# Mountain Bikers Seek to Gut Wilderness Act



## tungsten (Apr 7, 2006)

*"* By Kevin Proescholdt On May 12, 2017

Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) recently introduced a bill in Congress at the behest of a group of mountain biking proponents that would eviscerate the 1964 Wilderness Act and allow bicycles in every Wilderness in the nation.

The bill, HR 1349, was introduced on March 15th on behalf of the mountain biker organization, the Sustainable Trails Coalition (STC). This bill would amend the Wilderness Act to allow bikes, strollers, wheelbarrows, game carts, survey wheels, and measuring wheels in every unit of the National Wilderness Preservation System. In an especially cynical and disingenuous move, the mountain bikers seem to hide behind people with disabilities in their effort to make America's wildest places merely a playground for cycling: the mountain bikers list "motorized wheelchairs" and "non-motorized wheelchairs" as the first uses to be authorized in Wilderness under their bill (even prior to the listing of "bicycles"), though the 1990 amendments to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) have clearly allowed wheelchairs in designated Wilderness for more than a quarter-century.

The STC had a bill introduced last year in the U.S. Senate by the two Utah Senators, Mike Lee and Orrin Hatch, whose lifetime conservation voting records as compiled by the nonpartisan League of Conservation Voters are just a paltry 9% and 10% respectively. That bill would have opened the Wilderness System to mountain bikes, and also to chainsaws. Fortunately, last year's bill went nowhere. Unfortunately, the new bill could very well advance in the current anti-wilderness Congress, allied with the new Administration that seems hostile to environmental protection. Rep. McClintock, a member of the House Natural Resources Committee, also chairs that panel's Subcommittee on Federal Lands. This means he is in a significant position of leadership, and could mean that this year's mountain bike bill might well advance in Congress. McClintock's lifetime conservation voting record is even worse than those of the Utah Senators, at a barely-registering 4%.

Last year, anticipating the 2016 Senate bill to open Wilderness to mountain bikes, Wilderness Watch spearheaded a sign-on letter to Congress in opposition to opening up the National Wilderness Preservation System to bikes. It resulted in a total of 114 wilderness-supporting organizations from around the nation signing on, clearly showing that the conservation community is united in its opposition to the mountain bikers' efforts.

The 1964 Wilderness Act prohibits bicycles in the National Wilderness Preservation System. The law (36 U.S.C. 1131-1136) bans all types of bicycles as well as all other forms of mechanical transportation in designated Wilderness. Section 4(c) of that act states, "[T]here shall be&#8230;no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any such area."

Furthermore, Congress stated the purpose of the Wilderness Act was, in part, to protect these areas from "expanding settlement and growing mechanization&#8230;." (emphasis added) (Wilderness Act, Section 2[a].)

In a deft use of falsehoods and "fake news," the mountain bikers have claimed that the Wilderness Act actually allows bikes in Wilderness. They claim that the U.S. Forest Service put the ban in place in 1984 when the agency explicitly named bicycles as one of the prohibited forms of mechanical transport in Wilderness (the agency's earlier wilderness regulations, written in 1965, did not specifically name bikes as a prohibited use since mountain bikes had not yet been invented). These false claims (among many others by the STC) ignore the clear language of the Wilderness Act and the regulations of the other three federal agencies that have from the beginning clearly banned bikes from the Wildernesses they administer. For more information, see "5 Lies Being Used to Get Mountain Bikes into Wilderness"*.

The STC arguments also evince an incredibly narrow and selfish view of Wilderness as just a recreation "pie" to be divided up among competing recreation user groups, with seemingly no regard for wildness, wildlife habitat, solitude, or future generations' desires for truly wild Wilderness.

For over a half century, the Wilderness Act has protected these areas designated by Congress from mechanization and mechanical transport, even if no motors were involved with such activities. This has meant, as Congress intended, that Wildernesses have been kept free from bicycles and other types of machines. Wilderness advocates believe that this protection has served our Nation well, and that the "benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness" (as the Wilderness Act eloquently declares) would be forever lost by allowing mechanized transport in these areas.

WHAT YOU CAN DO: Contact your U.S. Senators and Representative and urge them to oppose HR 1349 and similar bills that would weaken the Wilderness Act: bit.ly/2pzxqHa *"*...

