. I don't necessarily support new designations that are designed, in part, to evict bikers. But as far as opening long established wilderness to bikes, no thanks.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

Sasquatch said:


> I stay far away from the Blue Ribbon Coalition. It's foolish to put Mountain biking in a coalition with motorized vehicles. I consider myself a hiker on wheels, not a quiet motorcyclist. We need to build relationships with hikers, not motorcyclists if we are to convince Congress to allow bikes in Wilderness.


 Why are motorcyclists somehow inherently evil? We always had horses, and spent quit a bit of time on them, My father was adamently against Dirtbikes when I was younger, he would always grumble when we came across someone on a dirtbike who during that timeframe, would pull over and shut their bikes off while we road past, and he would go on about how they had no business up there, my reply as a young child was "well dad, they merely are enjoying the outdoors in a different manner than we are, and besides, someday you may be to old to wrangle these horses and need some sort of alternative transportation to enjoy the outdoors as well" 
Now that was before I knew anything about a fourwheeler, and as time went on, he became disabled and his only way of enjoying the outdoors was either from the window of a truck, or on a fourwheeler. Plenty of other people like that as well, and again, plenty of other people who simpy do not want to hike nor mountain bike, nor should they have to.
I am fortunate to have various interests in different activities, I liked riding horses, I liked hiking, I also had a dirtbike since I was a child as well so I liked that too, and I had a cycle, and I enjoyed that, I had a snowmobile, and I had skii's, Snowshoe's and fourwheelers, all give a completely different perspective to enjoying nature. Mountain bikes are very similar to dirtbikes/atvs, when you are riding you are doing your thing, watching up ahead on the trail to see what is going on, and looking for those brisk moments of adrenaline, when you pause, is when you really get a chance to see nature and check out what is going on, talk about what you saw, what you are seeing, maybe wet a line, burn some gun powder, fry up a grouse over a fire or whatever.



> Do you also support opening Wilderness to motorbikes and ATV use?


Absolutely, I already covered much of it above, wilderness area's are a horrible Idea for many reasons, one, as previously noted they are almost completly irreversable once made. So logic tells you at some time you may indeed need that area, there may be a mineral deposit that we need for whatever we are building, Blasphomy you say, mines and logging are evil, So I ask you this, where do you think the components for your computer and cycle came from? Do you ahve magazines? do you live in a wood house? how do you whipe your bum? 
Wilderness area's are in short, nothing more than an excuse for the government to again, fail in a job they are tasked to do. Think about it, what is done in this country? Next to nothing, roads are not maintained well, most of our infrastructure in general is in serious trouble. The forest circus can and should have some say over certain land, they can and do restrict travel, very much over what they should already, so why again, give them more land?
Fires are another problem, I have contracted out for wildland forest fires since 2004, and ya know what, when there is a fire in a wilderness area its let burn, sounds nice, cept that the smoke iteslf is a real problem to many people, the fires get crazy and out of control from all the FUEL just laying around and by the time it gets out, many times you are already in trouble. but answer me this, is that fuel better burned needlessly, or to be used instead? Wouldnt it make more sense to have less waste?

Think carefuly about it all please.


----------



## rayray74 (Sep 18, 2005)

"Seems like bicycles fit nicely within mechanical to me. Things like skis and rafts (mentioned earlier) do not seem to fit as they do not have propulsion derived from machinery or brought about by friction." 

Disagree. Skis, cross country skis use skins to aid in climbing "friction". Rafts, canoes, kayaks all use some form of paddle or "lever" a distinct mechanical advantage. As far as the interpretation of "mechanical transport" I think they had it right in 1966…

“Mechanical transport, as herein used, shall include any contrivance which travels over ground, snow, or water on wheels, tracks, skids, or by floatation and is propelled by a nonliving power source contained or carried on or within the device.”


----------



## fitter (Feb 6, 2010)

with the economy how it is it could come down to how much money per ride we are willing to pay


----------



## thefriar (Jan 23, 2008)

reed523 said:


> I like the way you think. You're absolutely right about tourism (and other groups) for using bikes to improve their marketing efforts. So what's the next step? Let me know if you carry this thought into another thread.


Thread was moved here to put out feelers to everyone about what's out there:
http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=597480

I'll put something in Trail Building and Advocacy that is more strategic and forward thinking. I think there's something to it.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

Ride Wilderness said:


> I think this is an important point to address. I would agree with this IF there were no more Wilderness proposals on the table. I would be totally fine with the amount of riding I have to access and enjoy Wilderness by foot. Unfortunately, this is not the case. There are more than 2 million acres in Colorado alone _right now_ in the crosshairs with even more being discussed. This is why I feel the issue is so important. We're slowly but surely losing rideable lands forever.


Yup, montana is being shut down at a break neck pace.


----------



## M_S (Nov 18, 2007)

Y'all are still missing a really big practical point. Which is that legal "recourse" will get you nowhere. Really. Precedent is not on your side.


----------



## canuckjgc (Jun 22, 2007)

Look, your heart may be in the right place but you really don't understand that this issue can not be resolved by litigation, and anyone contributing money would be wasting their time.

The Wilderness Act prohibits "mechanical transport". The Act itself does not define "mechanical transport." That has been left by the legislators to the Forest Service to do. They can define it almost anyway they want so long as it is not arbitrary (as MS pointed out above). It didn't include bikes in 1966 because they weren't an issue. In 2010 they are high tech machines that can go 20mph+ through the bush.

There is no way that including bikes as mechanical transport is contrary to the Act. The Act states:

"there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport.."

Notice that it separates "motor vehicles" from "other forms of mechanical transport"? It clearly contemplates non-motorized mechanical transport.

Asking people if they would donate to a lost cause is not a good use of energy.



rayray74 said:


> "Seems like bicycles fit nicely within mechanical to me. Things like skis and rafts (mentioned earlier) do not seem to fit as they do not have propulsion derived from machinery or brought about by friction."
> 
> Disagree. Skis, cross country skis use skins to aid in climbing "friction". Rafts, canoes, kayaks all use some form of paddle or "lever" a distinct mechanical advantage. As far as the interpretation of "mechanical transport" I think they had it right in 1966&#8230;
> 
> "Mechanical transport, as herein used, shall include any contrivance which travels over ground, snow, or water on wheels, tracks, skids, or by floatation and is propelled by a nonliving power source contained or carried on or within the device."


----------



## M_S (Nov 18, 2007)

Blurr said:


> Yup, montana is being shut down at a break neck pace.


Exaggeration. Are you referring to Tester's bill? It's got more logging than Wilderness, though I would be just fine with less of each (in the context of the bill). terrible bill, I'll grant you that.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

M_S said:


> Exaggeration. Are you referring to Tester's bill? It's got more logging than Wilderness, though I would be just fine with less of each (in the context of the bill). terrible bill, I'll grant you that.


I wish that was the only problem, not sure about you, but I grew up here, there is not much left at all in the way of access and still more being closed off, by Anaconda they R working on closing off (and apparently succeeded) more roads and trails. I will see what I can find for ya later on.
But that is what happens when you live in a National Socialist society where government controls everything.


----------



## M_S (Nov 18, 2007)

Blurr said:


> But that is what happens when you live in a National Socialist society where government controls everything.


Oh. _Riiiiiiight_. Time for me to exit.


----------



## Evil Patrick (Sep 13, 2004)

rayray74 said:


> "Mechanical transport, as herein used, shall include any contrivance which travels over ground, snow, or water on wheels, tracks, skids, or by floatation *and is propelled by a nonliving power source* contained or carried on or within the device."


Wow.

That's an eye-opener.

Hmmm...


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

M_S said:


> Oh. _Riiiiiiight_. Time for me to exit.


The government controls roughly 80 percent of the banking and roughly the same of automotive industry.

In other words, the United States Government now operates under the same basic premise as the Chinese government, or you can keep your head in the sand and ignore it. But hey, you get to peddle woo hoo.


----------



## thefriar (Jan 23, 2008)

80% of the banking industry? where'd you get that factoid?


----------



## ACree (Sep 8, 2004)

cruso414 said:


> I would definitely support it financially and any other way I could.


 + 1 :thumbsup:


----------



## ACree (Sep 8, 2004)

NateHawk said:


> I think your premise is a bit off.
> 
> That may be true on a local basis in some specific areas, but none of the places that I have lived.


You may not have lived near some of these places, but it's a huge issue that threatens hundreds, probably thousands of miles of trail currently open to bikes. It wouldn't take make effort to quantify the amount, and I have no doubt there's no other single issue that threatens as many miles of trail.



NateHawk said:


> And being in an academic environment, I will say this to you. Do NOT invent statistics to support your claim. If you're going to make a statement, you NEED references to back it up. Posting a poll on this site doesn't count. I don't know how you'd poll a respective cross-section of mountain bikers on this issue, either. Mayhaps it can't be done with the rigor you would need. The Wilderness advocates will take you apart if you make $hit up.


No doubt, only the Wilderness advocates are allowed to make $hit up.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

thefriar said:


> 80% of the banking industry? where'd you get that factoid?


Quick one, you should do some googling yourself :thumbsup:

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/...ent-of-u-s-treasury-securities-issued-in-2009

Ever heard of the term "government sachs"?

http://wallstreetpit.com/17283-the-debt-monger

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/15/AR2009011501715.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/26/business/economy/26banks.html

If Americans paid half the attention to what is going on in this county instead of wothless sports we may not be having this discussion.


----------



## ACree (Sep 8, 2004)

sxotty said:


> Like I said not all trails should see all use. Allowing biking in wilderness doesn't imply there are not hiking only areas still. Maybe they should just come up with a new designation. Everytime I am walking on a road dug by a bulldozer in a wilderness area I shake my head at the stupidity of it.


Exactly. IMO use should be determined on a trail by trail basis, based on impact. Nothing makes less sense then an arbitrary line on a map, where bikes aren't allowed, yet horses are.


----------



## rayray74 (Sep 18, 2005)

"Notice that it separates "motor vehicles" from "other forms of mechanical transport"? It clearly contemplates non-motorized mechanical transport"

Yes, and there are exceptions in a number of Wilderness areas that allow motorized use in one form or another. I understand it's not an easy fight, and maybe litigation isn't the answer, but I do believe bikes belong in Wilderness, and even if my contributions never make a change, I don't consider it a waste because it's something I believe in. I believe the ban goes against the intent of the act itself. I like these quotes by Frank Church.

"As the floor manager of the 1964 Wilderness Act, I recall quite clearly what we were tying to accomplish by setting up the National Wilderness Preservation System. It was never the intent of Congress that wilderness be managed in so "pure" a fashion as to needlessly restrict customary public use and enjoyment. Quite the contrary, Congress fully intended that wilderness should be managed to allow its use by a wide spectrum of Americans."

"I believe, and many citizens agree with me, that the agencies are applying provisions of the Wilderness Act too strictly and thus misconstruing the intent of Congress as to how these areas should be managed."

And the Theodore Stroll law review found on IMBA's site


----------



## GregB406 (Dec 19, 2005)

rayray74 said:


> "Notice that it separates "motor vehicles" from "other forms of mechanical transport"? It clearly contemplates non-motorized mechanical transport"
> 
> Yes, and there are exceptions in a number of Wilderness areas that allow motorized use in one form or another. I understand it's not an easy fight, and maybe litigation isn't the answer, but I do believe bikes belong in Wilderness, and even if my contributions never make a change, I don't consider it a waste because it's something I believe in. I believe the ban goes against the intent of the act itself. I like these quotes by Frank Church.
> 
> ...


I have never heard of that quote by Frank Church before. That is an excellent viewpoint, IMHO. I like this thread.


----------



## canuckjgc (Jun 22, 2007)

Ok but you've just made a quantum leap in changing your argument. Believing bikes belong in the wilderness is just fine, but that's a long way from your initial assertion that they are entitled to be there under a mis-interpreted law and polling people whether they would contribute to a legal fund!

By all means, make all efforts to get bike access to wildnerness areas, but that's 180 from suing.



rayray74 said:


> "Notice that it separates "motor vehicles" from "other forms of mechanical transport"? It clearly contemplates non-motorized mechanical transport"
> 
> Yes, and there are exceptions in a number of Wilderness areas that allow motorized use in one form or another. I understand it's not an easy fight, and maybe litigation isn't the answer, but I do believe bikes belong in Wilderness, and even if my contributions never make a change, I don't consider it a waste because it's something I believe in. I believe the ban goes against the intent of the act itself. I like these quotes by Frank Church.
> 
> ...


----------



## rayray74 (Sep 18, 2005)

I never mentioned suing, I just said I would support an organization that fought for bikes in Wilderness. I think you have me mixed up with the OP. I believe both though, that bikes belong, and the law/act is mis-interpreted.


----------



## Ride Wilderness (Mar 2, 2010)

hikerdave said:


> No one is chained to their bike.
> 
> Once you step off of your bicycle you have just as many rights as anyone else in a wilderness area.
> 
> Try walking once in a while. You just might like it.


Strangely, we're not in total disagreement. I love backpacking and hiking myself...often times in the Wilderness. What concerns me is that the Wilderness march is _continuing_. If we stopped with the Wilderness we have in the system now, I don't think this is as much an issue. Unfortunately that's not the case. Millions of acres are either being added or being seriously discussed for designation. Assuming Congress has no plans of a moratorium, I see Wilderness as a long term threat to a perfectly legitimate activity on federal public lands.


----------



## outdoornut (Aug 13, 2005)

It sounds like some here have the idea that all we want to do is get access to wilderness. I don't think that is the case. We just lost thousands of acres and miles upon miles of awesome trails that we have ridden, legally, for years untill some group decided it needed to be wilderness. It was already listed as a national scenic area which kept it from being damage more than it was during WWII when the used it from a training ground. 

I think the point we all need to look at, instead of thinking we need access to all wilderness is to keep them from taking away further land that we have legally had access to for years.

It doesn't do much good to have a number of smaller organizations trying to accomplish the same thing. Strength is in numbers. If every mountain biker was a member of IMBA can you imagine the kind of numbers they could then take to Washington.

The number game is what killed us here in WV on the last wilderness bill. We, West Virginians, and IMBA did not have near the backing as the other groups pushing for this bill. 

Join IMBA and let the numbers help them. One huge group can make a big statement.


----------



## GregB406 (Dec 19, 2005)

Right now, every mountain biker on earth should belong to IMBA. The excuses for people to not join pale in comparison to the reasons for joining.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

outdoornut said:


> It sounds like some here have the idea that all we want to do is get access to wilderness. I don't think that is the case. We just lost thousands of acres and miles upon miles of awesome trails that we have ridden, legally, for years untill some group decided it needed to be wilderness. It was already listed as a national scenic area which kept it from being damage more than it was during WWII when the used it from a training ground.
> 
> I think the point we all need to look at, instead of thinking we need access to all wilderness is to keep them from taking away further land that we have legally had access to for years.
> 
> ...


Good post :thumbsup:


----------



## rayray74 (Sep 18, 2005)

It would be nice if mountain bikes could fall under the same exception (established use provision) as motorboats and aircraft.


----------



## 11 Bravo (Mar 12, 2004)

fitter said:


> with the economy how it is it could come down to how much money per ride we are willing to pay


I don't think so. The federal, state and local governments could take in hundreds of millions of dollars off selected mineral and timber leases in some of these areas if the federal government wanted to allow it. In many cases the state and local governments desperately need to generate some income from these lands and the folks in Washington won't even hear the case. That is why I don't think the tourism angle will make any difference in this debate.

Look at the plight of the farmers in the central valley of your state of California. People are being bankrupted, towns have lost nearly all their tax revenue, the state is loosing untold tax dollars, and so on. But the federal government doesn't care. Turning the irrigation water back on MAY have an adverse effect on a fish that is not even endangered. Talk about another out of control application of a law, look at how the Endangered Species Act is being used.

I could go into gory details about how much money the oil, gas and mining business puts into the federal and local coffers, and how much we spend on regulatory compliance and reclamation, but I will spare you all. The ones that think the mineral extraction industry is evil won't believe it anyway.

I think the best way to resolve the Wilderness issues, and most other issues, is for people to actually get informed about issues and candidates and start voting for better representatives and senators.


----------



## Visicypher (Aug 5, 2004)

*Ouch*



M_S said:


> While it is true that the interpretation of the term _mechanized_ bans bicycles from Wilderness, those advocating legal recourse to force a different interpretation clearly have no real understanding of the legal precedent which would apply.
> 
> While this issue specifically has not been litigated, the general area of administrative discretion has been very well established by the courts. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) are extremely well defined laws by the courts. Courts have established that all an agency needs to do in order to avoid a ruling declaring its decision is _arbitrary and capricious_ (look it up) is to establish that its decision is _reasonable_. The point being; courts have left a lot of leeway for agencies to determine what is appropriate, as long as they are within the bounds of the relevant guiding statutes (in this case, mostly the Wilderness Act). District courts have left up to agencies decisions regarding public lands which, frankly, are far more important than mountain biking (sorry, it's true).
> 
> ...


Ouch. Next time I am in Missoula, I'd love to sit down with you. You seem to know your kung-fu.

And yes, changing the ban is akin to parting the Red Sea. It would talke a change to the Code of Federal Regulations, the FSH, the FSM, and numerous others.


----------



## Shelbak73 (Nov 10, 2007)

dstepper said:


> *Washington Times
> March 2, 2010*
> 
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/02/white-house-land-grab/
> ...


IMO there's no better way to derail support for our efforts than to inject political crap like this, tying our efforts to a political agenda. Polorizing the situation and alienating half of our riders will not help.


----------



## otis24 (Apr 1, 2004)

I just joined imba...it's about time.


----------



## dstepper (Feb 28, 2004)

Shelbak73 said:


> IMO there's no better way to derail support for our efforts than to inject political crap like this, tying our efforts to a political agenda. Polorizing the situation and alienating half of our riders will not help.


You see I am not political at all, so the political message was lost on me. To me most all of the politicians are corrupt and liars, so I take info from wherever I can get it regardless of the source. It seems that some are so political that they turn off before they pay attention to the underlying problem...sad in my opinion.

Dean


----------



## M_S (Nov 18, 2007)

Visicypher said:


> Ouch. Next time I am in Missoula, I'd love to sit down with you. You seem to know your kung-fu.
> 
> And yes, changing the ban is akin to parting the Red Sea. It would talke a change to the Code of Federal Regulations, the FSH, the FSM, and numerous others.


Thanks. Though I'm no lawyer, I just pick stuff up from people a lot smarter and more knowledgeable than me.

I'd just like to reiterate that in many cases I do support alternative designations and a reinterpretation of the statute in question, such as to allow cycling. But the premise of this thread, that legal action would accomplish anything of merit, is fundamentally flawed IMO.


----------



## HarryCallahan (Nov 2, 2004)

dstepper said:


> You see I am not political at all, so the political message was lost on me. To me most all of the politicians are corrupt and liars, so I take info from wherever I can get it regardless of the source. It seems that some are so political that they turn off before they pay attention to the underlying problem...sad in my opinion.
> 
> Dean


Let me suggest something that I hope you don't take as condescending or political. Given your premise that many politicians are liars and corrupt, I'd be especially wary of taking at face value any info that comes from one party and exclusively bashes the other., which that piece does

As someone who does follow politics, but am something of a centrist, one thing struck me as suspicious, besides the partisan bashing. Even given the current levels of rancor in American politics, it's unusual for a senator from South Carolina to be the only author listed on possible actions in the Rocky Mountain states. Senatorial courtesy may not be what it once was, but it's considered good form to have someone from the affected states involved. .


----------



## Shelbak73 (Nov 10, 2007)

dstepper said:


> You see I am not political at all, so the political message was lost on me. To me most all of the politicians are corrupt and liars, so I take info from wherever I can get it regardless of the source. It seems that some are so political that they turn off before they pay attention to the underlying problem...sad in my opinion.
> 
> Dean


Yeah...rrrright


----------



## Huck Pitueee (Apr 25, 2009)

Are wheel chairs allowed in wilderness areas?My bike is my wheel chair.I have bad knees and that's how I get around.That's my story and I'm sticking to it.


----------



## dstepper (Feb 28, 2004)

frikka said:


> Are wheel chairs allowed in wilderness areas?My bike is my wheel chair.I have bad knees and that's how I get around.That's my story and I'm sticking to it.


Possession of any wheel in the wilderness is illegal. There are some exemptions like on The Arizona Trail they allow you to pack your bike in and out of the grand canyon or put in on a mule.

Dean


----------



## rayray74 (Sep 18, 2005)

Actually wheelchairs are allowed.


----------



## Huck Pitueee (Apr 25, 2009)

Well I guess I'm in! All I need is a doctors note.


----------



## Skookum (Jan 17, 2005)

frikka said:


> Well I guess I'm in! All I need is a doctors note.


hmmm my knees are starting to hurt me too!:thumbsup:


----------



## SlimTwisted (Jun 14, 2006)

I found it so disheartening when Outside magazine concluded that it was virtually impossible to have such a ban reversed. It provides such a feeling of hopelessness. What a sad situation the whole thing is!


----------



## M_S (Nov 18, 2007)

While the case that it is a poor interpretation is strong, I also think there are much bigger issues.

Not to imply that they are mutually exclusive values, but what's more important, long-term environmental protection, or mountain biking in Wilderness? Think hard. If you answered the latter, I don't think you have much valuable input in regards to Wilderness. Fully recognizing this fans the flames, it's JMO, I'm a doofus, etc.


----------



## Skookum (Jan 17, 2005)

M_S said:


> Not to imply that they are mutually exclusive values, but what's more important, long-term environmental protection, or mountain biking in Wilderness? I'm a doofus, etc.


haha, you ARE a doofus, not because of your opinion in so much as you preface your opinion stating you are not making an implication that you then wind up making IN THE SAME SENTENCE haha. 

Seriously people. There is alot of great points to be learned from here, but the one thing that jumps out to me is the guilt or angst mt. bikers feel if they fight against Wilderness to defend access. Wilderness Designation is NOT the end all do all perfect designation some people make it out to be, and the "slippery slope" arguments are all laughable using critical logical thinking when examining the process. But really who has time to do that...

What is very real is the slow death of Backcountry Cross Country riding as all the best spots are being pushed for the designation. And it will not stop, there is no end to it unless people become more active and better informed. Don't just nod your head and say oh geeze there is a group of folk in these groups that say it's the best thing for the good of the environment. i can save the world if i just take the mt. bikes, wheelbarrows, and chainsaws off the trail permanantly, for a vast majority of the revisions, THAT'S ALL that is happening...


----------



## M_S (Nov 18, 2007)

Skookum said:


> haha, you ARE a doofus, not because of your opinion in so much as you preface your opinion stating you are not making an implication that you then wind up making IN THE SAME SENTENCE haha.


No I didn't. The fact that values can and should be prioritized does not make them mutually exclusive. My point, which I was trying to make lightheartedly, is that if you love riding in the woods, especially the backcountry, you should probably love the backcountry more than the riding itself. Make sense? This is, again, not to say bikes and backcountry do not belong together. Nowhere have I even implied that.


> Seriously people. There is alot of great points to be learned from here, but the one thing that jumps out to me is the guilt or angst mt. bikers feel if they fight against Wilderness to defend access. Wilderness Designation is NOT the end all do all perfect designation some people make it out to be, and the "slippery slope" arguments are all laughable using critical logical thinking when examining the process. But really who has time to do that...


I've already mentioned I support alternative designations in many areas. A good chunk of my riding is in a National Recreation Area.


> What is very real is the slow death of Backcountry Cross Country riding as all the best spots are being pushed for the designation. And it will not stop, there is no end to it unless people become more active and better informed. Don't just nod your head and say oh geeze there is a group of folk in these groups that say it's the best thing for the good of the environment. i can save the world if i just take the mt. bikes, wheelbarrows, and chainsaws off the trail permanantly, for a vast majority of the revisions, THAT'S ALL that is happening...


No, there is a logical end to Wilderness expansion, and IMO we will see it very soon, and we will see more alternative designations of the type mentioned as public lands become increasingly valued for recreation and non consumptive use over mining, logging, etc.


----------



## Ride Wilderness (Mar 2, 2010)

Skookum said:


> Seriously people. There is alot of great points to be learned from here, but the one thing that jumps out to me is the guilt or angst mt. bikers feel if they fight against Wilderness to defend access. Wilderness Designation is NOT the end all do all perfect designation some people make it out to be, and the "slippery slope" arguments are all laughable using critical logical thinking when examining the process. But really who has time to do that...
> 
> What is very real is the slow death of Backcountry Cross Country riding as all the best spots are being pushed for the designation. And it will not stop, there is no end to it unless people become more active and better informed. Don't just nod your head and say oh geeze there is a group of folk in these groups that say it's the best thing for the good of the environment. i can save the world if i just take the mt. bikes, wheelbarrows, and chainsaws off the trail permanantly, for a vast majority of the revisions, THAT'S ALL that is happening...


Very well said, Skookum. Disagreeing with specific points within the Wilderness Act is NOT the same as being against conservation. Somewhere along the line we've been duped into thinking the Wilderness Act is a sacred cow, not to be questioned. I simply don't accept the WA as the end all/be all, nor do I believe change is "impossible".


----------



## M_S (Nov 18, 2007)

Great. But that doesn't square with your hyperbole that Wilderness is the "#1 threat to mountain biking in America." Nor have you presented any reasoning or strategy for your legal group. What are your legal grounds for fighting the mountain bike ban?


----------



## Ride Wilderness (Mar 2, 2010)

M_S said:


> Great. But that doesn't square with your hyperbole that Wilderness is the "#1 threat to mountain biking in America." Nor have you presented any reasoning or strategy for your legal group. What are your legal grounds for fighting the mountain bike ban?


Easy there, angry sauce...lay off the gas pedal. I've been perfectly clear that I wanted to gauge people's opinion of this sort of organization. I'm not trying to justify it, nor lay out the battle plan - simply get opinions on what people think. Thus far, this thread has been very helpful to that goal.


----------



## pureslop (Jul 28, 2008)

In the long run, I don't believe that Wilderness Area designation is as irreversible as the conventional wisdom now concludes. All it will take is an economic depression, worse than what we are now experiencing, to cause a law change that would allow public land to be sold or leased for oil, gas, mineral, and tourism in current Wilderness Areas. The long term consequences associated with our dependence on foreign oil will eventually force significant and unpredictable change.

The next bubble that the U.S. will experience will be the debt bubble, and unlike all previous bubbles, there will be no one to bail us out. I believe we are getting close to an irreversible tipping point with regard to our ability to live high off of deficit spending. The exact timing and the speed of the correction is hard to predict, but one thing for sure is that the U.S. Government's attempts to "print" its way out of the debt bubble will only cause ever higher interest rates, inflation, and unemployment.

In preparation, rather than hoarding gold, tools, and weapons, I am hoarding bikes, lots and lots of bikes and bike parts. Hopefully I can trade them for some food when the time comes.


----------



## M_S (Nov 18, 2007)

Ride Wilderness said:


> Easy there, angry sauce...lay off the gas pedal. I've been perfectly clear that I wanted to gauge people's opinion of this sort of organization. I'm not trying to justify it, nor lay out the battle plan - simply get opinions on what people think. Thus far, this thread has been very helpful to that goal.


I'm not angry. I don't know what angry sauce is, but I don't think I'm that either. By "gauging interest" I think it's pretty reasonable to assume you were promoting the idea of a legal organization.


----------



## pureslop (Jul 28, 2008)

One constructive idea I have not heard proposed yet: Could fully rigid (no suspension) be a useful compromise in Wilderness Areas? Seems to me it would be a natural speed control devise. The one thing most folks can't get past in the "court of public opinion" is the downhill speed of mountain bikes. Meeting one going 40mph around a blind corner is hardly a wilderness experience. And speeds are only getting faster.


----------



## perttime (Aug 26, 2005)

You are probably aware of how access is handled in many parts of Europe:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam

It seems to work great, at least in less densely populates areas.


----------



## Ride Wilderness (Mar 2, 2010)

pureslop said:


> One constructive idea I have not heard proposed yet: Could fully rigid (no suspension) be a useful compromise in Wilderness Areas? Seems to me it would be a natural speed control devise. The one thing most folks can't get past in the "court of public opinion" is the downhill speed of mountain bikes. Meeting one going 40mph around a blind corner is hardly a wilderness experience. And speeds are only getting faster.


Something occurred to me recently on this "speed" point. Where we see a lot (not ALL people!!) of speed issues are on shutteable trails. I think this is less of an issue in non-motorized Wilderness that are often times, also roadless.


----------



## pureslop (Jul 28, 2008)

Side note: Why does a moose that weighs about the same as a horse do virtually no damage to a trail and why do horses erode a trail so much? Answer: Shoes. Iron horse shoes act like the tip of a shovel and pry out and loosen up dirt with each step, which is way more damaging than an incompetent skidding MTB'er. Making a case for banning shoes might help the mtb cause in a round about way. Horses will never be banned, but banning horse shoes based on erosion is realistic because the damage is provable and iron shoes are not natural. The debate should be largely about the impact / damage that the different groups of users cause. MTB's win in this area.


----------



## pureslop (Jul 28, 2008)

Ride Wilderness said:


> Something occurred to me recently on this "speed" point. Where we see a lot (not ALL people!!) of speed issues are on shutteable trails. I think this is less of an issue in non-motorized Wilderness that are often times, also roadless.


I agree that shuttleable trails are the worst for speeders, but unshuttleable Wilderness trails won't solve the problem. Where I ride, most of those who ride up also rip down fast. Even low skill riders who only get 1 foot or so of air seem extremely fast to a hiker. Fully rigid riders are the only ones who pick their way down. Seriously, MTB'ers need a bargaining chip. Rigid in the Wilderness is the way! That's certainly the way I am when my wife goes with me.:thumbsup:


----------



## rayray74 (Sep 18, 2005)

"No, there is a logical end to Wilderness expansion, and IMO we will see it very soon, and we will see more alternative designations of the type mentioned as public lands become increasingly valued for recreation and non consumptive use over mining, logging, etc."

Not sure how the Wilderness advocates are where anyone else is, but here they are sneaky, lying and 2-faced. They acted concerned about what trails we used, but literally the same day they were having discussions with the forest service to close the very trails we were interested in keeping open. I've heard from more than one, that after they push the Wilderness limits as far as possible, they would like to work on kicking horses out. Not a very "logical" crowd around here.


----------



## M_S (Nov 18, 2007)

Wilderness "advocates" are only one facet, though. Of course they will keep punishing for more, but they will be less and less successful, even with a conservation minded public. It's an idea I've gotten from some very smart people when it comes to public lands policy.

Look, I'm not even really a fan of the Sierra Club, but not all wilderness advocates are against cyclists. This guy, for example:

http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/hikers_wilderness_groups_should_re_think_mountain_biking/C41/L41/

*Hikers, Wilderness Groups Should Re-think Mountain Biking*
_Why one wildernut hiker who doesn't want to ride bicycles on single-track trails has become an advocate for mountain biking in Wilderness._

By Bill Schneider, 4-23-09 
_
Some wilderness advocates don't consider the conflict between hikers and mountain bikers serious, nor do they believe it prevents worthy roadless lands from becoming Wilderness, but I do.

If you want to know why, read my past commentaries on the issue. I'm devoting this column (and next week's) to how and why hikers and wildernuts need to take the lead in resolving the conflict.

If you haven't been in the trenches of efforts to preserve Wilderness, you might not see the impasse. Bicycling groups, led by the International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA), commonly say they aren't opposed to Wilderness, but they are, in fact, opposed to any proposed Wilderness that includes single-track trails commonly used for mountain biking, which is most of them.

...

So what to do? In my opinion, our best option is for wilderness and hiking groups to initiate an effort to encourage the Forest Service (FS) and other federal agencies to re-write the administrative rules regulating the use of Wilderness to allow mountain biking._

So fortunately there are at least some people on the side of cyclists, who are also pro-wilderness.


----------



## Ride Wilderness (Mar 2, 2010)

M_S said:


> Wilderness "advocates" are only one facet, though. Of course they will keep punishing for more, but they will be less and less successful, even with a conservation minded public. It's an idea I've gotten from some very smart people when it comes to public lands policy.
> 
> Look, I'm not even really a fan of the Sierra Club, but not all wilderness advocates are against cyclists. This guy, for example:
> 
> ...


Great addition, M_S. I actually have a little hope when I read this.


----------



## rayray74 (Sep 18, 2005)

Of course not all, and that was a good article, read that a while back. As I recall some of the comments were "less than friendly". I usually like the stuff Bill writes. One thing though, instead of calling it "Wilderness lite", we should call it True WIlderness, or Original Wilderness. Something better than the 1980's interpretation of the Act.


----------



## Ride Wilderness (Mar 2, 2010)

*some fodder for the debate*

Consider the definition in the act itself:

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

Considering the numerous studies showing no incremental impact on soils, vegetation and wildlife by mountain biking over that of hiking (AND certainly horses) and the Forest Service memo (last year or year before?) stating they see mountain biking as the same as hiking impact-wise, does any part of this definition make you think mountain bikes should remain banned....or ever have been banned in the first place?


----------



## Skookum (Jan 17, 2005)

M_S said:


> No I didn't. The fact that values can and should be prioritized does not make them mutually exclusive. My point, which I was trying to make lightheartedly, is that if you love riding in the woods, especially the backcountry, you should probably love the backcountry more than the riding itself. Make sense? This is, again, not to say bikes and backcountry do not belong together. Nowhere have I even implied that.
> 
> I've already mentioned I support alternative designations in many areas. A good chunk of my riding is in a National Recreation Area.
> 
> No, there is a logical end to Wilderness expansion, and IMO we will see it very soon, and we will see more alternative designations of the type mentioned as public lands become increasingly valued for recreation and non consumptive use over mining, logging, etc.


Ok fine don't want to get into a tussle with you. My first paragraph was directed at you specifically, but the rest of my tirade was being meant to be broadcast out "in general". It's really hard to segment a post where i'm speaking towards an individual or speaking toward the crowd.

So sorry about that, i wasn't really trying to get into a big debate specifically with you or your points other than the sentence which i posted.


----------



## M_S (Nov 18, 2007)

OK. Sorry if I was overly confrontational. I got a little riled up over some stuff earlier in the thread and it kind of got directed at you.


----------



## rideandshoot (Dec 18, 2006)

Ride Wilderness said:


> I think this is an important point to address. I would agree with this IF there were no more Wilderness proposals on the table. I would be totally fine with the amount of riding I have to access and enjoy Wilderness by foot. Unfortunately, this is not the case. There are more than 2 million acres in Colorado alone _right now_ in the crosshairs with even more being discussed. This is why I feel the issue is so important. We're slowly but surely losing rideable lands forever.


This is where user group alliances have some validity. There is already enough designated wilderness. There is a need for a designation with the 'teeth' of the wilderness act that leaves multiuse recreation management up to local authorities. By teeth I mean it can never be sold or developed and by multi use I mean leaving all but the most sensitive trails open to bikes and leaving some of the dirt roads open to motorized travel.


----------



## rideandshoot (Dec 18, 2006)

The idea of filing a law suit seems to have merit. I’d support a well organized effort. In fact it seems like IMBA should be doing this. I’m a bit disappointed that they aren’t.


----------



## rideandshoot (Dec 18, 2006)

pureslop said:


> Side note: Why does a moose that weighs about the same as a horse do virtually no damage to a trail and why do horses erode a trail so much? Answer: Shoes. Iron horse shoes act like the tip of a shovel and pry out and loosen up dirt with each step, which is way more damaging than an incompetent skidding MTB'er. Making a case for banning shoes might help the mtb cause in a round about way. Horses will never be banned, but banning horse shoes based on erosion is realistic because the damage is provable and iron shoes are not natural. The debate should be largely about the impact / damage that the different groups of users cause. MTB's win in this area.


I agree that a horse does far more damage than a bike. However large animals like Moose and Elk definitely leave a mark on the landscape. I suspect that the reason you see so little damage to hiking trails is that wild animals only use them a little. I've come across elk trails 3 feet wide where the dirt was pounded into talk. Of course beauty is in the eye of the beholder. As a bow hunter I think an elk trail littered with ripped up trees leading to a muddy wallow at the end is a beautiful thing indeed.


----------



## thefriar (Jan 23, 2008)

Ride Wilderness said:


> Considering the numerous studies showing no incremental impact on soils, vegetation and wildlife by mountain biking over that of hiking (AND certainly horses) and the Forest Service memo (last year or year before?) stating they see mountain biking as the same as hiking impact-wise, does any part of this definition make you think mountain bikes should remain banned....or ever have been banned in the first place?


Do you have a link to the FS memo?


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

I find it sad and pathetic that in a free country its citizens are resorted to quit literally begging for access to land that they all own.


----------



## Ride Wilderness (Mar 2, 2010)

thefriar said:


> Do you have a link to the FS memo?


IMBA's PR Release on said memo


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

Any place that allows horse travel must allow bikes. There is no possible reason to justify excluding bikes and allowing horses. End of story.

In fact - any trail that allows hiking should allow bike travel, as impact is of the same magnitude. Hiking only trails should be made by trail design, not by prohibition.

Wilderness prohibition must be repealed.


----------



## knutso (Oct 8, 2008)

Wilderness and Open Space designations are set by representatives nominated by political parties and elected by voters, the people who hold the largest stake in such designations are locally registered landowners and local voters whose stake in increasing, designating and monitoring open space is based on it effect on increasing the values of their parcels of PRIVATELY OWNED LAND. The person to talk to if you want more say in the matter than your one measely vote, is your state and federal government representatives; they most likely will not heed you any mind and you will most likely occupy a lowly paid office worker ( like my good friend was for congressman Mike Thompson ). Sorry to say but they don't care about mtbing and they make the rules. If you wanna ride these trails you better ride like George Washington and do it in the dead of night on Christmas


----------



## Ride Wilderness (Mar 2, 2010)

knutso said:


> Wilderness and Open Space designations are set by representatives nominated by political parties and elected by voters, the people who hold the largest stake in such designations are locally registered landowners and local voters whose stake in increasing, designating and monitoring open space is based on it effect on increasing the values of their parcels of PRIVATELY OWNED LAND. The person to talk to if you want more say in the matter than your one measely vote, is your state and federal government representatives; they most likely will not heed you any mind and you will most likely occupy a lowly paid office worker ( like my good friend was for congressman Mike Thompson ). Sorry to say but they don't care about mtbing and they make the rules. If you wanna ride these trails you better ride like George Washington and do it in the dead of night on Christmas


Yes, another vote from the status quo - "It's impossible", "we can't do anything", "it's just the way it is". I simply don't accept what I'm force fed quite so calmly and submissively as you.


----------



## robinlikethebird (Sep 16, 2009)

*why can't we be happy with what we have??*

It is hard to trust the IMBA sources when they are completely bias for mt bikes. I have looked into this issue greatly before and have written many papers on it.(which if there is a desire i will post), ANd...

For Me It comes down to the question of this am I a conservationist or a mountain biker??

First off I am a conservationist, I use my mountain bike as a means to take me to the areas that are beautiful. But If i need to sacrifice my desires of mountain biking to help preserve a place I am okay with that. In the land that is out there, there are plenty of trails and opportunities for new trails to be built, more then enough for any one to travel in one life time.
Yes, it seems a shame that Horses are allowed and bikes are not, but horses are not helping, why should we add another problem to the list. If it was up to me they would be regulated even more so then they are now, Carry it in carry it out. there poop is gross.

For me i am great full that we have places to ride and place to make new trails. :thumbsup:


----------



## Ride Wilderness (Mar 2, 2010)

robinlikethebird said:


> It is hard to trust the IMBA sources when they are completely bias for mt bikes. I have looked into this issue greatly before and have written many papers on it.(which if there is a desire i will post), ANd...
> 
> For Me It comes down to the question of this am I a conservationist or a mountain biker??
> 
> ...


I totally disagree, or at the very least, don't understand. I don't think conservation and mountain biking are mutually exclusive. This somehow suggests when using a mountain bike in the Wilderness; it somehow ceases to be conserved Wilderness?? I really do not follow.


----------



## knutso (Oct 8, 2008)

Ride Wilderness said:


> Yes, another vote from the status quo - "It's impossible", "we can't do anything", "it's just the way it is". I simply don't accept what I'm force fed quite so calmly and submissively as you.


well ... What I am saying here is if you want to ride the trails, find a time when no one is there and ride them. If you want to make or change laws, garner political support and run for office. This is a democratic republic and citizens vote for nominated political representatives to act as law makers, you get one vote and that is it, if you want more power than that then you better either fork over some serious money to support the nomonation of a mtb advocating candidate or, like I said, run for office; otherwise it is out of your hands. 
Believe me I would love to ride my bike in wilderness and open space preserves. However just because we think there is a wrong to be righted in reality there is no definitive right or wrong; right and wrong only exists in the human mind. If every individual wholly sought to change what they wanted 'righted' then we would be in anarchy and would most likely not have nations, corporations, or bikes to ride at all.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

robinlikethebird said:


> Yes, it seems a shame that Horses are allowed and bikes are not, but horses are not helping, why should we add another problem to the list. If it was up to me they would be regulated even more so then they are now, Carry it in carry it out. there poop is gross.


Bikes have the same impact as biking - that is very very minimal. Biking in a wilderness does not take away ANYTHING from the goal of conservation. There is no point in conserving something that you can not enjoy. Anybody who thinks otherwise is an anti-human extremist.

We can not be happy with what we have because we do not have it. I do not have time for long hikes and I do not have time and money to ride in wilderness on a horse (and horses are damaging and dangerous). It is patently unfair to exclude me for no good reason.


----------



## GregB406 (Dec 19, 2005)

otis24 said:


> I just joined imba...it's about time.


Attaboy.