Mountain Bikers Seek to Gut Wilderness Act

Kevin Proescholdt is the conservation director for Wilderness Watch, a national wilderness conservation organization, www.wildernesswatch.org.

5 Lies Being Used to Get Mountain Bikes in Wilderness


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Very good, about time. Bravo. I already contacted my representatives in support of this important move forward in equal access for ALL Americans.


----------



## tungsten (Apr 7, 2006)

> In creating wilderness, our grasping country showed its most restraint. "Here, man doesn't rule," we said to one another. "Here, nature rules."
> 
> Wilderness is not a recreation designation.
> 
> ...


...


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

The Wilderness Act did not exclude bicycles as originally written and passed into law, that occurred later. Sorry to poke holes in your fairy tale. Is that you M.V.?


----------



## H0WL (Jan 17, 2007)

> Wilderness is not supposed to be easy. In wilderness, we abandon even the wheel, and we set out on foot. We come to wilderness to meet the earth as it is, as it was, as it yet might be-if we can hold the line.


SRSLY? This is the type of hyperbole that could lead to banning clothes, boots and backpacks in wilderness areas.


----------



## Jammor (May 30, 2014)

Wilderness here we come!! About time we get OUR land back. Keep up good work Mike Lee and Tom McClintock, lets all support them and open more trails to bikes.


----------



## BumpityBump (Mar 9, 2008)

I completely disagree with blanket access to Wilderness Areas by bikes. I already access Wilderness a lot, on foot. If you want to access Wilderness, shoulder a pack. Mountain bikers seem to be becoming as self righteous as the motor crowd, sad. (cue horse argument, yawn)


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

My desire to protect those lands from development exceed my desire to shred on my bike. If undone, removal of the Wilderness Act won't be about riding bikes as much as it'll be about mining, selling, and development


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

STC just issued a press release to address the fear mongering this dude from Wilderness Watch (Proescholdt) spins, as well as the phony baloney the Backcountry Horsemen of America recently pushed out to scare horse people:

WILDERNESS BICYCLE BILLS UNITE BACKCOUNTRY MOUNTAIN BIKERS AND SENSIBLE CONSERVATIONISTS -- Sustainable Trails Coalition

The Sustainable Trails Coalition is working to promote H.R. 1349, a U.S. House of Representatives bill introduced by Federal Lands Subcommittee Chairman Tom McClintock (R-Calif.). Detailed information regarding H.R 1349 can be found here.

STC is also working with Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) on the planned reintroduction of his 2016 U.S. Senate bill, S.3205. Additional information on S.3205 can be found here.

The legislation's purpose is to restore federal land managers' authority to regulate bicycle use on Wilderness trails, as they did during the first two decades of the Act, before a blanket ban was imposed by the U.S. Forest Service.

Thus, the legislation places backcountry cyclists on equal footing with campers, hikers, hunters and equestrians.

Groups that demand zero mountain biking in Wilderness, Wilderness Study Areas, and Recom*mended Wilderness, and work to expand these areas and shrink mountain biking on federal lands, are making false or misleading statements to lawmakers and the public about the bills. STC hereby presents the facts.

FALSE CLAIM: The legislation will open all Wilderness trails to mountain biking.

FACT: The legislation only reverses federal agencies' blanket bicycle bans, which rest upon a misunderstanding of the Wilderness Act of 1964. When the blanket bans are gone, agency regulations will take over, at which point land managers may enable full regulation and control of mountain biking . . . up to and including existing limitations and bans.

For example, a Forest Service regulation, unaffected by the legislation, provides that authorized Forest Service employees may "restrict the use of any National Forest System road or trail." The other Wilderness-administering agencies-the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Manage*ment, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-have similar regulations that would remain in effect.

FALSE CLAIM: Mountain bikers are divided on bicycle access in Wilderness.

FACT: All available evidence is contrary. A survey of cyclists on Singletracks.com indicated that 96% of mountain bikers support this effort. An International Mountain Bicycling Association survey conducted in 2016 showed that in California, where Wildernesses abound, about half of IMBA members feel regaining some Wilderness access is "very or extremely important." Only a handful of mountain bikers, whether or not IMBA members, are actively opposing bicycling in Wilderness.