----------



## GregB406 (Dec 19, 2005)

pureslop said:


> One constructive idea I have not heard proposed yet: Could fully rigid (no suspension) be a useful compromise in Wilderness Areas? Seems to me it would be a natural speed control devise. The one thing most folks can't get past in the "court of public opinion" is the downhill speed of mountain bikes. Meeting one going 40mph around a blind corner is hardly a wilderness experience. And speeds are only getting faster.


I have been trying to bring rigid bikes forward as a solution. A lot of people don't agree with it. Under certain circumstances I feel the concept is appropriate. Under other circumstances it is unnecessary or irrelavant.


----------



## robinlikethebird (Sep 16, 2009)

*I see what your saying....*

I think that I should let you know my bias on the whole Issue, I would not totally consider my self and extinctionist , but I do believe that we are overpopulated and having a negative affect on the land that supports us. WE NEED to preserve land and keep it wild to keep our self around. I am not totally against having areas that no humans would go to. And i do think that we would reap the benefits from that area, even though we do not set foot in it.

Well, First I guess that there is never just one or the other biking or conservation.. But as the definition is now on the wilderness act it seems to be that way. What comes to mind is, at what time does a biking in wilderness not make that area wild, and if no one know that you have biked there is it still wild to others?? And sure maybe if a couple people poach some trails the area is not going to be affected, but if we open the gates then yes it will be affected.

To say that bikes have a very minimal impact is just not true, or to say that there impact is the same as a hiker is also not true. Well, maybe if you read some of the IMBA lit., but we affect the land that we travel through, the animals in the land and on average we will travel twice if not three times as far as a hiker or horse rider on an average outing. I live near Idyllwild, ca and It is very black and with the diferences where mountain bikes are allowed and the areas where they are not. ie hurkey creek vs the PCT.

According to the IMBA's Website Mt. biking can occur on 153,500 miles of trail in the USA spread through the National Forest Services (NFS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and US Army Corps of Engineering. This does not include 600,000 miles of unpaved road on BLM Land. This seems like a lifetime of trails to ride and explore. so there is the trails out there for us to travel on..

It seems to me that There is plenty of land out there for us. It is we just want more of it. The big question for me is how are we as biker who like the wilderness going to help to create more of it and not feel like we are losing areas to bike??

I also want to point out that I can articulate much better in person, so I would gladly want to go riding with any of ya'll up here in the San jacinto and go out for some beer and pizza
(I am also soo lonley and need friends  )

Here are some reading that helped me decide,

Carroll, Michael and Brian O'Donnel. "Don't Tread Here" Wild Earth: The Journal of the Wildlands Projects. Vol. 13, NO. 1, Spring 2003. 31-33

Formeman, Dave. "A Modest Proposal" Wild Earth: The Journal of the Wildlands Projects. Vol. 13, NO. 1, Spring 2003. 34-35.

Hassenauer, Jim. "A Niche forBicycles"Wild Earth: The Journal of the Wildlands Projects. Vol. 13, NO. 1, Spring 2003. 21-22

International Mountain Bike Association (IMBA). "Bicycling and Wilderness: A Mountain Biker's Guide to Wilderness Advocacy" http://www.imba.com/resources/land_protection/wilderness_faq.html

Kerr, Andy. "Which Way?" Wild Earth: The Journal of the Wildlands Projects. Vol. 13, NO. 1, Spring 2003. 26-30.

Scott, Douglas W, "Some History" Wild Earth: The Journal of the Wildlands Projects. Vol. 13, NO. 1, Spring 2003. 23-25

Vandeman, Ph.D, Michael J. "Science Proves Mountain Biking Is More Harmful Than Hiking: The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People". http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande. July 3, 2004


----------



## thefriar (Jan 23, 2008)

robinlikethebird said:


> Vandeman, Ph.D, Michael J. "Science Proves Mountain Biking Is More Harmful Than Hiking: The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People". http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande. July 3, 2004


dear. god. no. Peer reviewed, credible, sources are probably a better reference point.


----------



## rayray74 (Sep 18, 2005)

http://www.americantrails.org/resources/ManageMaintain/SprungImpacts.htm

The result of several scientific studies. Some even point to hiking having more impact on some species than mountain biking.

And Vandeman&#8230;coo coo for coco puffs, and a hypocrite to boot.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

robinlikethebird said:


> Vandeman, Ph.D, Michael J. "Science Proves Mountain Biking Is More Harmful Than Hiking: The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People". http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande. July 3, 2004


I can not serioulsy consider anything said by anybody who actually quotes that dangerous lunatic and hypocrite.

Biking in wilderness will not take away ANYTHING from the goal of preserving those natural lands for our children to enjoy.

That is a simple fact, proven beyond any reasonable doubt.

If you disagree with that fact, then you actual motive is not preservation of nature and land, but a generic anti-human sentiment.


----------



## robinlikethebird (Sep 16, 2009)

*interesting article...*

I like that part in the article that brings up that how trails are built might be a better way at managing erosion then the actual activity it self. It also seem that there might be some fault on the bikers that skidd out on every turn and hurler down a hill uncountably. 
That seems to b very valid point.

The point that I did not see be brought up, was the amount of usage that bikers compare to hikers. If in fact hikers cause the same amount of damage as biker(which i am not convinced of but i'll reluctantly agree).The normal bike ride is usually twice as long as a normal day hike. Bikers are able to travel further, and usually do because of there mechanization, thus cause more damage then a hiker.

Also it seem that most of the studies that where sited in that article were from the 90's, which I have a problem with, when you look at how much bigger our user group has gotten and how much bigger bikes have become since then.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

robinlikethebird said:


> . Bikers are able to travel further, and usually do because of there mechanization, thus cause more damage then a hiker.


This "damage" is inconsequential. If you do not like human presense in the nature - admit it. Do not invent excuses.

Bikes became bigger? What are you talking about? My current bike is half the weight of what I had 20 years ago. It has much wider and softer tires and much better brakes and suspension that allows it not to skid and always ride in control. I weight less with my bike then with my backpack. I am not even talking about horses. It is painfully obvious that you do not know what you are talking about and just inventing excuses for your preconcieved opinion.


----------



## robinlikethebird (Sep 16, 2009)

I feel like I am offending you, I am not try to attack any one personally, so sorry if i have. 

I have also admitted my bias and said how I feel about human impact on the earth. 

Yes some bikes have gotten lighter, but i feel the general trend is to get bigger and fatter. Is this not correct. And it is great that you out theres doing their part to help bikers images. and not tear up the trails that we have now

And how is the damage inconsequential?


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

robinlikethebird said:


> I feel like I am offending you


I find lies about the impact of cycling that are being propagated and that keep me out of enjoying nature and the public lands that are paid for with my tax dollar offensive. I find lack of logic offensive. I find quoting that _k_ook, not to be named, to be offensive.

Any erosion issues that could be possibly caused by cycling or hiking can be addressed with trail design and reasonable use restrictions - such as seasonal and wet weather closures and permits. Blanket prohibition is not an acceptable solution. At the very least anything open to use by half-ton steel hooved animals should be open for cycling.


----------



## robinlikethebird (Sep 16, 2009)

*no is keeping you out*

no one is saying that you can not go, It is just your bike that can not go to certain places.

It nice that you called Vandeman cook but I do not think that word means what you think it means( like to make food/ or the wacko in the surf line up) .I have heard alot of slander tossed around about Vandeman , I would be more that willing to read something about these dissagrements that you have with him

I am also not sure what lies you might be referring to, I am just try figure things out here

can we agree that bikes do damage the area they travel?
and if they were not allowed in an area then there would be no damage from bikes?

and can we agree that bikers in general are going to travel a greater distance then a normal day hiker?

It seems to me also that you Curmy will only pull the out the facts the you dissagree on. have you happened to look at any of the other articles, Or the fact there is 153,000 miles of trails and 600,000 of unpaved roads


----------



## rayray74 (Sep 18, 2005)

"can we agree that bikes do damage the area they travel?
and if they were not allowed in an area then there would be no damage from bikes?"

The same can be said for horse and hikers. I'll have to do some searching, but I think I remember a study saying that bikes actually helped pack trails down that were loosened by foot and hoof.

"and can we agree that bikers in general are going to travel a greater distance then a normal day hiker?"

Yes, but I would say more hikers are doing overnight trips&#8230;.cooking, campfires etc., and then the amount of time it takes to hike in, it takes the same to hike out. So while bikes may travel further, hikers spend more time.

I didn't see anyone calling Vandeman a "cook". I called him coo coo for coco puffs. Have you seen some of the stuff he's posted on similar forums? I found the FAQ on Mike

http://evergreenmtb.org/php/show_page.php?page_id=32


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

robinlikethebird said:


> can we agree that bikes do damage the area they travel?


No. Properly designed trail is not damaged. And if it can handle horses, it can handle ten times more bikes.

Wind causes "damage". Rain does. Bikes allow us to enjoy the nature. Humans can not be summarily excluded and not any measurable impact is "damage".



robinlikethebird said:


> and if they were not allowed in an area then there would be no damage from bikes?


No. There will be no damage of consequence.



robinlikethebird said:


> and can we agree that bikers in general are going to travel a greater distance then a normal day hiker?


If that is an issue, then you are admitting that your whole agenda is keeping people out of nature.

But we already knew that.

Traveling further means less congestion near trailheads and a better experience for everybody.



robinlikethebird said:


> It seems to me also that you Curmy will only pull the out the facts the you dissagree on. have you happened to look at any of the other articles, Or the fact there is 153,000 miles of trails and 600,000 of unpaved roads


The only fact that is being discussed here is that cycling is unjustifiably excluded from best public lands. The rest of "facts" that you are desperately grasping at have nothing to do with this issue.

Yes, it was obviously "kook", not a "cook". I guess bringing attention to a spelling error is one of the better "arguments" that you can present.


----------



## robinlikethebird (Sep 16, 2009)

*I'm tired*

I think that I am going to leave it for a while and go ride my bike,
I see more clearly why people do not like this Kook PHD Vandeman
For me I happy with just riding my bikes in the places that we have now and leaving the place the are wild alone.

What has come to mind during this thrilling morning and into the early afternoon is Abbey and Leopold some of mentors..
Aldo Wrote once:

Man always kill the things that he loves, and so we the pioneers have killed our wilderness. Some say we had to. be that as it may I am glad I shall never be youn without wild country to be young in. Of what avail are forty freedoms with out a blank spot on the map.

I wonder how we can get horse out of the wilderness??

Please come and visit we will ride and laugh and crash and drink beer..
cheers, 
Robin like the bird :thumbsup:


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

robinlikethebird said:


> I wonder how we can get horse out of the wilderness??


There is nothing particularly wrong with horses in the wilderness.

As long as we realise that the goal is to preserve, not to exclude. Impact of light and reasonably regulated recreational use is inconsequential for the preservation goal. It does not damage anything.


----------



## Ride Wilderness (Mar 2, 2010)

Curmy said:


> There is nothing particularly wrong with horses in the wilderness.
> 
> As long as we realise that the goal is to preserve, not to exclude. Impact of light and reasonably regulated recreational use is inconsequential for the preservation goal. It does not damage anything.


Bingo. We use horses as an example of damage, but I think we're wrong to remove them....that would make us (MTB'ers) no better. But considering the minimal impact of mountain biking, it strikes me as discriminatory to allow hikers, horses, skiers, kayakers and rafters....but not mountain bikers. Everyone one of these methods of transport inherently make Wilderness less wilderness-like to some degree.


----------



## Shelbak73 (Nov 10, 2007)

In the last few years I've stepped back from the battle to lift the ban on bikes. Simply put, I don't trust mountain bikers, or at least a small percentage of them. I've seen, first hand, new, unauthorized, poorly thought out, unsustainable trails cut into our national forest land. I've seen first hand how a few people, who have become bored with trails on national forest land, have set about reconstructing them, adding features to increase their "air-time", and removing other features that obstruct their "flow". I don't think this attitude would change no matter what the areas designation. This in mind, I can't, in good conscience, work to overturn the ban on bikes. I will however continue to fight against any new *W*ilderness designations that would ban bikes from lands we've been already been riding.

My .02 cents


----------



## robinlikethebird (Sep 16, 2009)

*me too*

I like your 2 cents...

It seems that the wilderness comunity is in a cross roads with the bikers and that there are going to be compromises made in New land designation or protected in a wilderness setting.

Would people be against having permitting for certain areas, say a quota on how many riders could ride a trail in a certain day or at certain seasons?


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

Shelbak73 said:


> I've seen, first hand, new, unauthorized, poorly thought out, unsustainable trails cut into our national forest land. I've seen first hand how a few people, who have become bored with trails on national forest land, have set about reconstructing them, adding features to increase their "air-time", and removing other features that obstruct their "flow". I don't think this attitude would change no matter what the areas designation.


Bad trails are build because there not enough good ones. That is what happens when you summarily exclude a very large group of legitimate users from proper recreational opportunities.

By that logic you would need to ban hikers from forests because some of them are growing marihuana there - a far bigger problem around here.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

robinlikethebird said:


> Would people be against having permitting for certain areas, say a quota on how many riders could ride a trail in a certain day or at certain seasons?


Of course that is a reasonable solution. That is called management. Excluding a group is not management - it is a lack of management.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

OldSkool123 said:


> How many of the posters have actually moved dirt in the last year?


I did - but I also paid a whole lot of taxes that pay for the public lands. Every taxpayer is entitled to get something back for that.


----------



## rayray74 (Sep 18, 2005)

There have been at least a couple of success stories from the "illegally" built trails. There is a trail where I live that started out illegal. Some key members of the bike club had left, and the rest of us were under the assumption that it was legal. It turned into a lot of he said-she said and CYA, and at first was frowned upon. Eventually it was given the blessing by the city, and there was such positive response, that we were able to extend the trail. 

Earlier this week we had a meeting with our National Forest manager. It was mostly about helping out with trail maintenance that will no longer be done by the motorized users due to closures. Eventually it turned to the topic of re-routes and new trail construction. I was surprised about how open to it they were. They even brought up trying to get something going at the local ski hill. A few years ago when that subject was brought up, we were told politely to "take a hike". Understand, that none of this is Wilderness, but a few years ago mountain bikers weren't even a thought, and now we are being welcomed. Attitudes can change. 

As far as legal action goes. I was also surprised to learn that even though the motorized users sued the forest service over the travel plan. They are still working together. Seems there are no hard feelings or personal grievances involved.


----------



## BumpityBump (Mar 9, 2008)

Curmy said:


> Bad trails are build because there not enough good ones.


I don't buy that. I have witnessed a lot of illegal trails in areas where there were already many other existing opportunities to ride. It may be true in some cases, but it also seems that some have a passion for the illegal building of the trail in and of itself. They are often poorly laid out with no thought to effective erosion control or sustainability. Illegal trails also perpetuate the stigma against mountain bikers and make the battle for continued access to existing trails that much more difficult. It's just bad form.



Shelbak73 said:


> In the last few years I've stepped back from the battle to lift the ban on bikes. Simply put, I don't trust mountain bikers, or at least a small percentage of them. I've seen, first hand, new, unauthorized, poorly thought out, unsustainable trails cut into our national forest land. I've seen first hand how a few people, who have become bored with trails on national forest land, have set about reconstructing them, adding features to increase their "air-time", and removing other features that obstruct their "flow". I don't think this attitude would change no matter what the areas designation. This in mind, I can't, in good conscience, work to overturn the ban on bikes. I will however continue to fight against any new Wilderness designations that would ban bikes from lands we've been already been riding.
> 
> My .02 cents


Good Post


----------



## thefriar (Jan 23, 2008)

The cost of biking and horseback riding makes both sports have natural barriers to entry, which should inherently limit the number of users from that group in a wilderness, or any park setting. 

# for # research, peer reviewed, credible sources, have shown mountain bikes and hikers are on par in terms of impacts. 

The interesting thing to note however is that there are far far more hikers in the world because most people already own a pair of shoes and not a mountain bike (at the cheapest end of the scale you can hike in walmart sneakers and you can ride trail on a walmart bike, but the costs between the two are still pretty significant in % terms) . I'm sure if we compared the annual sales of hiking, walking, and trail running shoes to mountain bikes, there'd be far more shoes sold per year. 

The superior number of hikers alone, impacts of an individual biker equal to an individuals hikers, will mean hiking is a larger impact, regardless of how far a bike travels.

If you know mtbers are out there creating illegal trails, then close them and stop them. Don't complain about it. Enlist those people to help improve the greater trail system and do it so its sustainable and satisfactory to ALL user groups. 

I have an axe to grind with ALL trail users. Advocacy, with in the MTB community and outside, and sustainable trails eliminate 99% of our problems.


----------



## Skookum (Jan 17, 2005)

robinlikethebird said:


> It nice that you called Vandeman cook but I do not think that word means what you think it means( like to make food/ or the wacko in the surf line up) .I have heard alot of slander tossed around about Vandeman , I would be more that willing to read something about these dissagrements that you have with him


i built a mt. bike trail in a wasteland underneath a freeway for Seattle City Parks, i named it Tqalu, which means "To have a sense about you", which is the closest word to biking in Okanogan Salish. This guy emailed me and had the nerve to say that the spirits of my ancestors would be upset at my actions as it was an affront to nature.

This is not only irrational, but it was an insult on the most extreme level.



OldSkool123 said:


> I would argue that most people that have posted in this thread would not (could not) ride the trails that they are "fighting" for. How many of the posters have actually moved dirt in the last year? Until you get out and contribute to your local community, stfu, and stop picketing for more trails.


Go ahead and try that argument with me, i dare you. Actually i've been quite successful in assembling and organizing folks to work with the Forest Service, and from my efforts we should have over a hundred mt. bikers show up for 2 upcoming work party days.

So i think people like you typify the core reason why the Wilderness Ban exists, pure and simple selfishness. Put a squirt gun to the head of most conservation types, after all the hyperbole and outright distortion about protecting the environment, the truth would come out that they want to see as little people as possible on the trails, period.


----------



## Skookum (Jan 17, 2005)

thefriar said:


> I have an axe to grind with ALL trail users. Advocacy, with in the MTB community and outside, and sustainable trails eliminate 99% of our problems.


Here here.


----------



## Mark E (Feb 7, 2006)

IMBA's Government Affairs Director Jenn Dice is testifying before a Congressional committee on a Colorado Wilderness bill today. In fact, it's being broadcast live online at this very moment.

http://resources.edgeboss.net/wmedia-live/resources/36401/300_resources-nr1324_080313.asx


----------



## cutthroat (Mar 2, 2004)

You guys are on the wrong track - the hiker/equestrian coalition will ensure that mountain bikers are never allowed in wilderness areas. In my view the only way to rock the boat is to become more extreme than the wilderness advocates themselves. 
It is undisputed that hikers and horses cause significant damage to the wilderness areas these groups purport to defend. Therefore, all horses and humans should be BANNED from all wilderness areas to protect the Earth from harm. Trails are not natural and are scars on the land, overnight camping is not natural and disrupts wildlife, horse crap and human waste pollute pristine headwaters, bright nylon tents and clothing disrupt visual landscapes, horses are non-native invasive species that bring flies and invasive weeds into wilderness areas, humans trample fragile ecosystems. Thus, if wilderness advocates truly want to protect these pristine environments in their natural state - humans and horses have no place there. Conundrum Hot Springs outside Aspen in the Maroon Creek Wilderness is so overused that the headwaters of the creek are being polluted with human coliform bacteria and the camp areas are barren compacted dirt. 
Watch how the Sierra Club folks wilt and suddenly defend their ecological damage when it's _their_ precious use rights that are being challenged - it will only take about 5 minutes before you are called an extremist for advocating the very arguments they throw at us - it's useless politically but enjoyable to watch.


----------



## Ride Wilderness (Mar 2, 2010)

cutthroat said:


> You guys are on the wrong track - the hiker/equestrian coalition will ensure that mountain bikers are never allowed in wilderness areas. In my view the only way to rock the boat is to become more extreme than the wilderness advocates themselves.
> It is undisputed that hikers and horses cause significant damage to the wilderness areas these groups purport to defend. Therefore, all horses and humans should be BANNED from all wilderness areas to protect the Earth from harm. Trails are not natural and are scars on the land, overnight camping is not natural and disrupts wildlife, horse crap and human waste pollute pristine headwaters, bright nylon tents and clothing disrupt visual landscapes, horses are non-native invasive species that bring flies and invasive weeds into wilderness areas, humans trample fragile ecosystems. Thus, if wilderness advocates truly want to protect these pristine environments in their natural state - humans and horses have no place there. Conundrum Hot Springs outside Aspen in the Maroon Creek Wilderness is so overused that the headwaters of the creek are being polluted with human coliform bacteria and the camp areas are barren compacted dirt.
> Watch how the Sierra Club folks wilt and suddenly defend their ecological damage when it's _their_ precious use rights that are being challenged - it will only take about 5 minutes before you are called an extremist for advocating the very arguments they throw at us - it's useless politically but enjoyable to watch.


Oooof. I think this is a non-starter for a variety of reasons; not the least of which is getting laughed out of the room. I think there is more evidence to support bikes than there is a complete ban on human visitation.


----------



## dstepper (Feb 28, 2004)

Shelbak73 said:


> In the last few years I've stepped back from the battle to lift the ban on bikes. Simply put, I don't trust mountain bikers, or at least a small percentage of them. I've seen, first hand, new, unauthorized, poorly thought out, unsustainable trails cut into our national forest land. I've seen first hand how a few people, who have become bored with trails on national forest land, have set about reconstructing them, adding features to increase their "air-time", and removing other features that obstruct their "flow". I don't think this attitude would change no matter what the areas designation. This in mind, I can't, in good conscience, work to overturn the ban on bikes. I will however continue to fight against any new *W*ilderness designations that would ban bikes from lands we've been already been riding.
> 
> My .02 cents


Nearly the same can be said about hikers. A popular local hike in my area So-Cal is Baden-Powell it is has wilderness designation. The section from Vincent Gap to the peak has 38 switchbacks and nearly everyone of them has steep unsustainable shortcuts cut by hikers.

This pointing fingers at other users groups is worthless and serves no purpose except dividing groups that have more in common than not.

Dean


----------



## cutthroat (Mar 2, 2004)

Ride Wilderness said:


> Oooof. I think this is a non-starter for a variety of reasons; not the least of which is getting laughed out of the room. I think there is more evidence to support bikes than there is a complete ban on human visitation.


As I said, it's useless politically, but I just love watching the wilderness advocates sqirm when you bring up how destructive humans are. It's one of their favorite nostrums. I think a better starting point might be to see if various anti-wilderness groups would start challenging horses in wilderness - do what the Sierra Club does, divide and conquer


----------



## rayray74 (Sep 18, 2005)

Same for a trail I hiked in the Bob Marshall Wilderness last year.


----------



## robinlikethebird (Sep 16, 2009)

*[email protected]#k it i'm over*

You know I have been thinking about it and reading some articles about the impacts of hiking and mountain biking, and I have changed my mine.

Lets open the gates, let the bikes in, in fact let the motocycles and ATV. Lets tear it up and have no regrets, :thumbsup:

People have been right, it is only selfish that i do not want bikes into the wilderness. The same way that it is selfish that people want their bikes in. The faster that we get to cherry stem in the wilderness into smaller sections, the sooner it will not be able to support the ecosystems that are there now. The earth is changing no matter what we have crossed the line and I am almost convinced there is not turning back. Our wilderness is going down, just like the oceans and the ice sheets.

So lets get it while we can, I'm going to ride the BEST trail out there PCT !!


----------



## cutthroat (Mar 2, 2004)

robinlikethebird said:


> People have been right, it is only selfish that i do not want bikes into the wilderness. The same way that it is selfish that people want their bikes in.


 That is absolutely correct - the idea that Wilderness designation is to protect wilderness is a myth - it's all about which preferred segments of society get to use it. If horses were banned I guarantee that the equestrian lobby would would never again support wilderness designation. If hikers were banned, all the hiking groups would never support wilderness. It IS all about selfishness and who does and does not get access to the land - "wilderness values" are only a secondary consideration, and all the science showing how hikers and horses damage the wilderness will be ignored if it threatens their access.


----------



## M_S (Nov 18, 2007)

I think there are a lot of misconceptions in this thread about the nature of Wilderness, capital W, especially its legal underpinnings.

Certainly, there is also this misconception among many Wilderness advocates. Or at least, the organizers of these groups may be intentionally misleading people to garner support. It happens in every matter of policy.

But Wilderness is not, and has never been, areas inherently completely unaffected by human's. There is precedent for almost every sort of use by human's on Wilderness, though of course it is almost always contested. Look up Hetch-Hetchy for the most extreme example. Though it is relevant directly to National Park Lands, it gives you a good idea of the inherent flexibility of many land designations.

While Wilderness is the least flexible land designation in the US, it does not mean there is no wiggle room. Most Wilderness areas have exceptions built into their originating acts. For example, the use of helicopters in the Bob Marshall Wilderness, or the creation of backup reservoirs in the Rattlesnake for the city of Missoula.

The Act itself states that Wilderness should be in areas "untrammeled" by humans. That's a nebulous word at best, but it essentially means that wilderness is not limited (in character?) by human actions. 

Combined with the inherent power of land managers to decide Wilderness uses, perhaps a reasonable legislative approach would be to, instead of fighting new wilderness, include bicycles as an exception in the creation of new Wilderness areas where appropriate. The precedent is certainly there. This would at least maintain what is currently rideable, while still entering more lands into protection.


----------



## robinlikethebird (Sep 16, 2009)

M_S said:


> Combined with the inherent power of land managers to decide Wilderness uses, perhaps a reasonable legislative approach would be to, instead of fighting new wilderness, include bicycles as an exception in the creation of new Wilderness areas where appropriate. The precedent is certainly there. This would at least maintain what is currently rideable, while still entering more lands into protection.


IF done right I could get on board with this for new wilderness, especially if there is not going to be and more wilderness made.

Have a ranger the will enforce bad decisions not just for bikers, but for all user groups.

Have Trails that are sustainable designed for for all user groups, and permits that allow certain amount of users in during a certain time. something similar to what is used in the back country for the Whitney area.


----------



## Skookum (Jan 17, 2005)

cutthroat said:


> As I said, it's useless politically, but I just love watching the wilderness advocates sqirm when you bring up how destructive humans are. It's one of their favorite nostrums. I think a better starting point might be to see if various anti-wilderness groups would start challenging horses in wilderness - do what the Sierra Club does, divide and conquer


i loved reading your diatribe, it was very entertaining! Here locally you hike up some local Wilderness faves on a sunny day and it's a super-highway of assorted folk on the i-phones, taking pictures, and tromping around all over hells' half acre. i think the backcountry hiker who ventures past the 3 or so mile barrier that your general run of the mill hiker would journey past, is the person who will honestly stick to the rational of not wanting bikers since we have the benefit of accessing well deeper into the forest. 
But the movement or speed of the bike has been used here as a negative. Scaring up the walkers, i think the fact that a biker and hiker will share each others space for such a signifigantly less amount of time is something that is never highlighted. 
Maybe in some ways that's bad as there is little time to share stories about how nice it is to be out in the mountains...


----------



## dstepper (Feb 28, 2004)

I don't want to ride Whittney, I don't want to ride out to Half Dome or any other area that is extremely popular. What I would like to ride is some of the old abandoned flumes and railroad grades, logging, mining roads in the so called Wilderness Roadless areas. I know of areas like near Inner Basin in Flagstaff that is a two lane road off limits to bikes because of Wilderness designation. 

Dean


----------



## Skookum (Jan 17, 2005)

cutthroat said:


> That is absolutely correct - the idea that Wilderness designation is to protect wilderness is a myth - it's all about which preferred segments of society get to use it. If horses were banned I guarantee that the equestrian lobby would would never again support wilderness designation. If hikers were banned, all the hiking groups would never support wilderness. It IS all about selfishness and who does and does not get access to the land - "wilderness values" are only a secondary consideration, and all the science showing how hikers and horses damage the wilderness will be ignored if it threatens their access.


i know for a fact that the Backcountry Horsemen in NE Washington State do no support the Wilderness Designation for some of the popular riding areas they ride. Primary reason is taking away the chainsaws to clear trail. They prefer to have some of the Roadless Areas managed as they are.

i'm happy to note that a group of mt. bikers i've assembled will actually be collaborating together with the Backcountry Horsemen for trail work this summer.

Beyond all the petty arguments, when the dust clears, and common sense and reason is all that remain. i'll go back to what The Friar pointed out, and ask folk what they do to help make a difference in our community.

*
If you know mtbers are out there creating illegal trails, then close them and stop them. Don't complain about it. Enlist those people to help improve the greater trail system and do it so its sustainable and satisfactory to ALL user groups.
*

Horse groups, hiker groups, moto groups and even mt. bike groups change from region to region. But there are alot of groups doing alot of thing right for the forest, a whole lot more than what they do wrong. It's a shame we all from time to time stand on opposite sides of issues we mostly have common ground on.

The concept of being aware of our impact as mt. bikers is completely valid. But time and again that impact has been distorted. Let's not put the blinders on and say there are not challenges, but are they not challenges we cannot put effort into? Well i guess if you didn't have people working so hard to fight for access, maybe they COULD spend more time to invest back into the mt. bike community...


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

BumpityBump said:


> I don't buy that.


I am not selling.

Illegal trails can be managed. End of story. It is not a valid excuse to keep cycling out. All user groups do illegal activities.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

robinlikethebird said:


> Lets open the gates, let the bikes in, in fact let the motocycles and ATV. Lets tear it up and have no regrets, :thumbsup:


That's extremism - just like your previous posts. Nobody is suggesting tearing everything up - only properly managed low impact recreational use with no arbitrary restrictions.

If you have a Rubicon-style trail running through some wilderness area it can be managed to keep the impact low. It does not mean that you can tear up everything around on your 4x4 and it does not mean that you need to build such trails everywhere.


----------



## rayray74 (Sep 18, 2005)

"i'm happy to note that a group of mt. bikers i've assembled will actually be collaborating together with the Backcountry Horsemen for trail work this summer."

Our group will be doing the same. It seems to me the extremists ruin it for everyone, with all of their negative propaganda. I know conflicts happen, but personally I've never experienced it on the trail, only on forums.


----------



## JmZ (Jan 10, 2004)

*Design and management*



pureslop said:


> One constructive idea I have not heard proposed yet: Could fully rigid (no suspension) be a useful compromise in Wilderness Areas? Seems to me it would be a natural speed control devise. The one thing most folks can't get past in the "court of public opinion" is the downhill speed of mountain bikes. Meeting one going 40mph around a blind corner is hardly a wilderness experience. And speeds are only getting faster.


I've helped to design and build trail. I've seen where a bike club *turned down* sharing an existing hiking/horse trail because it was a trail that wasn't built to good standards, and it was long, flat and wide, the only way it would have been fun would have been by riding it FAST.

And you CAN design a trail to have a certain speed and flow. IMBA addresses this in their training materials, and some of the professional trailbuilders deal with this every time they build a trail.

Most trails may have some faster sections, but the idea of a 40mph blind corner that I've seen repeatedly - how real is it?!? If I want a section that is FAST then I need to build it properly. That means the proper sight lines, a good flow to the trail, and enough room to still be in control without slamming the brakes. Most trails I've been on have an average a lot closer to walking or running speed, not the speed of a major road.

JmZ


----------



## Shelbak73 (Nov 10, 2007)

Curmy said:


> Bad trails are build because there not enough good ones. That is what happens when you summarily exclude a very large group of legitimate users from proper recreational opportunities.


Several of the trails of which I was speaking of are within a mile of, or within the 350 mile network of trails here in Park City, Utah. These 350+ miles of legitimate trails have been built, and will continue to be built by and for Hikers, Equestrians, Cross country skiers and Mountain bikers.(the mountain trails foundation.) Other then the moto crowd, what user group has been "summarily" excluded from these trails?

From your quote...."because there are not enough good ones." What is your definition of "Good"? Does it match my definition of "Good"? Or Skookums? Or Robinlikethebirds?

Ok, so you've made a "Good" trail, or you've modified an old trail to make it "Good". How long will It remain "Good"? Your trail now becomes subject to the "law of diminishing returns". Simply put: you have ridden your "Good" trail for a few years, you know every bump, jump and turn so well that you could do it with one hand, blind folded. In other words, it's lost it's thrill, then what?


----------



## robinlikethebird (Sep 16, 2009)

*mmmm...*



Shelbak73 said:


> From your quote...."because there are not enough good ones." What is your definition of "Good"? Does it match my definition of "Good"? Or Skookums? Or Robinlikethebirds?
> 
> Ok, so you've made a "Good" trail, or you've modified an old trail to make it "Good". How long will It remain "Good"? Your trail now becomes subject to the "law of diminishing returns". Simply put: you have ridden your "Good" trail for a few years, you know every bump, jump and turn so well that you could do it with one hand, blind folded. In other words, it's lost it's thrill, then what?


I see what your saying, Does this compare, maybe it is like a wife or husband, where at first they are super sexy throwing out new things at you and you might not know what is coming next..Then things start to get a little boring and you know how they are going to act when you go a little to fast or you try to go around the back and get thrown over.

Well that is not what i was talking about when I meant good. I was talking about well built trails that are not going to completely erode, and are built with longevity in mind.


----------



## BumpityBump (Mar 9, 2008)

Curmy said:


> I am not selling.
> 
> Illegal trails can be managed. End of story. It is not a valid excuse to keep cycling out. All user groups do illegal activities.


Good, because you would make a poor salesman and did not address my point wherein I disagreed with the origin of illegal trails, not whether they could be managed.

If you are saying it is acceptable to build illegal trails because they can be managed, well I guess we have a different perspective on personal stewardship and also on the word "managed".

I don't disagree that all user groups conduct illegal activities. But, saying that it's okay for everyone because of that is a moot argument in my book.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

BumpityBump said:


> Good, because you would make a poor salesman and did not address my point wherein I disagreed with the origin of illegal trails, not whether they could be managed.


Your "point" was both irrelevant and incorrect.



BumpityBump said:


> If you are saying it is acceptable to build illegal trails because they can be managed, well I guess we have a different perspective on personal stewardship and also on the word "managed".


I have no idea where did you read that it is acceptable to do illegal things.



BumpityBump said:


> I don't disagree that all user groups conduct illegal activities. But, saying that it's okay for everyone because of that is a moot argument in my book.


Nobody has suggested that it is ok. I have suggested that it can be dealt with, and that it is far from a valid reason to exclude a particular group of users - by your own admission all user groups have similar problems.


----------



## m3rb (Mar 6, 2007)

M_S said:


> While it is true that the interpretation of the term _mechanized_ bans bicycles from Wilderness, those advocating legal recourse to force a different interpretation clearly have no real understanding of the legal precedent which would apply.
> 
> While this issue specifically has not been litigated, the general area of administrative discretion has been very well established by the courts. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) are extremely well defined laws by the courts. Courts have established that all an agency needs to do in order to avoid a ruling declaring its decision is _arbitrary and capricious_ (look it up) is to establish that its decision is _reasonable_. The point being; courts have left a lot of leeway for agencies to determine what is appropriate, as long as they are within the bounds of the relevant guiding statutes (in this case, mostly the Wilderness Act). District courts have left up to agencies decisions regarding public lands which, frankly, are far more important than mountain biking (sorry, it's true).
> 
> ...


What makes you think the APA was followed when the rule change was made circa 1980? I have seen no evidence of such. That is, it was the very essence of "arbitrary and capricious" action, and thus, invalid.


----------



## dave54 (Jul 1, 2003)

Wilderness existed prior to the 1964 Act. The Forest Service had been setting "Wild Areas" since 1920. They were administrative classifications, not required by law, and mountain bikes were not specifically banned. The 1964 Act made the existing Wild Areas into legally defined Wilderness.

The 1964 Act was first written and proposed in 1955, but had zero support in Congress from either party. Even the environmental industry was split with many lukewarm to the proposed law initially. 

Now, in California, we are seeing new areas proposed for Wilderness, not because they have any scenic or primitive values, but solely because they contain trails popular with mountain bikers. The California Wilderness Coalition hates mountain bikes (well, they hate anyone that is not a member of their organization, but that is another story). They also propose removing roads, even state highways, relocating entire towns, and restricting access to all for any purpose (presumably excluding themselves). The enemy is well entrenched and well funded.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

dave54 said:


> and restricting access to all for any purpose (presumably excluding themselves).


No presumably - specifically. That is exactly the whole point with those pseudo-ecology blowhards: they presume to be superior to everybody else and do not want anybody enjoying our planet not on their terms, science and facts be damned.

I have seen people with that mindset at power in the good old Soviet Union. Nothing is new - they just found a different topic to preach.


----------



## dave54 (Jul 1, 2003)

Curmy said:


> ...I have seen people with that mindset at power in the good old Soviet Union. Nothing is new - they just found a different topic to preach.


True. when the Soviet Union collapsed, so did the so-called world peace movement (AKA global communism movement). The leaders of that organization migrated to the environmental industry. Greenpeace Europe in the 90's was all the players from the European Communist movement. Likewise in the U.S., sierra club had an infusion of radical lefties, wilderness society, et al.

That is why all those organizations are called 'watermelons' -- green on the outside, red on the inside. They all still have a socialist agenda, they just keep it hidden under a green smoke screen.


----------



## GregB406 (Dec 19, 2005)

m3rb said:


> What makes you think the APA was followed when the rule change was made circa 1980? I have seen no evidence of such. That is, it was the very essence of "arbitrary and capricious" action, and thus, invalid.


1984? Just trying to keep us on the same timeline.

This quote and the previous one made me think. What was the method the the FS followed to change the categorization of bikes to mechanized? Was the FS prodded by an outside special interest group? How did this group wield such influence? How could this be done again? Hang gliding was eliminated, now kiteboarding on skis is on the chopping block. This new sport is targeted by anti access groups. How can this elimination process be used by bicyclists to bring about change? This process is not litigation is it? Has each category of user been litigated from wilderness, or has it been through enviro lobbying?


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

robinlikethebird said:


> IF done right I could get on board with this for new wilderness, especially if there is not going to be and more wilderness made.
> 
> Have a ranger the will enforce bad decisions not just for bikers, but for all user groups.
> 
> Have Trails that are sustainable designed for for all user groups, and permits that allow certain amount of users in during a certain time. something similar to what is used in the back country for the Whitney area.


Interesting concept to require permits for people to enjoy something they already own.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

Blurr said:


> Interesting concept to require permits for people to enjoy something they already own.


Nah, that part is fine with me. If you are a part owner of a vacation house - you will arrange when you use it with other owners, wouldn't you? Problem will be if you get treated unfairly and unequally, for no good reason.. Which is what happens to us here.


----------



## robinlikethebird (Sep 16, 2009)

*here we go again*

Yes it is interesting, There would be no accountability if there was not a permit system, There would be no way to regulate users and there impact on the land.

What is is also interesting that our goverment sells our NF land to private companies to turn a profit off of us IE.. Logging, Natural gas and so on and so-forth..these companies reap the benefits of our precious resource and what do we get ...nothing.

IMHO permitting is the only way that I Would get behind any thing that would allow bike into a wilderness setting. From many people that i have talked to the do not want bikes into these areas that for them it takes away from there experience of wild, when they see a bike fly by or that they have to jump off the trail because of a bike. Now i know that these are not all bikers that will act like this, but I feel that we need to take responsibility for every one in our community and not turn it into a us and them. Because it is not an us and them, but us all.

I think that it is shitty for the biking comminity when we get cut out of the deals and new wilderness is made in areas that have trails and bikers have been ridding for a while.
But all in we are in a spot that we need to protect our wild place from our selves. in our lifetime it is a non renewable resource, by cherrysteming trails into wilderness we our changing our wild spaces 
For me Ed Abbey says it best

Wilderness. The word itself is music... the word suggest the past and the unknown, the womb of the earth from which we all emerged. it means something lost and something still present, something remote and at the same time intimate, something buried in our blood and nerves, something beyond us and without limit...But the love of the wilderness is more than hunger for what is beyond reach; it is also an expression of loyalty to the earth. the earth which bore us and sustains us the only home we shall ever know, the only paradise that we ever need....Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit. and as vital to our lives as water and good bread. A civilization which destroys what little remains of the wild, the spore, the original, is cutting itself off from its origins and betraying the principle of civilization itself.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

robinlikethebird said:


> Yes it is interesting, There would be no accountability if there was not a permit system, There would be no way to regulate users and there impact on the land.


 Yea uhm the horror of not being able to track peoples every move.



> What is is also interesting that our goverment sells our NF land to private companies to turn a profit off of us IE.. Logging, Natural gas and so on and so-forth..these companies reap the benefits of our precious resource and what do we get ...nothing.


 uhm you get cas, gold, and other ways to live imagine that.



> IMHO permitting is the only way that I Would get behind any thing that would allow bike into a wilderness setting. From many people that i have talked to the do not want bikes into these areas that for them it takes away from there experience of wild, when they see a bike fly by or that they have to jump off the trail because of a bike. Now i know that these are not all bikers that will act like this, but I feel that we need to take responsibility for every one in our community and not turn it into a us and them. Because it is not an us and them, but us all.


 Plenty of socialist countries to move to where the citizens have a tight rope around them, I suggest you move to them and leave america to those of us who understand and crave freedom.



> I think that it is shitty for the biking comminity when we get cut out of the deals and new wilderness is made in areas that have trails and bikers have been ridding for a while.
> But all in we are in a spot that we need to protect our wild place from our selves. in our lifetime it is a non renewable resource, by cherrysteming trails into wilderness we our changing our wild spaces
> For me Ed Abbey says it best


 ar you kidding me ? It is a renewable recourse get this PLANTS GROW BACK, its absolutely amazing!!! the other real amazing thing about nature is how quickly it changes itself, note mudslides, volcano's fires or what have ya.