FALSE CLAIM: The legislation is dividing the conservation community.

FACT: This is patently false. Rather, the legislation is exposing and isolating a combination of moneyed interests and Wilderness purists who have adopted Wilderness as a revenue source or a temperance movement respectively. These selfish users of public space believe that whatever they do in Wilderness (multi-day camping, habitual off-trail use, nocturnal disturbance of animals, significant trail damage, trampling of meadows, etc.) is compatible with Wilderness values but mountain biking isn't. These groups are incapable of assessing their own habits in Wilderness areas, most of which have far greater impact than mountain biking. For-profit commercial pack trains in particular continue to damage iconic Wilderness areas. There is no divide among reasonable conservationists.

FALSE CLAIM: The legislation would materially amend the Wilderness Act of 1964.

FACT: The legislation would not accomplish this. Rather, it aims to restore the Act to its original meaning.

STC is a steadfast backer of the Wilderness Act of 1964. For example, STC opposes allowing power-assisted bicycles (e-bikes) in Wilderness, because the Act prohibits "motor vehicles" and "motorized equipment," which e-bikes constitute. (To clarify, STC knows of no effort to introduce these devices into Wilderness.) By contrast, Congress meant for rugged, self-reliant travel to define the Wilderness experience, and human-powered mountain biking fits right in.

FALSE CLAIM: The legislation is a "Trojan Horse" making Wilderness vulnerable to development and eventual sale to private interests.

FACT: Nothing could be further from the truth. Backcountry cyclists seek the same experience as backcountry hikers and horseback riders and the legislation only grants us a possibility of that experience. Those engaging in this Chicken Little-style fear-mongering offer no evidence in support of their doomsaying.

STC urges journalists and lawmakers to challenge organizations and people who promote these false claims on Capitol Hill, in the media, and elsewhere.


----------



## BumpityBump (Mar 9, 2008)

Nat said:


> My desire to protect those lands from development exceed my desire to shred on my bike. If undone, removal of the Wilderness Act won't be about riding bikes as much as it'll be about mining, selling, and development


Sadly, many would be all for the posted activities. Mtbers pushing for access only exacerbates and confuses the situation making other activities all that much more acceptable to the masses. I don't know how many professional ecologists/biologists post on these forums, but I'm one and get a little nauseated listening to the typical crowd. Every field ecologist I know is opposed to MTBs in Wilderness and most of them mountain bike. Not saying they aren't out there, but certainly not a sentiment supported by my professional colleagues. We should be thinking many many many generations ahead instead of within our ridiculous social media vomit timeline.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

BumpityBump said:


> Every field ecologist I know is opposed to MTBs in Wilderness. Not saying they aren't out there, but certainly not a sentiment supported by my professional colleagues.


Why? Based on what? What is their collective stance on horses and mules in Wilderness? What is their collective stance on overnight camping in Wilderness? What is their collective stance on hunting in Wilderness?


----------



## BumpityBump (Mar 9, 2008)

Quite a few utilize horses for hauling research equipment miles into the backcountry. Probably half think that should be a selective special use. Most don't think camping is an issue if low impact. Those that hunt put meat in the freezer every year without accessing wilderness or ATVs. 

The main concern is opening new impacts.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

My guess is that most cyclists in the Wilderness would be through travelers and that by the increased efficiency in which they would do it would have less impact on the resource than through hikers as they would spend less time there and set up fewer camps. The elitism of the HOHA's doesn't fly anymore, and I for one am looking forward to this wall of exclusivity being dismantled. Human propelled includes bicycles.


----------



## BumpityBump (Mar 9, 2008)

tiretracks said:


> My guess is that most cyclists in the Wilderness would be through travelers and that by the increased efficiency in which they would do it would have less impact on the resource than through hikers as they would spend less time there and set up fewer camps. The elitism of the HOHA's doesn't fly anymore, and I for one am looking forward to this wall of exclusivity being dismantled. Human propelled includes bicycles.


And those hucking off rocks? Mountain bikers have attracted a major asshole crowd since I started 30 years ago. I get more annoyed by bikers than any other faction except poorly behaved dogs on my local trails. My dog listens to voice commands and stops on a dime, it isn't that hard but people are lazy regarding training. The last thing I want in Wilderness is this new generation of self absorbed disrespectful aholes.