> Wilderness. The word itself is music... the word suggest the past and the unknown, the womb of the earth from which we all emerged. it means something lost and something still present, something remote and at the same time intimate, something buried in our blood and nerves, something beyond us and without limit...But the love of the wilderness is more than hunger for what is beyond reach; it is also an expression of loyalty to the earth. the earth which bore us and sustains us the only home we shall ever know, the only paradise that we ever need....Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit. and as vital to our lives as water and good bread. A civilization which destroys what little remains of the wild, the spore, the original, is cutting itself off from its origins and betraying the principle of civilization itself.


Have you actually spent any time in wilderness area's? They are rugged by enlarge unaccessable off the trail as their is so much deadfall even larger animals dislike such terrain. They are a fire hazard beyond that which not only effects the land if it should burn over onto other public and private land but it also is a legitimate health hazard to anyone with breathing problems.

Bottom line, if you want some land that is unaccessable to other people feel free to purchase some on your own, and leave the communist BS out of the US.
Thanks


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

Curmy said:


> Nah, that part is fine with me. If you are a part owner of a vacation house - you will arrange when you use it with other owners, wouldn't you? Problem will be if you get treated unfairly and unequally, for no good reason.. Which is what happens to us here.


You are already charged Via your taxes, Forest Circus is funded from SS I believe. What part of PUBLIC LAND are ya'll haveing trouble understanding?


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

Blurr said:


> I suggest you move to them and leave america to those of us who understand and crave freedom.


I do not think that the freedom to trash and trample things is real freedom. There is nothing socialist about organizing a fair and non-discriminatory sharing of limited common resources. The problem that we had been discussing here is that it is not fair and non-discriminatory, not that it is disorganized.

You do not expect to be able to park your car anywhere the heck you like in your town? You do not expect to be able to throw your garbage into a common corridor in your apartment building. You do not expect your neighbors to go take a dump on their front lawn. That is not freedom, that's bullsh.t.

There is nothing wrong with reasonable access limitation to a few of the most popular trails. Keyword here being "reasonable".

Communism my butt. Some of my earliest memories are KGB agents looking in our flat for illegal literature my parents had been distributing - lucky they had been tipped. You, with all your rethorics, have NO CLUE what you are talking about.



Blurr said:


> You are already charged Via your taxes, Forest Circus is funded from SS I believe. What part of PUBLIC LAND are ya'll haveing trouble understanding?


What part of the "republic", "organized society" and the "rule of law" does not fit into you? Do you get similarly riled up when you get a parking ticket?


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

Curmy said:


> I do not think that the freedom to trash and trample things is real freedom. There is nothing socialist about organizing a fair and non-discriminatory sharing of limited common resources. The problem that we had been discussing here is that it is not fair and non-discriminatory, not that it is disorganized.
> 
> You do not expect to be able to park your car anywhere the heck you like in your town? You do not expect to be able to throw your garbage into a common corridor in your apartment building. You do not expect your neighbors to go take a dump on their front lawn. That is not freedom, that's bullsh.t.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with reasonable access limitation to a few of the most popular trails. Keyword here being "reasonable".


Pemitting is not reasonable and is nothing more than a way to generate revenue, which again, you are already taxed for and adding extra taxes are unconstitutional, the government gets away with it all the time as people are so busy trying to justify why the govenrment should have more money and control and less freedom in their own life.



> Communism my butt. Some of my earliest memories are KGB agents looking in our flat for illegal literature my parents had been distributing - lucky they had been tipped. You, with all your rethorics, have NO CLUE what you are talking about.


 I am half serbian sure bout that?



> What part of the "republic", "organized society" and the "rule of law" does not fit into you? Do you get similarly riled up when you get a parking ticket?


The rule of law argument is always used by those seeking to perpetuate more control over an already civilized society. 
Now just so we shut down your limited argument that I love people to perpetuate against those of freedom, I have no problem with roads and trails on said lands, providing everyone is indeed allowed access. That woudl be reasonable, unreasonable would be permitting and monitoring people and denying them access,


----------



## robinlikethebird (Sep 16, 2009)

Blurr said:


> Pemitting is not reasonable and is nothing more than a way to generate revenue"
> 
> Permits do not mean that you have to pay..there are other means for permitting then just to raise money.
> 
> ...


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

robinlikethebird said:


> Blurr said:
> 
> 
> > Pemitting is not reasonable and is nothing more than a way to generate revenue"
> ...


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

Blurr said:


> I am half serbian sure bout that?


Yes, I am reasonably sure by now, after reading your posts.



Blurr said:


> Now just so we shut down your limited argument that I love people to perpetuate against those of freedom, I have no problem with roads and trails on said lands, providing everyone is indeed allowed access. That woudl be reasonable, unreasonable would be permitting and monitoring people and denying them access,


You are not even in the zip code of basic logic. Have your ever obtained a trail permit? What was so unreasonable about that, beside the fact that it is not granted to cyclists? Had you been monitored by DHS agents there?

Its public PROPERTY. Of course it should be regulated and managed. You are a bad property owner if you just let it rot and get trashed by every wanker from the street. The only question is how we do that so that everybody gets a fair piece.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

Curmy said:


> > You are not even in the zip code of basic logic. Have your ever obtained a trail permit? What was so unreasonable about that, beside the fact that it is not granted to cyclists? Had you been monitored by DHS agents there?
> 
> 
> because there is zero reason to have a permit at all that's why.
> ...


----------



## Shelbak73 (Nov 10, 2007)

Keep talking Blurr. Your making the ultra-pro-*W*ilderness groups sound sane. 
You on the payroll of the Sierra Club or something? Working the counter-agent action there comrade?


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

Shelbak73 said:


> Keep talking Blurr. Your making the ultra-pro-*W*ilderness groups sound sane.
> You on the payroll of the Sierra Club or something? Working the counter-agent action there comrade?


Its called the principles America were founded on, ya might want to educate yourself on those mouth.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

Blurr said:


> Its called the principles America were founded on, ya might want to educate yourself on those mouth.


Really? Making baseless assertions based on your personal preferences are the founding principles of U.S.A.?

I thought it was the rule of the law, organized society and a reasonable compromise between individual freedoms and general welfare of the nation.



Blurr said:


> because there is zero reason to have a permit at all that's why.


I take it you have never been to the zoo's that are some popular trails in California.

Zero reason? Says who? Democratically elected representatives of the people of US - or some random interwebz dude?



Shelbak73 said:


> Keep talking Blurr. Your making the ultra-pro-Wilderness groups sound sane.


No, nothing will make them sound sane.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

Curmy said:


> Really? Making baseless assertions based on your personal preferences are the founding principles of U.S.A.?


 Everything about the foundation of this country is the limitation of the government while giving people the chance to exist and to find happyness, that is not done by oppressing your people and only allowing a special, select few access to something which they pay for, called public land. 
Lets start here
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

I suggest you read it all.



> I thought it was the rule of the law, organized society and a reasonable compromise between individual freedoms and general welfare of the nation.


 Americans rebelled against the Rule of law when it became to oppressive, comprende?



> I take it you have never been to the zoo's that are some popular trails in California.


 yea thats it 



> Zero reason? Says who? Democratically elected representatives of the people of US - or some random interwebz dude?


 America is a constitutional republic, not a democracy just an FYI their champ. Just because someone is elected does not make them royalty, nor because laws are passed does it make them right, or even American for that matter, but I sincerely doubt you really care, it seems you are just trolling for attention. so either bring up an actual argument, or carry on.


----------



## 44gnats (May 14, 2008)

i ride 7-12 hr/week off road, on average; i race, typically, once a month. if i didn't work 60hrs/week, i would certainly ride more (this is my way of saying that i love to ride mnt. bikes).
that said, i would give up every second of it for our nation to designate more lands as wilderness and to keep people and their mechanized toys out of it. in fact, when i am not working or riding, i am donating time and money to organizations like Wild South, aimed at this mission, among others.
i find the bulk of posts on this thread to be angry, unscientific, selfish, manifest-destiny arguments which have little to no scientific basis. for crying out load: folks are quoting the most conservative members of congress from a newspaper (the washington times) widely known (to thinking people, at least) as tabloid-like. the whole thing makes me sad, frankly.
i think david brower said it best:
"we didn't inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children."


----------



## cruso414 (Aug 19, 2004)

44gnats said:


> i ride 7-12 hr/week off road, on average; i race, typically, once a month. if i didn't work 60hrs/week, i would certainly ride more (this is my way of saying that i love to ride mnt. bikes).
> that said, i would give up every second of it for our nation to designate more lands as wilderness and to keep people and their mechanized toys out of it. in fact, when i am not working or riding, i am donating time and money to organizations like Wild South, aimed at this mission, among others.
> i find the bulk of posts on this thread to be angry, unscientific, selfish, manifest-destiny arguments which have little to no scientific basis. for crying out load: folks are quoting the most conservative members of congress from a newspaper (the washington times) widely known (to thinking people, at least) as tabloid-like. the whole thing makes me sad, frankly.
> i think david brower said it best:
> "we didn't inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children."


I'm proud to say that I actually know this guy.:thumbsup: Great post!


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

Blurr said:


> Everything about the foundation of this country is the limitation of the government while giving people the chance to exist and to find happyness


Did you actually read the constitution? Did you understand it? Do you understand what the "reality" is?


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

44gnats said:


> i find the bulk of posts on this thread to be angry, unscientific, selfish, manifest-destiny arguments which have little to no scientific basis.


Actually, it is your post only that is unscientific and utterly selfish.

Mechanized toys? I assume you hike naked, do not own a car and eat what you find there.

Yes, we borrow the Earth from our children, and I am sure our children would like to be able to enjoy it, just like we do, not live in a walled off urban jungle.

I want to take my sun for a ride on a nice singletrack. It does not diminish the value of that land in no way, or form, or shape. It is the sanctimonious asshats like you who are trying to take our land from us and from our children based on their misplaced anger and radical anti-human beliefs.


----------



## Skookum (Jan 17, 2005)

cruso414 said:


> I'm proud to say that I actually know this guy.:thumbsup: Great post!


Sound so much like blind support, i woud say going to the public meetings to see how these conservation groups work, might change your minds.

i've been to local public forest service meetings where claims laid by conservation groups are countered as false, by the Forest Service in the group, but the enviro's will immediately poo-poo the true scientific data in favor for supporting their claim. Most all the Conservation/Environmentalist information is as skewed and filtered as the Post.

Sorry but with the understanding at how Conservation groups sell their agenda, your pal is just another fish and each check is received with a nice shiny hook for him to swallow.

And no most of the people prattling off right wing nonsense aren't prototypical of people actually working on collaborative events trying usually in vain to preserve mt. bike access. These people just have nothing better to do than argue, and this thread is not immune to that, but look at every newspaper comment section. It can be a comment thread about a comic strip and people will introduce polarized politics that are not relevant to the issues, welcome to the internet.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

Skookum said:


> Most all the Conservation/Environmentalist information is as skewed and filtered as the Post.


It is not "information". It is a proclamation. Out of the blue, with no justification whatsoever, with infinite sanctimonious arrogance and foam at the mouth the Post proclaims bicycles to be a "toy" that somehow, by magic apparently, will take away from the lofty goal of preserving our Earth from future generation by the mere fact of being present on public lands. There are so many logical fallacies and rhetorical overstatements in the Post, it is hard to argue.


----------



## coryell (Mar 9, 2008)

It seems like we could be getting more financial support from the cycling industry. I admit I have not researched this extensively but was reading an article on the IMBA site. They claim that they are trying to raise funds of $300,000, the cost of conducting their 2010 campaign. Companies such as Trek, Specialized, and Bikes Beyond will be making contributions but will only account for HALF of what is needed. Seems like they could certainly be contributing a little more than $150,000 combined. And how are all of the other manufacturers contributing? $300,000 seems like a pretty small amount to be asking for. Maybe the cycling industry needs to be stepping up their support.


----------



## 44gnats (May 14, 2008)

Curmy said:


> Actually, it is your post only that is unscientific and utterly selfish.
> 
> Mechanized toys? I assume you hike naked, do not own a car and eat what you find there.
> 
> ...


wow: little cranky, curmy? not sure how my post was unscientific, exactly... wasn't making any claims based on science, per se; just articulating my opinion, as the o.p. requested. as for selfish... not sure how that's right either. i suspect i ride more than most and volunteered, hypothetically, to give it up for further lands being designated as wilderness. 
and yes: mechanized toys. the fact that i wear clothes, have a car and eat food purshased in a store has nothing to do with how we travel wilderness lands - nothing whatsoever. that was a bizarre point.
go ahead and take your "sun" for a ride on singletrack... sounds like a great day for each of you. not sure what that has to do with where you do it, as was the point of the post (i.e. whether mnt biking should be allowed on wilderness lands or not). and this idea that riding does not diminish the land in "no way, or form, or shape" is simply untrue. 
calling me a sanctimonious asshat - while funny, i must admit - is angry and meanspirited, particularly as the point of the thread, as i understood it, was to generate a dialogue among users of this forum regarding their thoughts on the matter. to criticize me for doing so seems childish (are you sure your "sun" wasn't editing for you?). finally, this whole "take our land away from us" rant is exactly the energy i was referring to: manifest-destiny garbage. it's no more your land - or your children - than it is mine or my children's. just because i swould smoke by you on a trail doesn't mean i shouldn't yield to you if you have the right of way. settle down, curmy. pedal more, hate less...


----------



## Shelbak73 (Nov 10, 2007)

44gnats said:


> wow: little cranky, curmy? not sure how my post was unscientific, exactly... wasn't making any claims based on science, per se; just articulating my opinion, as the o.p. requested. as for selfish... not sure how that's right either. i suspect i ride more than most and volunteered, hypothetically, to give it up for further lands being designated as wilderness.
> and yes: mechanized toys. the fact that i wear clothes, have a car and eat food purshased in a store has nothing to do with how we travel wilderness lands - nothing whatsoever. that was a bizarre point.
> go ahead and take your "sun" for a ride on singletrack... sounds like a great day for each of you. not sure what that has to do with where you do it, as was the point of the post (i.e. whether mnt biking should be allowed on wilderness lands or not). and this idea that riding does not diminish the land in "no way, or form, or shape" is simply untrue.
> calling me a sanctimonious asshat - while funny, i must admit - is angry and meanspirited, particularly as the point of the thread, as i understood it, was to generate a dialogue among users of this forum regarding their thoughts on the matter. to criticize me for doing so seems childish (are you sure your "sun" wasn't editing for you?). finally, this whole "take our land away from us" rant is exactly the energy i was referring to: manifest-destiny garbage. it's no more your land - or your children - than it is mine or my children's. just because i swould smoke by you on a trail doesn't mean i shouldn't yield to you if you have the right of way. settle down, curmy. pedal more, hate less...


Ride in Montana much? Being, as it seems, racecentirc, I doubt it. You're more about heart rate, cadence, line and so on. So bicycles to you are nothing more then toys. I'm a backcountry rider, the trails we seek to ride are just that, backcountry. My bike is equipment, just like boots, packs, saddles and so on. We ride these trails for the same reason the hikers and equestrians do, for the experience. 
Our impact is less than the equestrians on the trail, and less than hikers and equestrians in direct impact because we don't (or rarely) camp. We don't need to leave the trail to make camp, sleep and cook. Since we don't cook, or smoke, we don't expose these areas to the dangers of wildfire. Since we don't camp, cook or smoke there's far less of a chance we'll leave litter not only through carelesness, but through camp raiding wildlife.
The funny thing is.....the wilderness groups know this. So they changed their complaint to saying, "bikers detract from the wilderness experience."
Understand, I'm for wilderness, responsible wilderness. I don't believe bikes should be allowed everywhere. IMO the wilderness that was created before backcountry cycling can stay bike free. 
I don't feel they have the right to kick us out of areas we've been riding for decades, especially since our impact on these areas is so negligible they had to come up with something that can't be quantified like, " the wilderness experience."
Also, I don't believe we should be band from riding these areas prior to *W*ilderness designation, which they have done.


----------



## GregB406 (Dec 19, 2005)

Skookum said:


> i've been to local public forest service meetings where claims laid by conservation groups are countered as false, by the Forest Service in the group, but the enviro's will immediately poo-poo the true scientific data in favor for supporting their claim. Most all the Conservation/Environmentalist information is as skewed and filtered as the Post.


To complement this remark I will repeat again...

"The Wilderness movement is well funded and very arrogant. Many wilderness professionals will read this thread, and I will catch hell from them in the future for writing this, as I am being monitored. As more wilderness is designated without making adequate consessions to the modest bicyclist requests, the entire wilderness movement becomes poorer for it and the growing trend to question the Act becomes stronger.

The Wilderness Act is perfect, or just about perfect. The way it is being applied and used as the only viable land conservation option is far from perfect though, and that is where we all are losing."

Quite frankly, I have found it disgusting to see how the wilderness lobby operates. It is an exclusionary club. As they have enough power and momentum, plus the ear of legislators, they don't listen to anyone else, especially the lowly mountain bike rider. I've seen it over and over. It's not wilderness that sucks, it's the underhanded way it is being applied. Call it wilderness at any cost, or the new accepted ethics. It is now OK to not work with others; bikers, ranchers, rural folks, because if you have wilderness on your side, you are strong enough to be beyond reproach.

Let's face it. Most of the lands being nominated for wilderness now have had decades of recreational use on them. Hunting, fishing, biking, motorized. These lands are not the Sierras or the northern Rockies of the 1960's. These are the leftover lands. We want these places to remain wild as well, but lets use other tools along with wilderness to get the job done. Wilderness or nothing is an approach that dosn't fit in all cases.


----------



## 44gnats (May 14, 2008)

Shelbak73 said:


> Ride in Montana much? Being, as it seems, racecentirc, I doubt it. You're more about heart rate, cadence, line and so on. So bicycles to you are nothing more then toys. I'm a backcountry rider, the trails we seek to ride are just that, backcountry. My bike is equipment, just like boots, packs, saddles and so on. We ride these trails for the same reason the hikers and equestrians do, for the experience.
> Our impact is less than the equestrians on the trail, and less than hikers and equestrians in direct impact because we don't (or rarely) camp. We don't need to leave the trail to make camp, sleep and cook. Since we don't cook, or smoke, we don't expose these areas to the dangers of wildfire. Since we don't camp, cook or smoke there's far less of a chance we'll leave litter not only through carelesness, but through camp raiding wildlife.
> The funny thing is.....the wilderness groups know this. So they changed their complaint to saying, "bikers detract from the wilderness experience."
> Understand, I'm for wilderness, responsible wilderness. I don't believe bikes should be allowed everywhere. IMO the wilderness that was created before backcountry cycling can stay bike free.
> ...


spent four of the best years of my life in between bozeman and belgrade - on a farm near four corners - and most of my miles (now in western, nc) are logged in the backcountry, sans hr monitor et al. i like to race, but mostly, i like to be in wild places on my bike. a fair guess on your part, though. 
because i believe wilderness should be protected from most forms of human activity - in this case, mnt bikes - doesn't mean i think other user groups should have endless access. to the contrary; i'd like to see horses off 'em too. moreover, just because i reject an individuals "right" to ride in wilderness doesn't mean i wouldn't want ro ride there if it wasn't harmful. i grew up riding and racing dirt bikes and i still dream of roosting mud and riding through deep creeks but i won't do it anymore because i understand, a bit more, at least, how harmful my childhood pasttime is. i'd love to smoke crack if it wouldn't foul up my brain, but it does, so i don't do it; sure would be fun, though. and while bikers rarely camp, cook, etc. doesn't render their/our use benign. although we could identify a group that has a more deleterious impact - such as horsepackers or multi-day backpackers - it simply doesn't mean we should get access, in my opinion. stealing a loaf of bread isn't as wrong as stealing a million bucks, but it is still wrong. 
although the racer jab was a bit snarky, i appreciate you taking a more reasonable stance than curmy and others. say hello to the treasure state for me...


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

44gnats said:


> spent four of the best years of my life in between bozeman and belgrade - on a farm near four corners - and most of my miles (now in western, nc) are logged in the backcountry, sans hr monitor et al. i like to race, but mostly, i like to be in wild places on my bike. a fair guess on your part, though.


 great another implant that spent a few days in the Boonies and is an expert, Glad you left, now stay out of our business will ya?



> because i believe wilderness should be protected from most forms of human activity - in this case, mnt bikes - doesn't mean i think other user groups should have endless access. to the contrary; i'd like to see horses off 'em too. moreover, just because i reject an individuals "right" to ride in wilderness doesn't mean i wouldn't want ro ride there if it wasn't harmful. i grew up riding and racing dirt bikes and i still dream of roosting mud and riding through deep creeks but i won't do it anymore because i understand, a bit more, at least, how harmful my childhood pasttime is. i'd love to smoke crack if it wouldn't foul up my brain, but it does, so i don't do it; sure would be fun, though. and while bikers rarely camp, cook, etc. doesn't render their/our use benign. although we could identify a group that has a more deleterious impact - such as horsepackers or multi-day backpackers - it simply doesn't mean we should get access, in my opinion. stealing a loaf of bread isn't as wrong as stealing a million bucks, but it is still wrong.
> although the racer jab was a bit snarky, i appreciate you taking a more reasonable stance than curmy and others. say hello to the treasure state for me...