I find it funny (sad really) that you fight ebikes on your current trails but think you should open access over protests of hikers. Where do you draw the line?? Don't you realize that sentiment will be used against you?


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

But... but... but... there are plenty of other places to conduct scientific research. There are plenty of other places to camp. There are plenty of other places to hunt and plenty of grocery stores to buy meat from. ;-)


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

BumpityBump said:


> And those hucking off rocks? Mountain bikers have attracted a major asshole crowd since I started 30 years ago. I get more annoyed by bikers than any other faction except poorly behaved dogs on my local trails. My dog listens to voice commands and stops on a dime, it isn't that hard but people are lazy regarding training. The last thing I want in Wilderness is this new generation of self absorbed disrespectful aholes.
> 
> I find it funny (sad really) that you fight ebikes on your current trails but think you should open access over protests of hikers. Where do you draw the line?? Don't you realize that sentiment will be used against you?


The motor is the red line. I would add that one single string of pack horses creates more impact than any mtbers that I have ever encountered.


----------



## BumpityBump (Mar 9, 2008)

Empty_Beer said:


> But... but... but... there are plenty of other places to conduct scientific research. There are plenty of other places to camp. There are plenty of other places to hunt and plenty of grocery stores to buy meat from. ;-)


Not a very well thought out post. Try again and put some argumentative thought into it. Tired of typing on my phone while travelling but will let this thread play out for a while and provide more commentary on a week.


----------



## BumpityBump (Mar 9, 2008)

tiretracks said:


> The motor is the red line. I would add that one single string of pack horses creates more impact than any mtbers that I have ever encountered.


As I said, cue horse argument. I don't disagree. But the status quo is what we have and we are destined to lose that. Opening the floodgates is not a solution. Two wrongs don't make a right.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

BumpityBump said:


> And those hucking off rocks? Mountain bikers have attracted a major asshole crowd since I started 30 years ago. I get more annoyed by bikers than any other faction except poorly behaved dogs on my local trails. My dog listens to voice commands and stops on a dime, it isn't that hard but people are lazy regarding training. The last thing I want in Wilderness is this new generation of self absorbed disrespectful aholes.


Kinda funny to read hiker centric and equestrian centric social media where the old fogey's complain about the new generation of hikers and horsemen/women having no respect. ;-)

Pretty please with sugar on top don't try to compare frontcountry riding on popular/busy trails with backcountry riding far from the trail head... where your average speed in rugged terrain might be 5 or 6mph, and self reliance is the name of the game.

p.s. Backcountry skiers and Wilderness kayakers are known to huck off rocks as well.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

BumpityBump said:


> Not a very well thought out post. Try again and put some argumentative thought into it. Tired of typing on my phone while travelling but will let this thread play out for a while and provide more commentary on a week.


Sorry, Bumpity, but that's the argument people like you use to justify keeping bikes out of 100% of all current and future Wilderness areas 100% of the time. But I admit it does sound pretty dumb when bicycling is replaced with an activity you personally enjoy... because it is dumb to use "plenty of other places" as an argument against access.

p.s. Don't type and drive, or you might not get to see how this story plays out.


----------



## BumpityBump (Mar 9, 2008)

Empty_Beer said:


> Kinda funny to read hiker centric and equestrian centric social media where the old fogey's complain about the new generation of hikers and horsemen/women having no respect. ;-)
> 
> Pretty please with sugar on top don't try to compare frontcountry riding on popular/busy trails with backcountry riding far from the trail head... where your average speed in rugged terrain might be 5 or 6mph, and self reliance is the name of the game.
> 
> p.s. Backcountry skiers and Wilderness kayakers are known to huck off rocks as well.


Have you been around long enough to watch change in behavior on local trails? What about the new push for adventure / heli biking? Think that won't spill over?

As per your prior post, researching wilderness impacts outside of wilderness??? Please explain.

Locally harvested meat impacts vs grocery store??? Please explain


----------



## BumpityBump (Mar 9, 2008)

Empty_Beer said:


> Sorry, Bumpity, but that's the argument people like you use to justify keeping bikes out of 100% of all current and future Wilderness areas 100% of the time. But I admit it does sound pretty dumb when bicycling is replaced with an activity you personally enjoy... because it is dumb to use "plenty of other places" as an argument against access.
> 
> p.s. Don't type and drive, or you might not get to see how this story plays out.


Not driving but hate typing on phone. Back in a week.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

tiretracks said:


> The motor is the red line. I would add that one single string of pack horses creates more impact than any mtbers that I have ever encountered.


Reading the "Ebike rant" thread it becomes quickly apparent that having a motor does NOT draw a line for everybody. _Somebody _(maybe even someone on this forum) will justify a reason he should be allowed to take his ebike into wilderness areas. If we thought that ebikes don't belong on our local after-work trails, then they'd be a hundred times worse zipping around on the PCT and similar trails. Picture trying to leap out of the way when you have a 60# backpack on.

I agree about the horses. If equestrians would at least pick up their own horseshit I'd be halfway okay with twisting my ankle walking through their dried out postholes.

I find it hard to believe that the people in power in this country care one rat's ass about mountain biking. Any decision they make will more likely be based on whether or not they and their friends can make money or get more power.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

BumpityBump said:


> Sadly, many would be all for the posted activities. Mtbers pushing for access only exacerbates and confuses the situation making other activities all that much more acceptable to the masses. I don't know how many professional ecologists/biologists post on these forums, but I'm one and get a little nauseated listening to the typical crowd. Every field ecologist I know is opposed to MTBs in Wilderness and most of them mountain bike. Not saying they aren't out there, but certainly not a sentiment supported by my professional colleagues. We should be thinking many many many generations ahead instead of within our ridiculous social media vomit timeline.





BumpityBump said:


> Quite a few utilize horses for hauling research equipment miles into the backcountry. Probably half think that should be a selective special use. Most don't think camping is an issue if low impact. Those that hunt put meat in the freezer every year without accessing wilderness or ATVs.
> 
> The main concern is opening new impacts.


What do these colleagues of yours think about efforts to shut down more mtb trails by designating the areas they pass through as Wilderness? Parts of the country are worse for this, but this is the major crux of the problem. A lot of people who are anti-mtb support new Wilderness designations on the sole criteria that they kick mtb riders out. I have spoken to people who espouse this position. I know they exist. They are very vocal people. On the surface, Wilderness designation is great because it usually results in less human impact. But that isn't how it gets played out all the time. Sometimes, it increases the visibility of a site, which results in INCREASED visitation. It often makes it more difficult or more expensive for land managers to address things like insect infestations, invasive plants, etc.

I know some Wilderness areas that were designated only a couple decades after they were last farmed and houses were torn down. I'm all for restoration of native habitats, but that process seems a bit wonky to me. It seems an alternative designation would be more appropriate, which would allow land managers to work more easily in their restoration efforts. Some Wilderness areas are overused already and need tighter quotas placed on visitation, which I'm not seeing a whole lot of energy expended towards.

Obviously some places don't need the extra visitation that bikes bring. Some places aren't really appropriate places for bikes (swamps and other wetlands, for example). I know plenty of non-Wilderness areas where bikes and other trail users manage to coexist with some fairly strict endangered species protections (protected buffers around red-cockaded woodpecker nests, for example). But what's wrong with bikes in a "Wilderness" area that's marginally wilderness anyway, where old road corridors are STILL open and graveled? I would personally support MORE potential Wilderness if a designation didn't automatically kick mtb's off of a lightly traveled backcountry trail that riders have enjoyed for decades without destroying the place.

There's more and more research showing that mtb's don't really impact anything any more than hikers do. Whether it's erosion, or impacts to wildlife, or whatever. The trail itself, and any human presence on it is really what matters.

What's really going on here is that there is a quasi-religious thing going on with how certain people relate to Wilderness. It's the whole "untrammeled by man" thing, which frankly doesn't exist anymore, and hasn't for a long time. If you want "untrammeled by man" then quit deluding yourself that bikes are inappropriate but hikers and horses are perfectly fine. Kick EVERYBODY out and be done with it. But that's not what this is about.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

Mt. biker since 1989. There are certainly more people mt. biking now... and the bikes are a lot fancier, but people are still people... mostly good people, but always some bad apples.