This is about the most Illogical post Imaginable, Not sure how to even respond to it, simply stop, take a look around and ask yourself what life would be like without the ability to use nature, and the resources it provides.
Lets look at this logically shall we?
Without the ability to Mine you would not enjoy your cycle, car, Television, computer, cell phone blender, microwave, stove, refrigerator blah blah and blah.
Without the Ability to Log you would lack the ability to wipe your bum (unless you wold prefer to go back to using your hand) have nothing to write on, not be living in the vast majority of structures in North America and not be reading your favorite magazine.
Without the Ability to Farm you would of course be back to hunting and gathering, which according to your strange little world means you would have to impact your environment so now you are back to living through what, Osmosis? Give that a shot and lemme know how that works for ya. 
So it comes down to logic, we need land in for our very existence, that land has to be used, yes it should be used in a responsible manner however to cordon off the land we all pay for so the pink footed elk or some damn thing can run around unabated is absolutely ridiculous to say the least.


----------



## GregB406 (Dec 19, 2005)

44gnats said:


> spent four of the best years of my life in between bozeman and belgrade - on a farm near four corners - and most of my miles (now in western, nc) are logged in the backcountry, sans hr monitor et al. i like to race, but mostly, i like to be in wild places on my bike. a fair guess on your part, though.
> because i believe wilderness should be protected from most forms of human activity - in this case, mnt bikes - doesn't mean i think other user groups should have endless access. to the contrary; i'd like to see horses off 'em too. moreover, just because i reject an individuals "right" to ride in wilderness doesn't mean i wouldn't want ro ride there if it wasn't harmful. i grew up riding and racing dirt bikes and i still dream of roosting mud and riding through deep creeks but i won't do it anymore because i understand, a bit more, at least, how harmful my childhood pasttime is. i'd love to smoke crack if it wouldn't foul up my brain, but it does, so i don't do it; sure would be fun, though. and while bikers rarely camp, cook, etc. doesn't render their/our use benign. although we could identify a group that has a more deleterious impact - such as horsepackers or multi-day backpackers - it simply doesn't mean we should get access, in my opinion. stealing a loaf of bread isn't as wrong as stealing a million bucks, but it is still wrong.
> although the racer jab was a bit snarky, i appreciate you taking a more reasonable stance than curmy and others. say hello to the treasure state for me...


Backcountry bicycling is not about roosting mud or smoking crack. I'm offended that you even went there with your thought process.

To your credit, your acknowledgement of some of us having a more reasonable stance than others is welcome. Some of us, probably most of us, are very reasonable.

This thread has a lot of tangents. But I feel that the original premise brought forth by Ride Wilderness deserves to be fully explored. Wilderness is very divisive, and those of us who are incurring the ugly side of the wilderness movement deserve better treatment.


----------



## Wild Wassa (Jun 4, 2009)

I really like wilderness debates.

"I understand the issues more than you do." "No you don't." "Yes I do." "You are an idiot. because you don't really know the issues."

"Well I value the wilderness more than you do." "No you don't." "Yes I do." "Your an idiot because you don't know the real value of wilderness." 

" I've been to the wilderness more than you have." No you haven't." "Yes I have." "I once spent 3 day in the wilderness." "You're an idiot, I spent 4 days in the wilderness with 4 riders, we rode 40 miles each day." 

"You have the wrong perception of wilderness." "No I don't" "Yes I do." "I'm a walker so I care about wilderness more than you do." "Your an idiot I went further on my mountain bike so I know more about wilderness than you do, I care more." "Riders kill the spirit of the wilderness." "No we don't, we feel the bike we feel the wind."

"What is that plant called?" "What plant? I don't go to the wilderness to look at stupid plants, plants don't matter. It is losing access to trails that matters." "I'll race you up that hill!"

One day I might go to the wilderness ... I hope I'm not to late.

Warren.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

Wild Wassa said:


> I really like wilderness debates.
> 
> "I understand the issues more than you do." "No you don't." "Yes I do." "You are an idiot. because you don't really know the issues."
> 
> ...


One day you will not be allowed to go to the wilderness at all for your own safety.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

44gnats said:


> as for selfish... not sure how that's right either.


In a very direct and straightforward way. You have arbitrarily labeled my preferred mode of transportation a "toy", you have asserted, without a shred of proof - as none exists - that it somehow damages our common property and you want to deny my freedom to use that property for no other reason that your selfish desire to use that property for yourself only.


----------



## Wild Wassa (Jun 4, 2009)

Blurr said:


> One day you will not be allowed to go to the wilderness at all for your own safety.


Too true, but that is how it is already. This is Australian style Wilderness. There are so many signs in the wilderness it can't be a wilderness. The moment we enter a wilderness region the spirit of the wilderness has instantly been killed by the culture of fear. Long gone are the days when ... "We went to the wilderness to be brave."










This is one of the best quality dirt roads I've had the pleasure of being on that has 4 creek crossings and in excess of dozens of signs? ... 4 perfectly made 3 metre long concrete fords on a 60 kilometre road in the Kanangra-Boyd Wilderness. It was one hour's drive. My wife spends more time doing food shopping at the supermarket than I've spent surviving on this road of death.










At Kanangra there is a most amazing view, jaw-droppingly amazing. We don't have to walk 400 metres to see this extraordinary view because National Parks don't want people going to the edge to have a look, so National Parks have constructed a display board in its own shabby awning and the display has the worst most amateurish photographs ever taken of the view and other things and the most inane and superficial explanation of what you should be actually looking at.

It is for our own benefit that wilderness is being shut down. Who fully supports dying from obesity related illnesses while sitting in front of the TV reading books about protected wilderness? ... I know.

Warren.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

Wild Wassa said:


> Too true, but that is how it is already. This is Australian style Wilderness. The moment we enter a wilderness region the spirit of the wilderness has instantly been killed by the culture of fear. Long gone are the days when ... "We went to the wilderness to be brave."
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Interesting 
Im not a big groomed road fan despite how I preach access for everyone, I prefer a nice game trail, be it hiking, mtn biking, horses or even back when one could ride a dirtbike into the woods. I liked going into the woods back when you actually needed a 4x4 to get into places because the roads were not maintained.


----------



## KimmieA (May 4, 2010)

I like the hiking trail as much as anyone, but sometimes, to clear your head and take a minute to just observe above leisurely, I like a nice well-groomed dirt path like this. You're lucky you found it. We have one her in my city, but it's only about 1.8mi. Not a nice long ride, you know?
---
Forex


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

GregB406 said:


> Backcountry bicycling is not about roosting mud or smoking crack. I'm offended that you even went there with your thought process.


Equivocation, sweeping generalizations and baseless slippery slope arguments are not a sign of a thought process.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

Blurr said:


> This is about the most Illogical post Imaginable.


When I was arguing with you, we differ on what is the reasonable level of restrictions on the use of our common property. That's fine, that's the main point in this thread, and that is something that a civilized society can figure out with a rational discourse. 4-wheelers go on one trail, pot-smoking hippies on another, everybody is happy.

Anti-human extremists who a-priory assert endless human guilt for inhabiting and using this planet can not be reasoned with. Unfortunately. Why the heck should I keep out of some land given that I do not damage or disturb it irreversibly? Yeah, there is value in preserving undeveloped land - but only if the point is that it benefits us.


----------



## Shelbak73 (Nov 10, 2007)

44gnats said:


> spent four of the best years of my life in between bozeman and belgrade - on a farm near four corners - and most of my miles (now in western, nc) are logged in the backcountry, sans hr monitor et al. i like to race, but mostly, i like to be in wild places on my bike. a fair guess on your part, though.
> because i believe wilderness should be protected from most forms of human activity - in this case, mnt bikes - doesn't mean i think other user groups should have endless access. to the contrary; i'd like to see horses off 'em too. moreover, just because i reject an individuals "right" to ride in wilderness doesn't mean i wouldn't want ro ride there if it wasn't harmful. i grew up riding and racing dirt bikes and i still dream of roosting mud and riding through deep creeks but i won't do it anymore because i understand, a bit more, at least, how harmful my childhood pasttime is. i'd love to smoke crack if it wouldn't foul up my brain, but it does, so i don't do it; sure would be fun, though. and while bikers rarely camp, cook, etc. doesn't render their/our use benign. although we could identify a group that has a more deleterious impact - such as horsepackers or multi-day backpackers - it simply doesn't mean we should get access, in my opinion. stealing a loaf of bread isn't as wrong as stealing a million bucks, but it is still wrong.
> although the racer jab was a bit snarky, i appreciate you taking a more reasonable stance than curmy and others. say hello to the treasure state for me...


Reasonable? Please....I have a reputation to uphold. 
Altho you and I are on opposite sides of this debate, I can see you and I agree on one thing. People of the U.S. have a hard time distinguishing between what is a right, and what is a privilege.

adios!


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

Shelbak73 said:


> . People of the U.S. have a hard time distinguishing between what is a right, and what is a privilege.


What is a "privilege"?

Looking up definition:



> privilege n. a special benefit, exemption from a duty, or immunity from penalty, given to a particular person, a group or a class of people.


 - I am not sure how it applies to the argument about the extent of our rights for use of public lands. Cause those are our lands - they do not belong to some other species.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

Curmy said:


> When I was arguing with you, we differ on what is the reasonable level of restrictions on the use of our common property. That's fine, that's the main point in this thread, and that is something that a civilized society can figure out with a rational discourse. 4-wheelers go on one trail, pot-smoking hippies on another, everybody is happy.


 I concur



> Anti-human extremists who a-priory assert endless human guilt for inhabiting and using this planet can not be reasoned with. Unfortunately. Why the heck should I keep out of some land given that I do not damage or disturb it irreversibly? Yeah, there is value in preserving undeveloped land - but only if the point is that it benefits us.


Ever notice they always want to deplete the earths population of humans but seem unwilling to sacrifice themselves ?

I say, "save the planet kill yourself"


----------



## robinlikethebird (Sep 16, 2009)

Blurr said:


> I concur
> 
> Ever notice they always want to deplete the earths population of humans but seem unwilling to sacrifice themselves ?
> 
> I say, "save the planet kill yourself"


 as you all may know that i believe that we need to have areas that our protected from ourselves. I would say that i am on the that boat, I firmly believe that we need to scale our numbers back as humans. it is called The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEMT) heres a link to it check it out http://www.vhemt.org/
We are over populating this world and I feel that this is a bigger problem to wilderness then certain mountain bikers that like to ride there.

We can not live with out wilderness, we need it for at least two reason
.First For our emotional well being, we are experimenting, for the first time in history with having no relationship with nature, kids are growing up in isolation from what we have been connected to for centuries. 
Secondly we need it to keep a balance withe the earth that supports us. I think it is dangerous to look at nature or wilderness or resources in terms of what we can get out of it and how to best use it up. Wilderness in our and perhaps in our children's life time is a non renewable resource. sure plants can grow back but a it take multiple for thriving ecosystems to return once they have left or habitat is gone.

lastly if you all read the other stuff I have written, I do think that it a shame when bikers are cut out of new wilderness areas and Do think that we can find a way to have biker enjoy most of the land that they love


----------



## dave54 (Jul 1, 2003)

robinlikethebird said:


> ....First For our emotional well being, we are experimenting, for the first time in history with having no relationship with nature, kids are growing up in isolation from what we have been connected to for centuries...


You are painting with a wide brush. Maybe in your narrow myopic world view this is true but certainly not everyone's. About 20% of the U.S. population does not live in big cities isolated from the outdoors. The rural areas have open spaces and natural environments as part of life, it is a part of the daily fabric. A source of livelihood and lifestyle. Yet we are experiencing a discrimination against rural communities. Small communities nationwide are being told by Washington bureaucrats, lawyers, and judges that they have no right to walk out their back doors and enjoy or use the natural resources. Instead, rural residents are increasingly barred from their livelihoods and neighborhoods because some distant special enterest group wants that same resource as their private playground for one week out of the year.

You can not claim that local communities are 'destroying' nature for profit. That is pure bull$h!t and always has been. Study after study, research after research, have all consistently showed properly managed lands are healthier, have more diverse and greater wildlife populations, and more resilient to catastrophic disturbance than wilderness or other 'protected' lands. This fact is not in scientific dispute.

Neither can use the solitude argument, since visitor usage is independent of designation status. Desolation Valley is the most visited Wilderness area in the country, with strict quotas and permits gone a year in advance. Yet just a few miles north of Desolation I can ride and camp on a non-wilderness trail, through multi-use NF lands, and not see another soul an entire summer three day weekend.

The spirituality argument is also used in the wilderness debate. It is mentioned in the 1964 Act. If you need a special restrictive land classification to find spiritual values, then you have more problems than can be resolved in this thread. Seek assistance from your local Mental Health agency.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

dave54 said:


> The spirituality argument is also used in the wilderness debate. It is mentioned in the 1964 Act.


Last Saturday, on a brilliant Northern California afternoon, I went for a bike ride in a small local park - Waterdog lake - that is situated in a brush covered canyon smack in the middle of one of the busiest urban areas in the nation. It has a few miles of fairly nice singletrack, and can be quite busy at times. In an hour and a half riding I have met one other cyclist and one hiker. If I have wanted complete solitude, I could have driven for half an hour - and hike for hours without seeing anybody. Next day I went for a trail run in nearby Open Space - bikes are banned there, as it borders a rich horse town. On an 8 mile loop I have seen two other hikers. That is 15 minutes from 10th largest city in US and half an hour from 12th largest city.

"Solitude" argument is a certified hogwash. Get off you fat arse and hike a couple miles, nobody is out there - and if a bike or two silently rolling by disturbs you, seek mental help. Or just buy yourself a ranch, wall it off and drink Cool Aid with your friends.


----------



## Wild Wassa (Jun 4, 2009)

Over two decades ago, I was working as a professional guide taking small groups into remnant rainforests along Australia's Great Dividing Range. Into Mann, Werrikimbe, Washpool, Guy Fawkes, Macleay Gorges, New England and the Barrington wilderness regions, amongst others. I worked as a professional guide for 12 years, and not often did I visit the same place twice, there was absolutely no need to visit the same place twice and there were no tourist traps to avoid.

There was a lot to see, looking at the different natural vegetation, that no one was shut out of ... not huge wilderness expanses, like are found elsewhere but good wild country with natural barriers, which by its very nature, limited access to places with an extraordinarily beautiful ambiance. Often I'd talk to people in vehicles along little-visited tracks and get good info from them about the conditions and tell the Rangers.

Then back in 1987, many of the places that I visited, were nominated for inclusion on the World Heritage List. Overnight, gates were constructed, locked or shifted, vehicles were excluded from huge swathes of bush, bikes were banned from the use on historical tracks. Historically bikes have been important in rural Australia. Signs went up everywhere to protect the wilderness. Toilet blocks and camp sites were built and visitor centres constructed to make 13 World Heritage Rainforest Parks. Little well groomed paths 2-3 kilometre long close to visitor centres and around man made camp sites proliferated.

Over the last few months I have been organising a ride (for myself, for later this winter) along the Great Dividing Range to see some of these places that I have a great feeling for.

I'm being continually told by regional Park Rangers that these historic routes that I want to take and even some fire trails linking to the Bicentennial National Trail are choked with Lantana. No longer navigable even on foot and that Lantana is encroaching all throughout the Northern NSW Rainforest Parks, invading the natural vegetation and colonising irreplaceable habitats even to an altitude of 800m ASL (normally below 650m ASL was the plant's upper limit, it must be climate change?) ... because the habitats were irreplaceable, was one of the reasons given for why the parks should be granted World Heritage status. These areas that were meant to be protected have become what was not intended ... choked with invasive non-native plants and have not regenerated by the naturally occurring, indigenous species.

Continually I'm being told by Park Rangers, that they have no knowledge of the conditions in the parks because they are limited to collecting camp fees and driving on fire trails close to man made camp sites, nowadays.

When we were all allowed to visit relatively freely, we could report on the slightest problems to the Park Rangers and land managers and things and problems were dealt with properly and often promptly.

Now, no one even appears to know what's happening in these wilderness parks ... it certainly wasn't that way once.

Recently (last Christmas) a Park Ranger told me that I couldn't ride in the *new wilderness* of Ettrema (legislated as a wilderness only a few years ago). I told the Ranger that I didn't want to ride in the new wilderness at all and "Who made this new wilderness, National Park's landscape gardeners?" The Ranger was not impressed ... then neither was I. So I went and rode in the *old wilderness*, a 250 million year old wilderness.

I've had enough of this crap of excluding we owners from our wild places on the false perception that these places need protecting from us. We hands-on wilderness users are the best-able custodians of wilderness ... National Parks Rangers and a few wildlife managers can't do it. What can a few Park Rangers and a couple of wildlife managers who don't go more than a few hundred metres from a vehicle, do in what now has become unvisited wilderness? ... absolutely nothing, apart from emptying rubbish bins, putting up more signs threatening heavier fines, collecting camp fees and being overly precious about *their* tourist park pseudo wilderness that greedy Administration created.

What Wilderness actually needs isn't protection from caring humans ... Wilderness needs protection from the false perceptions of elitist groups and their misguided support and fostering of more legislation that excludes humans.

Warren.


----------



## El Caballo (Nov 22, 2004)

This thread shows why we're losing access to trails every day.

People saying "Well *I* don't have any Wilderness areas where *I* live, so I don't care and there is no problem."

People believing anti-bicycle propaganda that has no basis in reality. All the articles Robin mentioned are either unsupported opinions -- or crackpot pseudo-science (like M*** V***) that cites only itself. Let's be clear: *Every single peer-reviewed scientific paper shows that bicycles have similar impact to hikers, and far less impact than horses. Every single study ever commissioned by governments shows the same. Period.* 
http://www.americantrails.org/resources/ManageMaintain/SprungImpacts.html

People who say "bikes use trails, therefore banning them means less trail impact". *So would banning women, or black people.* But that's absurd, and so is banning bicycles.

People who haven't spent any time in Wilderness, and who haven't seen the wholesale destruction horses cause. We let pack outfitters PROFIT FROM WILDERNESS by running pack trains up and down public trails, churning them into disgusting, smelly six-inch-deep s**t-saturated sand, mile after mile -- but seeing a bicycle "destroys the wilderness experience?"

As a long-time backpacker, I'll tell you what destroys my wilderness experience...trudging through miles and miles of horse s**t, while huge trains of horses force me off the trail so they can ferry around a bunch of fat jerks who can't do without pasta machines and espresso makers for two friggin' days. *The shuttle trails at Downieville, used by hundreds of bicycles every day (and meaningful numbers of motorcycles!) are easier to hike on than the ugly, eroded, s**t-laden "wilderness" trails near any pack station, and that is a fact.*

People who believe that rock climbing, backcountry skiing, and rafting aren't mechanized, but a bicycle is. (Not to mention $150 spring-loaded trekking poles, $200 Gore-Tex boots, ...)

I will be blunt: *If you are not on board with Ride Wilderness, you are chumping yourself and every other mountain biker.*


----------



## robinlikethebird (Sep 16, 2009)

El Caballo said:


> T.
> 
> People who believe that rock climbing, backcountry skiing, and rafting aren't mechanized, but a bicycle is. (Not to mention $150 spring-loaded trekking poles, $200 Gore-Tex boots, ...)
> 
> I will be blunt: *If you are not on board with Ride Wilderness, you are chumping yourself and every other mountain biker.*


I guess you can call me a chump..


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

robinlikethebird said:


> as you all may know that i believe that we need to have areas that our protected from ourselves. I would say that i am on the that boat, I firmly believe that we need to scale our numbers back as humans. it is called The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEMT) heres a link to it check it out http://www.vhemt.org/
> We are over populating this world and I feel that this is a bigger problem to wilderness then certain mountain bikers that like to ride there.


 sooo you are not jumping because of why then? Ohh thats right, everyone else is the problem but not you :thumbsup:



> We can not live with out wilderness, we need it for at least two reason
> .First For our emotional well being, we are experimenting, for the first time in history with having no relationship with nature, kids are growing up in isolation from what we have been connected to for centuries.


 You really do not know much about history do you? I suspect you need to research carthrage, Rome, Athens, the list goes on and on and on.



> Secondly we need it to keep a balance withe the earth that supports us. I think it is dangerous to look at nature or wilderness or resources in terms of what we can get out of it and how to best use it up. Wilderness in our and perhaps in our children's life time is a non renewable resource. sure plants can grow back but a it take multiple for thriving ecosystems to return once they have left or habitat is gone.


 great so go live in a mud hut and eat bugs then, merely by using your computer you are contributing to oil and mined recourses, by eating fruits and vegetables you are contributing to land being taken and used for farming, the list goes on and on, bottom line, we use the planet to exist, its a simple supply and demand, you are part of that demand aspect, or you can jump out a window, I really dont care what you do, but quit telling everyone else they need to go when you are contributing to the problem as well.



> lastly if you all read the other stuff I have written, I do think that it a shame when bikers are cut out of new wilderness areas and Do think that we can find a way to have biker enjoy most of the land that they love


 Holy cow, there is some rational in you after all, now keep opening that up a bit and you will be better off ,as a matter of fact, the more people you get to enjoy nature in more ways, the more appreciation you will have for it. Think about that for a bit before you respond please.

Edit: just read your site, I only have two more things to say, one I am glad ya'll are not going to breed, what a relief that is, and two BWAAAA HAAAAAA


----------



## gossejp (Oct 14, 2005)

*how much land is really being fought over*

It seems that alot of the people in this thread are overlooking just how much land actually has a wilderness restriction. Here are some figures

the agencey is listed first followed by Wilderness land in acres followed by percent of agency land considered Wilderness


 
National Park Service 43,616,250 acres (176,508 km²) 56% 
U.S. Forest Service 34,867,591 acres (141,104 km²) 18% 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 20,699,108 acres (83,766 km²) 22% 
Bureau of Land Management 6,512,227 acres (26,354 km²) 2% 
Total 107,436,608 acres (427,733 km²) 16%
Of this total there are 57,425,569 acres protected in Alaska alone. All in all Wilderness land makes up about .04% of all U.S. land. I don't see why so many are all bent up about access to Wilderness land when it is likely that access to non Wilderness public lands lies nearby, in fact many Wilderness areas are located within non wilderness public lands which strikes a balance sought out by those in the field of conservation. If one were to look at this further I would bet that a fair amount of the Wilderness land is located in mountainous areas which are not accessable to mountain bikes,or are on too steep of a slope to have a sustainable trail.

Think of it as a bullseye target, at the outer edge land exists with mostly unfettered access(all private land), inside of that restricted access (public lands) and designated use land, within this lies Wilderness land which has even more restricted use, I think that even within these areas,the bullseye, there should be no access by man except by permit for scientific study.

It probably sucks for those who live next to Wilderness areas to lose acces to some trails, but are we as a community really that much worse off by not having access to Wilderness land? There is still a bunch of public land to gain access to.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

gossejp said:


> It seems that alot of the people in this thread are overlooking just how much land actually has a wilderness restriction. Here are some figures
> 
> the agencey is listed first followed by Wilderness land in acres followed by percent of agency land considered Wilderness
> 
> ...


Sigh, I love numbers, so easily misled, again, lets keep this simple, despite the amount of land which is actually wilderness land, the simple fact remains most land is closed off one way or another to the public, the other really simple fact is one more time AS TAX PAYERS IT IS YOUR LAND AND YOU DESERVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE ACCESS TO IT, NOT A SELECT ROYAL FEW.


----------



## gossejp (Oct 14, 2005)

Blurr said:


> Sigh, I love numbers, so easily misled, again, lets keep this simple, despite the amount of land which is actually wilderness land, the simple fact remains most land is closed off one way or another to the public, the other really simple fact is one more time AS TAX PAYERS IT IS YOUR LAND AND YOU DESERVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE ACCESS TO IT, NOT A SELECT ROYAL FEW.


Unfounded opinion is even more misleading. Most land is open to the public in one way or another. weather it be logging, grazing, boating, or even mountain biking. There needs to be different designations of land use within public lands. Should one be able to make a hiking, biking, horseback, or atv trail through designated grazing area, probably not. Just think of Wilderness as the grazing area for bears, marmonts, fishers, or wolverines. Plain and simple some animals cannot exist without protected land. This land is just a tiny sliver of what is out there.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

gossejp said:


> Unfounded opinion is even more misleading. Most land is open to the public in one way or another. weather it be logging, grazing, boating, or even mountain biking. There needs to be different designations of land use within public lands. Should one be able to make a hiking, biking, horseback, or atv trail through designated grazing area, probably not. Just think of Wilderness as the grazing area for bears, marmonts, fishers, or wolverines. Plain and simple some animals cannot exist without protected land. This land is just a tiny sliver of what is out there.


point in fact man are not allowed access in most area's again, that is the problem.

Animals do just fine around human presence and actually in many cases prefer it, you no longer see Elk trying to winter in many places but on a nice cushy Ranch, You see deer trolling around cities, along with bears finding the tasty treats as well as Coyotes as well. Animals adapt, and do so well. They also FYI like Humans are lazy and prefer easy area's to get around in, which is why Logged area's are a boon for animals.

And again, I keep saying this as well, if you want land shut off, feel free to buy your own and do so 

Have a nice day.


----------



## gossejp (Oct 14, 2005)

Blurr said:


> point in fact man are not allowed access in most area's again, that is the problem.
> 
> Animals do just fine around human presence and actually in many cases prefer it, you no longer see Elk trying to winter in many places but on a nice cushy Ranch, You see deer trolling around cities, along with bears finding the tasty treats as well as Coyotes as well. Animals adapt, and do so well. They also FYI like Humans are lazy and prefer easy area's to get around in, which is why Logged area's are a boon for animals.
> 
> ...


Please post a map of where man is completely off limits. On the above public lands map access is granted to all of it. If you want to go anywhere on these public lands feel free to do so, you might need a permit and your mode of transportation MAY be limited, but not your access to land.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

gossejp said:


> Please post a map of where man is completely off limits. On the above public lands map access is granted to all of it. If you want to go anywhere on these public lands feel free to do so, you might need a permit and your mode of transportation MAY be limited, but not your access to land.


Dude, giving people a road or a trail into an area is not exactly access, Nor is allowing only that access to the most fit. Refer to my earlier arguments that again THE LAND IS FOR US TO ENJOY NOT A SELECT FEW. it is THE PEOPLES LAND. not the governments, the sooner people get that one little fact through their head the better off this country will be. The very fact we are sitting here arguing about being able to enjoy land should scare the piss out of any rational human being.


----------



## Selftest (Jun 3, 2009)

Unfortunately, mountain biking falls into the realm of many other outdoor activities: Not as many users, and not as many users who actually care.

Your average mountain biker, outside of this forum (and probably the majority of this forum) don't ride enough for it to cause us concern. If there are 500 individual posters who actually care about the stripping of our rights and our trails, it still makes no dent against the millions of dollars people who disagree with us can lobby for.

It also has to do with a large political machine. If a President/Senator/Representative/Political lobbyist needs votes, they can turn towards a "hot button" issue to ramp up votes: Global Warming has been proven to be false (at least as far as human impact goes) many times, but it's a huge money maker to promote it's truth. Same goes for trail use. We know, as mountain bikers, hikers, and even, in some cases, equestrian users, that horses cause FAR more damage to Wilderness areas than a responsible mountain biker can or will. Horses weigh a lot. Mountain bikers and bikes do not.

What needs to happen is a large contingent of supporters need to rally, and lobby, and write letters and join causes. I'm sure that IMBA does this a lot. It becomes a "small fry, large voice" problem and doesn't get addressed. It's still looked at as a small user group. Which it is. Often issues like this are looked at as "the greatest good for the largest number of people." There are far more people, unaware of what they are giving up, that support a large, untamed, untapped Wilderness, even if it just means we rape and pillage that area later, at a muchy later date.

The same has happened lately with firearm owners. The land we can shoot on is quickly being taken away, effectively getting rid of rights that have been ours for a log time. The Wilderness Act causes more problems than it's worth, but it's popular and supported becasue people LIKE the idea of untapped wilderness and wild areas. These same people have never seen these areas, and don't care.

Of course, you have large political bodies like The Sierra Club and other such groups. They have a large voice, because they have monetary and celebrity backing. It's the same everywhere. Someone sitting in Washington D.C looks at a report of figures and sees large numbers and small impacts and makes the decision to enforce an archaic and wrong law or rule, in order to appease the largest contingent of lobbying forces. If we, as mountain bikers and Wilderness users, got out there and recruited some prominent and "important" users, we might have a chance. If we could somehow get the backing oif The Sierra Club, or Greenpeace, large political groups, we could possibly swing the favor to change the wording or at least clarify the act.

The other side of the coin is our disposition towards other user groups. Most of us see O.H.V use as detrimental to OUR trails, because of the large "environmental" impact it makes. If we banded with these large groups, we may get something accomplished. But, maybe not. It's never been about fair use or hobbies. It's always been about votes and money.


----------



## robinlikethebird (Sep 16, 2009)

I just want to make sure that i get your point right, it is that we the people already own the land and there for should not be restricted in any way.



Blurr said:


> . The very fact we are sitting here arguing about being able to enjoy land should scare the piss out of any rational human being.


 also I am not sure why we should be scared could you let me know

cheers,


----------



## chuck80442 (Oct 4, 2009)

I think about riding my bike all the time. And I ride it whenever I can. And after 15 years of hiking and backpacking I haven't strapped on my hiking boots but once or twice since getting on my mountain bike a year and a half ago. Nothing compares to the feeling I get from riding.

But I know there are more important things, such as maintaining as many areas as possible in as natural a state as possible. Wilderness designation is the best way to do this, as they (hopefully) will keep out strip mining, cookie cutter subdivisions, logging (which has it's place don't get me wrong), ski areas, unnecessary roads and the like.

I agree that bikes are no worse than hikers or horses, and perhaps have even less of an impact than both. I've seen many stellar places trashed by packhorse outfitters and, to a lesser degree, foolish backpackers and their dogs. But that doesn't mean that opening these same areas to biking somehow solves the problems caused by horses and backpackers. Discrimination? Perhaps, and perhaps future wilderness designations, depending on the spot, should allow existing bicycle usage. This kind of thing has been included before, not for bikes but to maintain existing cattle grazing, so a precedent is there. 

As far as all the paranoid arguments about one world government or losing our rights or whatever, well, get over yourselves. That is crazy talk, and comparing losing bicycling privileges to the holocaust or a commie takeover only weakens your legitimate arguments about bike in wilderness. In the end nobody is shutting you out of the land, and these narrow minded attitudes won't do ANYTHING to change policy and allow bikes into wilderness. You can take a hike anytime you please in protected wilderness, and while you're doing so, be damn glad it hasn't been sold off to the highest bidder or turned over to some multinational timber or mining company to be liquidated for some corporation's quarterly profits. 

Bikes in wilderness? Maybe someday, but I ain't worried about it. There are hundreds of thousands of miles of singletrack, doubletrack, and old logging roads in the American West, and there is no shortage of places to ride. Besides, the remnant population of elk (600,000 down from an estimated 10 million), grizzly bears, wolves, wolverines, badgers and other wildlife need some places left as they are...places that aren't full of cars, logging trucks, trophy homes, ranchettes, or-dare I say it-well intentioned folks on mountain bikes.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

gossejp said:


> It seems that alot of the people in this thread are overlooking just how much land actually has a wilderness restriction. Here are some figures


More then enough. It is the best chunks - tons of wonderful trails in California that are off limits.

It is not the quantity - but quality. Your argument is very thoroughly misplaced.



gossejp said:


> Plain and simple some animals cannot exist without protected land.


What does it have to do with riding a bike on a trail - that also allows horse traffic?

Answer is - nothing. You are just regurgitating the exact same lunacy.



gossejp said:


> This land is just a tiny sliver of what is out there.


If I stop you on a street and take just a bit of your cash - that would not be robbery, right?



chuck80442 said:


> But I know there are more important things, such as maintaining as many areas as possible in as natural a state as possible. Wilderness designation is the best way to do this, as they (hopefully) will keep out strip mining, cookie cutter subdivisions, logging (which has it's place don't get me wrong), ski areas, unnecessary roads and the like.


Is there a single person who is defending discrimination against cycling in wilderness who is capable of making an argument that is based on facts, honest impact analysis and does not resort to inane generalizations, such as comparing it to strip mining?



chuck80442 said:


> places that aren't full of cars, logging trucks, trophy homes, ranchettes, or-dare I say it-well intentioned folks on mountain bikes.


Yeah, right. Logging trucks and mountain bikes in the same sentence - and you expect your drivel to be taken seriously?


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

robinlikethebird said:


> I just want to make sure that i get your point right, it is that we the people already own the land and there for should not be restricted in any way.
> 
> also I am not sure why we should be scared could you let me know
> 
> cheers,


back to that pesky history thing and where excessive government controls leads. I doubt you care, you are one who needs it.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

chuck80442 said:


> I think about riding my bike all the time. And I ride it whenever I can. And after 15 years of hiking and backpacking I haven't strapped on my hiking boots but once or twice since getting on my mountain bike a year and a half ago. Nothing compares to the feeling I get from riding.
> 
> But I know there are more important things, such as maintaining as many areas as possible in as natural a state as possible. Wilderness designation is the best way to do this, as they (hopefully) will keep out strip mining, cookie cutter subdivisions, logging (which has it's place don't get me wrong), ski areas, unnecessary roads and the like.


 Logging only benefits a forest, it creates a more healthy area that animals actually prefer. Mining is one of those things we simply do not know what may be found and where, we cannot limit ourselves in that avenue. and with new techniques, mines clean up very well. Course what most people do not know when arguing about the supposed "untouched land" is that at one point, it was very touched, Montana was nothing like most people Imagine it to have been, and nearly everywhere you will go in the woods you will find a cabin.



> As far as all the paranoid arguments about one world government or losing our rights or whatever, well, get over yourselves. That is crazy talk, and comparing losing bicycling privileges to the holocaust or a commie takeover only weakens your legitimate arguments about bike in wilderness. In the end nobody is shutting you out of the land, and these narrow minded attitudes won't do ANYTHING to change policy and allow bikes into wilderness. You can take a hike anytime you please in protected wilderness, and while you're doing so, be damn glad it hasn't been sold off to the highest bidder or turned over to some multinational timber or mining company to be liquidated for some corporation's quarterly profits.


 You mean sold to benefit mankind? Sold so people like yourself could gain minerals to sit on the computer and piss and moan why we are raping the land? lol get a grip.



> Bikes in wilderness? Maybe someday, but I ain't worried about it. There are hundreds of thousands of miles of singletrack, doubletrack, and old logging roads in the American West, and there is no shortage of places to ride. Besides, the remnant population of elk (600,000 down from an estimated 10 million), grizzly bears, wolves, wolverines, badgers and other wildlife need some places left as they are...places that aren't full of cars, logging trucks, trophy homes, ranchettes, or-dare I say it-well intentioned folks on mountain bikes.


The Elk population has been purposely culled for the benefits of Ranchers, wolves also had a large impact but will now begin to be managed (hunted) since the size of the Elk heard is now where the huggers want them to be, And again, you fail to understand animals at all, I pointed out some of their habits earlier, but whatever, your all about hugging a bunny so go for it champ.


----------



## chuck80442 (Oct 4, 2009)

_Logging only benefits a forest, it creates a more healthy area that animals actually prefer. Mining is one of those things we simply do not know what may be found and where, we cannot limit ourselves in that avenue. and with new techniques, mines clean up very well. Course what most people do not know when arguing about the supposed "untouched land" is that at one point, it was very touched, Montana was nothing like most people Imagine it to have been, and nearly everywhere you will go in the woods you will find a cabin._

*This depends on the type of logging and the type of forest. Plenty of logging destroys the integrity of an ecosystem, and your blanket statement that "animals actually prefer" logged areas or "logging only benefits a forest" are just as simplistic as those enviros who claim that all logging is bad. Statements like these reveal you to be an extremist, just like someone from ELF who cannot admit that logging is ever good, you cannot see that it is often done poorly, with timber company profits put ahead of forest stewardship and sustainability.*

_ You mean sold to benefit mankind? Sold so people like yourself could gain minerals to sit on the computer and piss and moan why we are raping the land? lol get a grip._

*I understand that mining is necessary, but that doesn't mean I support all mining in all places. Again, your simplistic, all or nothing statements are just that: simple and childish. Just because I drive a car doesn't mean that I think oil should be drilled everywhere it exists no matter what, and just because I use copper pipes in my house doesn't mean that I have to support strip mining for copper no matter where it exists either.*

_The Elk population has been purposely culled for the benefits of Ranchers, wolves also had a large impact but will now begin to be managed (hunted) since the size of the Elk heard is now where the huggers want them to be, And again, you fail to understand animals at all, I pointed out some of their habits earlier, but whatever, your all about hugging a bunny so go for it champ._

*Ha! This part of your argument is the most off base. Elk habitat has been decimated by tract homes, poaching, bovine diseases, unnecessary fencing and other development. Wolves have had NOTHING to do with a 90+ percent decline in elk population this last 100 years...indeed, there were virtually no wolves during that time, so to blame wolves is total b.s. And your blanket statement that animals just love logged areas ignores the fact that many animals (like, say, the spotted owl for example) prefer or even require old growth forest habitat to survive. Your inability to admit that extraction of minerals or timber can be destructive is just as dumb as some city environmentalist saying there should never be any logging anywhere ever.

You judge me as some kind of tree hugger who knows nothing about animals or habitat or wilderness, but you know nothing about me and your assumptions are, once again, childish at best. My family pioneered a mountain valley in Colorado, logged or built logging roads for 100 years, worked in a nearby molybdenum mine for decades, and hunted, butchered, and cooked up plenty of elk meat. Your anti-environmentalist stances are overly simplistic and just as foolish as uber-greenies who want to leave humans out of the equation. Just because you live in Montana doesn't mean that you know anything about how nature works.*


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

chuck80442 said:


> Elk habitat has been decimated by tract homes, poaching, bovine diseases, unnecessary fencing and other development. Wolves have had NOTHING to do with a 90+ percent decline in elk population this last 100 years...


What most definitely had nothing to do, and will have nothing to do, with a decline of any of the species anywhere is mountain bike riding.

Why do you keep bringing this into the discussion? As a cheap red herring rhetorical tool? Appeal to spite?

What do elks and logging roads have to do with riding a bike on a trail? Is there any connection whatsoever?


----------



## chuck80442 (Oct 4, 2009)

I was responding to Blurr's misguided arguments specifically. If you had read my post clearly you would have seen that I am generally in agreement with you on mtbs in some wilderness areas. 

And referring to animals and habitat is not a red herring, as that what wilderness boils down to. The survival of species of animal is way more important that allowing somebody to hike, ride a horse, or ride a bike. We can do those things almost anywhere, but wildlife is very limited when it comes to where they can survive and thrive, especially when areas outside of protected wilderness are often trashed our full of houses, condos, ski areas, strip mines or whatever.


----------



## davidarnott (Feb 28, 2007)

I invite you to move to Iowa



gossejp said:


> It seems that alot of the people in this thread are overlooking just how much land actually has a wilderness restriction. Here are some figures
> 
> the agencey is listed first followed by Wilderness land in acres followed by percent of agency land considered Wilderness
> 
> ...


----------



## chuck80442 (Oct 4, 2009)

Blurr said:


> Dude, giving people a road or a trail into an area is not exactly access, Nor is allowing only that access to the most fit. Refer to my earlier arguments that again THE LAND IS FOR US TO ENJOY NOT A SELECT FEW. it is THE PEOPLES LAND. not the governments, the sooner people get that one little fact through their head the better off this country will be. The very fact we are sitting here arguing about being able to enjoy land should scare the piss out of any rational human being.


Dude, chill out. The only land that is off limits to people is privately owned land. You can ride or hike anywhere else. Your "peoples' land" argument is pathetic...do you think that roads should be blazed into every possible nook or cranny so it will be "accessible" to anyone with a car? Should we just go with the lowest common denominator and say every fat and lazy person who refuses to hike or ride a bike should be able to drive to the top of any mountain because it's their right as an American? Again, NOBODY IS SHUTTING YOU OUT OF ANY LAND. You can still walk anywhere you want.

But yeah, I do agree with you that bikes should not be automatically shut out of wilderness areas as a rule. Horses are much more destructive. But your extremist arguments aren't going to help the mtb cause out at all.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

chuck80442 said:


> _Logging only benefits a forest, it creates a more healthy area that animals actually prefer. Mining is one of those things we simply do not know what may be found and where, we cannot limit ourselves in that avenue. and with new techniques, mines clean up very well. Course what most people do not know when arguing about the supposed "untouched land" is that at one point, it was very touched, Montana was nothing like most people Imagine it to have been, and nearly everywhere you will go in the woods you will find a cabin._
> 
> *This depends on the type of logging and the type of forest. Plenty of logging destroys the integrity of an ecosystem, and your blanket statement that "animals actually prefer" logged areas or "logging only benefits a forest" are just as simplistic as those enviros who claim that all logging is bad. Statements like these reveal you to be an extremist, just like someone from ELF who cannot admit that logging is ever good, you cannot see that it is often done poorly, with timber company profits put ahead of forest stewardship and sustainability.*


 Not at all, lets take a look at some simple aspects of a logged area vs wilderness, one you now have a healthier forest, unless you are going to tell me that tree's do not compete with eachother for food nutrients and sunlight? lol Seriously dude?
Larger animals especially like a logged area to wilderness as one, they love the extra grass, no **** they need that to live, two, more visibility for predators. Its also easier for them to get around in, if you notice when you spend any actual time in the boonies animals tend to walk on roads and trails as they are lazy as well. And last area's that are kept clean through usage are less of a fire hazard than those that are not, FYI< one of the reasons we have worse forest fires than 20 years ago is in part to so many area's being closed off, those roads which were a fire break are now grown over so that is gone, as well as people who would have been using smaller fuels for fires and what not are no longer allowed or limited so you have more fuel to burn. Fact son, take it or leave it.