Heli isn't allowed in Wilderness. Next question.

The flora, fauna and H2o don't know if they are in Wilderness, a roadless area or Wildlife Preserve. What makes research different in Wilderness than in non-motorized roadless areas which aren't Wilderness? 

You're not getting the joke about "plenty of other places". Some people want to source their dinner in Wilderness. Others want to source their bicycling adventure in Wilderness. But one of those groups is told "there are plenty of other places to do that".

Bikepacking is in its infancy but gaining in popularity, much like backpacking was in the early 1970's before it exploded. Heaven forbid people on loaded bikes end up being allowed to ride the entire Arizona National Scenic Trail, and through the 7 Wilderness areas it crosses.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Harold said:


> There's more and more research showing that mtb's don't really impact anything any more than hikers do. Whether it's erosion, or impacts to wildlife, or whatever. The trail itself, and any human presence on it is really what matters.


I suspect that the classic arguments about mtb's having a negative impact on wildlife, soils, etc. were really a cover story for people to justify their disdain for other people, and easy targets are those who are different from oneself.


----------



## BumpityBump (Mar 9, 2008)

Harold said:


> What do these colleagues of yours think about efforts to shut down more mtb trails by designating the areas they pass through as Wilderness? Parts of the country are worse for this, but this is the major crux of the problem. A lot of people who are anti-mtb support new Wilderness designations on the sole criteria that they kick mtb riders out. I have spoken to people who espouse this position. I know they exist. They are very vocal people. On the surface, Wilderness designation is great because it usually results in less human impact. But that isn't how it gets played out all the time. Sometimes, it increases the visibility of a site, which results in INCREASED visitation. It often makes it more difficult or more expensive for land managers to address things like insect infestations, invasive plants, etc.
> 
> I know some Wilderness areas that were designated only a couple decades after they were last farmed and houses were torn down. I'm all for restoration of native habitats, but that process seems a bit wonky to me. It seems an alternative designation would be more appropriate, which would allow land managers to work more easily in their restoration efforts. Some Wilderness areas are overused already and need tighter quotas placed on visitation, which I'm not seeing a whole lot of energy expended towards.
> 
> ...


Aaagghhh hate typing on phone. However, Harold, you always put a lot of well thought out commentary into your posts so wanted to respond re: newly proposed wilderness. I can't speak for others, but that certainly is not part of my agenda. That being said, more habitat connectivity is better and in an ideal world more wildermess/habitat is better from an ecological perspective, so yea, kick everyone out and be done with it if it's really important habitat/ecosystem. But the way it stands, then begins the ongoing argument of what uses cause more disruption to ecological balance and why designate new wilderness yet allow horses/hikers but no bikes. I don't disagree with an alternative designation but I don't know what that would entail, legislatively complex no doubt.

Also, for clarity and disclosure, I do not work on Wilderness management issues (I do have friends that do). I work on remediation of industrially contaminated impacts to soils, vapor, and groundwater. I also have an extensive background in wetland science.

Ok, no more phone typing!!


----------



## BumpityBump (Mar 9, 2008)

Empty_Beer said:


> Heli isn't allowed in Wilderness. Next question.
> 
> The flora, fauna and H2o don't know if they are in Wilderness, a roadless area or Wildlife Preserve. What makes research different in Wilderness than in non-motorized roadless areas which aren't Wilderness?


Heli is allowed adjacent to Wilderness.

You always want to conduct research in the area related to hypotheses. Surrogates are a much less desirable choice. Wilderness allows a more reliable approach for ruling out unknown impacts.


----------



## BumpityBump (Mar 9, 2008)

Nat said:


> I suspect that the classic arguments about mtb's having a negative impact on wildlife, soils, etc. were really a cover story for people to justify their disdain for other people, and easy targets are those who are different from oneself.


Don't disagree. More of an "opening up the floodgates" issue for me. The push for adventure biking is of major concern.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

BumpityBump said:


> re: newly proposed wilderness. I can't speak for others, but that certainly is not part of my agenda.


unfortunately, because it IS part of others' agendas (hell, it may well be some people's SOLE agenda), you gotta be careful what side of this you put your weight behind. I do not want to get behind blanket bans. I want the professionals with local knowledge to make the final call, not some politicians thousands of miles away and decades ago.