> *I understand that mining is necessary, but that doesn't mean I support all mining in all places. Again, your simplistic, all or nothing statements are just that: simple and childish. Just because I drive a car doesn't mean that I think oil should be drilled everywhere it exists no matter what, and just because I use copper pipes in my house doesn't mean that I have to support strip mining for copper no matter where it exists either.*


 Reality check we do not get to choose where minerals or oil will be. The option needs to be kept in the event we need said area's .



> *Ha! This part of your argument is the most off base. Elk habitat has been decimated by tract homes, poaching, bovine diseases, unnecessary fencing and other development. Wolves have had NOTHING to do with a 90+ percent decline in elk population this last 100 years...indeed, there were virtually no wolves during that time, so to blame wolves is total b.s. And your blanket statement that animals just love logged areas ignores the fact that many animals (like, say, the spotted owl for example) prefer or even require old growth forest habitat to survive. Your inability to admit that extraction of minerals or timber can be destructive is just as dumb as some city environmentalist saying there should never be any logging anywhere ever.*


* lol fences bothering elk? LMFAO oh dear god man do I have to post a video of them jumping or even going through fences? now that is funny. And yes, Elk have intentionally been culled for the reason I stated. Wolves have impacted as well, and their impact was far far greater than ever Imagined, mainly because Elk, deer, sheep (sheep are just screwed to stoooopid to figure it out) need time to adapt to the wolves, this takes generations, not a couple of years. FYI Wolves kill over 2000 elk each year in Yellowstone park alone. lol the spotted owl argument? You are not seriously going to take an Al Gore dumb ass argument are ya? Up until that point you were fairly thought out but if that is the direction you are going I cannot take you seriously.




You judge me as some kind of tree hugger who knows nothing about animals or habitat or wilderness, but you know nothing about me and your assumptions are, once again, childish at best. My family pioneered a mountain valley in Colorado, logged or built logging roads for 100 years, worked in a nearby molybdenum mine for decades, and hunted, butchered, and cooked up plenty of elk meat. Your anti-environmentalist stances are overly simplistic and just as foolish as uber-greenies who want to leave humans out of the equation. Just because you live in Montana doesn't mean that you know anything about how nature works.

Click to expand...

* LOL well so far you have shown very very little understanding of nature at all, I am pro environmentalist as obviously I want our wonderful lands to be logged and used where the forests can as I stated, grow far more healthy. Im also a realist and again, I realize that nothing is free and there is a give or take for everything, but hey, if you want to paint yourself in a corner with more land shut off, you go for it, on a PRIVATE LEVEL< the rest of society realizes they need the earth to survive.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

chuck80442 said:


> And referring to animals and habitat is not a red herring, as that what wilderness boils down to. The survival of species of animal is way more important that allowing somebody to hike, ride a horse, or ride a bike. We can do those things almost anywhere, but wildlife is very limited when it comes to where they can survive and thrive, especially when areas outside of protected wilderness are often trashed our full of houses, condos, ski areas, strip mines or whatever.


Here you are doing that again. What does survival of the species have to do with allowing somebody to ride a bike on a trail? Where is the logical connection? Unless there is one - that is the definition of a red herring argument.

What do "houses, condos, ski areas, strip mines" have to do with human powered and well managed recreational visits to wilderness? It just sounds like a cheap grab-bag of negative images designed to cast a shade on a perfectly harmless and healthy sport of cycling.


----------



## chickenlegs (Feb 2, 2004)

gossejp said:


> Think of it as a bullseye target, at the outer edge land exists with mostly unfettered access(all private land)...


Yeah, just look at all that sweet trail criss-crossing the private land in this country!

?


----------



## gossejp (Oct 14, 2005)

davidarnott said:


> I invite you to move to Iowa


Iowa has no designated Wilderness and very little Federal land, the homesteaders got there first due to the rich soil and great farming. Imagine if the rest of the U.S. was like Iowa where most of the land was under private ownership and just a hair over 1% of the land is public. My argument is that there is much public land to build trails on other than Wilderness land, and perhaps resources should be placed there for the time being.



chickenlegs said:


> Yeah, just look at all that sweet trail criss-crossing the private land in this country!


My point wasn't about singletrack in this area, but access to this area. A better comparision would be that there is alot of singletrack crisscrossing the next step into the target which are lands restricted to development managed by counties, states, and the Federal government.

Those opposed to Wilderness designations are missing the point of what I think is at the heart of what pro Wilderness people are advocating for. We are glad to see the designation of wilderness even when there is a loss to our beloved sport of mountain biking because that means that this area is off limits to logging and mining, and if it means that we can't ride our bikes there that's fine. I must admit I am from Wisconsin and we have an abundance of state and county land to bike on which makes me somewhat of an outsider to this issue, but I think there is a need to preserve some land. We should not be hateful of Wilderness designations, but plead for access to them. If acces is not granted then so be it, but people must realize that our representatives will not act on anything that they are not pushed to do.

If you really want Access to Wilderness land petition congress and the senate, if they get enough people asking for revisiting rules set up in the Wilderness act and are interested in revisiting the rules I am sure some of the larger organizations will gladly step in to help negotiate these rules. So if this really matters to you write a letter, don't just email, the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands and their members.

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands
1333 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
(202) 226-7736 Fax: (202) 226-2301

LIST OF MEMBERS


----------



## dave54 (Jul 1, 2003)

chuck80442 said:


> ...And referring to animals and habitat is not a red herring, as that what wilderness boils down to. The survival of species of animal is way more important that allowing somebody to hike, ride a horse, or ride a bike. We can do those things almost anywhere, but wildlife is very limited when it comes to where they can survive and thrive, especially when areas outside of protected wilderness are often trashed our full of houses, condos, ski areas, strip mines or whatever.


Wilderness designation does not increase habitat, increase populations, or diversity. In fact, just the opposite. Numerous studies have conclusively demonstrated wildlife populations and diversity decrease when wilderness designation increases above 30% of a land base. Actively managed forests support more wildlife than unmanaged. This is an established scientific fact known worldwide, in every country with large forests. The wilderness debate is not only in the U.S. Every country that has analyzed their forest management policies has concluded that above a certain threshhold wilderness designation harms the overall forest environment (New Zealand, Chile, Russia, China, Germany, France, and Canada, among others).

obama campaigned on the promise of managing our natural resources according to the best science. Here's a news flash for you -- science does not support wilderness designation. Excessive amounts of wilderness is contrary to good science-based use of forests. The Ecological Society of America (the professional organization of ecologists), the Wildlife Society (wildlife biologists), the National Association of State Wildlife Agencies, the Society of American Foresters (OK, you expect them to support harvesting), and the UN Commission on Forests and Forestry all support active management over blanket 'protection'.

Even the California chapter of the Sierra Club has stated California needs an active and viable forest products industry. The Sierra Club nationally has softened its rhetoric against logging on National Forests. In 2002, the Society of American Foresters (SAF) offered an olive branch, offering space in the Journal of Forestry to defend the stance against National Forest harvesting, in exchange the SAF was to be given equal space in the Sierra Club magazine to present the case for continued management. The Sierra Club did not even respond to the offer. One can only imagine the quivering fear and the pools of sweat from the Sierra Club board at the prospect of a fair and balanced debate on the topic. If you want to go back even farther, al gore's presidential campaign in 2000 issued a position statement supporting continued harvesting of National Forest lands.

This does not mean I am anti-wilderness. I support wilderness designation where appropriate, and in the context of the proper mix of management of forest lands. The over-designation is not wise, and certainly not for the sole reason of excluding mountain bikers as we have seen in California.


----------



## rideandshoot (Dec 18, 2006)

People... 

I followed this for a while and decided to check in tonight. Seems we are a bit off topic. It's probably useless but I'll say again....

If the decision to keep bikes out of Designated Wilderness was made by a Judge or Court it can be changed. 

If I could be sure that donating to a group would result in a law suit to challenge that rulling I'd throw some $$ at it for sure. And yes it bugs me that IMBA won't go there.


----------



## gossejp (Oct 14, 2005)

I don't think an organization is the answer. I think that if the subcommitte on public lands is petitioned by enough people doors would open for existing organizations who now consider the topic dead. If just 10% of the MTBR community would do this that would be 20,000 letters lying at the subcommitte doorstep and they would not be able to ignore this. Representatives are only going to act on what is demanded of them.


----------



## M_S (Nov 18, 2007)

dave54 said:


> Wilderness designation does not increase habitat, increase populations, or diversity. In fact, just the opposite. _ Numerous studies have conclusively demonstrated wildlife populations and diversity decrease when wilderness designation increases above 30% of a land base._ Actively managed forests support more wildlife than unmanaged. This is an established scientific fact known worldwide, in every country with large forests. The wilderness debate is not only in the U.S. Every country that has analyzed their forest management policies has concluded that above a certain threshhold wilderness designation harms the overall forest environment (New Zealand, Chile, Russia, China, Germany, France, and Canada, among others).


I'd love to see a link to those numerous studies. I know a couple of ecologists and at least one wildlife biologist who would find them fascinating.

Though the distinction between managed and unmanaged land is dubious at best. i'll grant you that in the US, there is often lower relative biodiversity in Wilderness areas than general forest land. It doesn't have anything to do with management, rather that Wilderness areas are generally in cold or high elevation areas which have low biodiversity compared to warmer lowlands (gross simplification but you get the point).



> obama campaigned on the promise of managing our natural resources according to the best science. Here's a news flash for you -- science does not support wilderness designation. Excessive amounts of wilderness is contrary to good science-based use of forests. The Ecological Society of America (the professional organization of ecologists), the Wildlife Society (wildlife biologists), the National Association of State Wildlife Agencies, the Society of American Foresters (OK, you expect them to support harvesting), and the UN Commission on Forests and Forestry all support active management over blanket 'protection'.


Science does not provide value assessments. Management is based on many things other than "best science." Science is often valuable in determining what methods will help us attain our goals, but it does not write forest plans all by itself.


> Even the California chapter of the Sierra Club has stated California needs an active and viable forest products industry. The Sierra Club nationally has softened its rhetoric against logging on National Forests. In 2002, the Society of American Foresters (SAF) offered an olive branch, offering space in the Journal of Forestry to defend the stance against National Forest harvesting, in exchange the SAF was to be given equal space in the Sierra Club magazine to present the case for continued management. The Sierra Club did not even respond to the offer. One can only imagine the quivering fear and the pools of sweat from the Sierra Club board at the prospect of a fair and balanced debate on the topic. If you want to go back even farther, al gore's presidential campaign in 2000 issued a position statement supporting continued harvesting of National Forest lands


.
Support of some logging doesn't mean the logging of all areas. I'll bet you a hundred bucks that none of these groups or individuals support logging everywhere. 


> This does not mean I am anti-wilderness. I support wilderness designation where appropriate, and in the context of the proper mix of management of forest lands. The over-designation is not wise, and certainly not for the sole reason of excluding mountain bikers as we have seen in California.


Great, so we agree. :thumbsup: . But my own personal misgivings about the culture of Wilderness aside, I absolutely believe it is a good legal tool. Might I remind folks that the Act technically can be modified, if the political will is there.

I'll maintain, though, that mountain bike should not be the priority issue for most folks. While it sucks to feel excluded from some areas we feel we should be able to practice our preferred form of recreation, that does not make us victims.



rideandshoot said:


> People...
> 
> I followed this for a while and decided to check in tonight. Seems we are a bit off topic. It's probably useless but I'll say again....
> 
> ...


I think the change needs to come from Congress (unlikely) or within the Forest Service. The legal precedent simply isn't there for judges to make this decision. I'm not a lawyer, but I do know a few, and my understanding is that Administrative Discretion is a pretty well defined piece of legal doctrine. Meaning that as long as an agency is acting within the guiding statutes set out by Congress, its up to them to decide the details.


----------



## chuck80442 (Oct 4, 2009)

Blurr, after rereading your initial post on this thread, I realize you are incapable of seeing beyond your own point of view, which makes any rational discussion about this impossible. Like a child, you simply cannot see anything but black and white. Logging always good, wilderness always bad. Government always bad, Blurr always right. Humans always good for environment, environmentalists always stupid. Gray areas, nuance, seem out of your league.

But know this: your extremist views about wilderness aren't going to win you any allies when it comes to allowing bikes into wilderness areas.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

chuck80442 said:


> Gray areas, nuance, seem out of your league.


Not sure about Blurr, he does indeed seem more then a tidy bit out there, but if you are referrering to "nuance" in your posts, I would rather use the word "insinuation". 

Seriously. You have used image of logging trucks and mountain bikes in the same sentence. Nuance, my buttocks. 

Mountain bikes running over elks, leaving tract homes and polluted rivers in their wake..


----------



## davidarnott (Feb 28, 2007)

*No Problem*

BobLem. Sattelite data indicates that lawns are the largest crop in the USA. Three times larger than the corn crop. We have a cornucopia of available private lands for riding! Millions upon millions of square miles of it. Think of the jump parks we could build? Single track like a van full of spaggettii. I do like to poach the occaissionall front yard and I find that if I just act like I am lost. And keep on riding. I don't usually end up in jail.

We Could Get Away With It!! We could ALL be lawn riders. And set a great example to our fair nation. As to the green, responsible, healthy, happy, fun way to live. I DON'T recommend riding over the top of vegtables, strawberry patches, or flowers. Let's show a little restraint shall we?

I hope this helps.


----------



## chuck80442 (Oct 4, 2009)

In no way am I equating the impact of me on a bike with a logging truck. I was just listing the myriad threats to so many natural places and folks on bikes can be the icing on the cake, at least in fragile or already overused places with big populations nearby. A permit system could alleviate the overcrowded part of that equation. 

I backpacked for many years before getting into mtbiking, so I came into this debate with a bias. My worry is that by tweaking the wilderness act to allow bikes, it allows folks who despise protected areas (like Blurr) to use that opening to push other things through. That is where environmentalists are coming from I think when they fear bicycles...it's not the bikes so much as the potential loophole that could be exploited...a bad precedent maybe?

I think the best approach is to work with future wilderness designation to ensure that existing bicycle trails remain open. There is precedent for this kind of thing for other uses.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

chuck80442 said:


> In no way am I equating the impact of me on a bike with a logging truck.


I did not use the word "equating". I used "insinuating". Pardon me if I was not clear - English is not my native language.



chuck80442 said:


> My worry is that by tweaking the wilderness act to allow bikes, it allows folks who despise protected areas (like Blurr) to use that opening to push other things through


Now you are adding "slippery slope" to the "red herring".



chuck80442 said:


> I think the best approach is to work with future wilderness designation to ensure that existing bicycle trails remain open.


Why not building new, better trails designed with cycling in mind instead? Why is the limit of "existing" trails? Why not in an existing wilderness?

The answer to all those question - no good reason whatsoever.


----------



## rideandshoot (Dec 18, 2006)

gossejp said:


> I don't think an organization is the answer. I think that if the subcommitte on public lands is petitioned by enough people doors would open for existing organizations who now consider the topic dead. If just 10% of the MTBR community would do this that would be 20,000 letters lying at the subcommitte doorstep and they would not be able to ignore this. Representatives are only going to act on what is demanded of them.


I'm not a Lawyer but I don't think it takes a group to sue. I think one person could bring a law suit to challenge the ruling to disallow mountain biking. The 'group' is just about generating the funds to pay the lawyers. It would probably be a long process involving numerous appeals but it would be worth it if the ruling was changed.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

chuck80442 said:


> Blurr, after rereading your initial post on this thread, I realize you are incapable of seeing beyond your own point of view, which makes any rational discussion about this impossible. Like a child, you simply cannot see anything but black and white. Logging always good, wilderness always bad. Government always bad, Blurr always right. Humans always good for environment, environmentalists always stupid. Gray areas, nuance, seem out of your league.


 What part are you having trouble understanding? That we need to be able to use the land? That Humans actually do manage it almost completely now? That you actually use Wood which comes from ohhh get this, tree's? which grow back after they are cut? lol and what will happen after more and more land is designated wilderness area and you have no place to get lumber anymore? You will go back to wiping your butt with your hand? lol



> But know this: your extremist views about wilderness aren't going to win you any allies when it comes to allowing bikes into wilderness areas.


 Nothing extremist about it, its called LOGIC, try it sometime.
Oh yea, I dont give a crap about MTN bikes or other select groups being allowed it is again PUBLIC LAND and there should be access to everyone.

have a nice day


----------



## gossejp (Oct 14, 2005)

Blurr said:


> What part are you having trouble understanding? That we need to be able to use the land? That Humans actually do manage it almost completely now? That you actually use Wood which comes from ohhh get this, tree's? which grow back after they are cut? lol and what will happen after more and more land is designated wilderness area and you have no place to get lumber anymore? You will go back to wiping your butt with your hand? lol
> 
> Nothing extremist about it, its called LOGIC, try it sometime.
> Oh yea, I dont give a crap about MTN bikes or other select groups being allowed it is again PUBLIC LAND and there should be access to everyone.
> ...


LOGIC? Your posts lack any sort of this. Your latest one follows that Wilderness contains trees, people use trees therefore we should extract trees from the Wilderness. This is simply a logical fallicy known as fallacy of necessity. If you want to use logic you should know what it is first.


----------



## m3rb (Mar 6, 2007)

You know you've won an argument when your opponent is grasping at straws with "slippery slope", "foot in the door", "camel's nose in the tent" sorts of "logic".

If, in the future, there is pressure for mining, or wind farms, or highways, or resorts, on Wilderness, keeping mountain bikes out now does absolutely nothing to reduce that pressure.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

gossejp said:


> LOGIC? Your posts lack any sort of this. Your latest one follows that Wilderness contains trees, people use trees therefore we should extract trees from the Wilderness. *This is simply a logical fallicy known as fallacy of necessity.* If you want to use logic you should know what it is first.


 :thumbsup:


----------



## chuck80442 (Oct 4, 2009)

Blurr, he was talking about your post. And he was right. Your "fallacy of necessity" argument is overly simplistic, just like most of your other arguments.


----------



## Shelbak73 (Nov 10, 2007)

chuck80442 said:


> Blurr, after rereading your initial post on this thread, I realize you are incapable of seeing beyond your own point of view, which makes any rational discussion about this impossible. Like a child, you simply cannot see anything but black and white. Logging always good, wilderness always bad. Government always bad, Blurr always right. Humans always good for environment, environmentalists always stupid. Gray areas, nuance, seem out of your league.
> 
> But know this: your extremist views about wilderness aren't going to win you any allies when it comes to allowing bikes into wilderness areas.


Thank You!


----------



## Shelbak73 (Nov 10, 2007)

gossejp said:


> LOGIC? Your posts lack any sort of this. Your latest one follows that Wilderness contains trees, people use trees therefore we should extract trees from the Wilderness. This is simply a logical fallicy known as fallacy of necessity. If you want to use logic you should know what it is first.


ThankYou!


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

chuck80442 said:


> Blurr, he was talking about your post. And he was right. Your "fallacy of necessity" argument is overly simplistic, just like most of your other arguments.


lol ohh? so everything just magically appears around you?

but hey man, if you do not NEED the earth to survive then by all means take up the James Randy Challenge take that million dollar prize will ya?

Ya'll are a very very dim bunch to say the least.


----------



## 11 Bravo (Mar 12, 2004)

gossejp said:


> I don't think an organization is the answer. I think that if the subcommitte on public lands is petitioned by enough people doors would open for existing organizations who now consider the topic dead. If just 10% of the MTBR community would do this that would be 20,000 letters lying at the subcommitte doorstep and they would not be able to ignore this. Representatives are only going to act on what is demanded of them.


If you really believe that you need to put down the crack pipe and step away from the keyboard.

Indeed. Congress will act in accord with the will of the people.

Just like they did on the stimulus package (sic) and the new health care reform act. And like they are preparing to do with border security, cap and trade laws and tax increases.

I really wish that what you are saying was true. I have written hundreds of letters over the years to congress members, leaders of special interest groups and even wrote a letter to President Bush once. I have talked face to face with my Senators and my former Representative ( I haven't met Cynthia Lummis yet, but I will and I will talk to her about this). Sadly, I don't think it has much effect. If you are not connected or a big money donor I don't think your opinion amounts to much.

The first step is for the people in this country to flush congress like the giant toilet that it has become. Maybe we can end up with a handful of people up there who can actually think and who give a damn about doing what is right for the country instead of the narcissistic morons we have now who spend most of their time lining their own pockets and stroking their own egos.


----------