> That being said, more habitat connectivity is better and in an ideal world more wildermess/habitat is better from an ecological perspective, so yea, kick everyone out and be done with it if it's really important habitat/ecosystem.


If this was really about ecology, then we'd go there and everybody would be pissed off. But like I said, this issue isn't about ecology or science.



> But the way it stands, then begins the ongoing argument of what uses cause more disruption to ecological balance and why designate new wilderness yet allow horses/hikers but no bikes.


Bingo. The research is showing that the differences in degree of ecological impact are negligible (though somewhat different in type) between hikers and mtb's and that horses have more impact than either (for those of you with doubts about these claims, visit scholar.google.com and read some peer-reviewed research on the subject). So yeah, it's not about ecological impact and it never was. I agree that claims of ecological impact are really masking something else.



> I don't disagree with an alternative designation but I don't know what that would entail, legislatively complex no doubt.


There are plenty of alternative designations that already exist, some of which could appropriately protect from heavy development but still allow for low-impact recreation. It's not like an appropriate designation would need to be created, though maybe in some cases it might be appropriate. But still, I think where STC stands on this issue is a wise position. It would still enable Wilderness to offer a high level of resource protection, but with a bit more of a common-sense application. It would still allow for prohibitions on bikes, but it would also allow bikes to cross a Wilderness boundary where appropriate. Most importantly, it would eliminate Wilderness designations as a weapon of the anti-mtb crowd.


----------



## BumpityBump (Mar 9, 2008)

Harold said:


> unfortunately, because it IS part of others' agendas (hell, it may well be some people's SOLE agenda), you gotta be careful what side of this you put your weight behind. I do not want to get behind blanket bans. I want the professionals with local knowledge to make the final call, not some politicians thousands of miles away and decades ago.
> 
> If this was really about ecology, then we'd go there and everybody would be pissed off. But like I said, this issue isn't about ecology or science.
> 
> ...


I would rather get behind blanket bans frankly, if it gets too complex. That makes things much simpler. I think most ecologists would support that if it really was good habitat and provided ecosystem connectivity (all the while frowning about horses). I have legs and know how to walk (assuming you are talking traditional bans). I have never felt limited accessing Wilderness, frankly I don't get the belly aching by the biking community. It comes off as whining to me. Throw a pack on, learn something new, jeebus.

Yes, there are alternative designations, but I was thinking more along the lines of new wilderness designations that rule out horses but might allow bikes, with clear restrictions.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

BumpityBump said:


> Sadly, many would be all for the posted activities. Mtbers pushing for access only exacerbates and confuses the situation making other activities all that much more acceptable to the masses. I don't know how many professional ecologists/biologists post on these forums, but I'm one and get a little nauseated listening to the typical crowd. Every field ecologist I know is opposed to MTBs in Wilderness and most of them mountain bike. Not saying they aren't out there, but certainly not a sentiment supported by my professional colleagues. We should be thinking many many many generations ahead instead of within our ridiculous social media vomit timeline.





BumpityBump said:


> Quite a few utilize horses for hauling research equipment miles into the backcountry. Probably half think that should be a selective special use. Most don't think camping is an issue if low impact. Those that hunt put meat in the freezer every year without accessing wilderness or ATVs.
> 
> The main concern is opening new impacts.





BumpityBump said:


> I would rather get behind blanket bans frankly, if it gets too complex. I have legs and know how to walk (assuming you are talking traditional bans).


The way it's done now is nonsensical, and I cannot support that concept. Either take blanket bans to their logical conclusion (everybody out!), or base trail access on sound science and logical management decisions.



> Yes, there are alternative designations, but I was thinking more along the lines of new wilderness designations that rule out horses but might allow bikes, with clear restrictions.


You can't have that without a major change in policy. What you say you want would be possible AFTER eliminating the blanket ban on bikes. What I don't support is reasonable accommodation to repair or reroute a trail in the event of something like a landslide, flood, or the old tread becomes too damaged to be sustainable. Locally, a state level nature preserve designation was pushed through on a large chunk of land that mtb'ers have had eyes on for at least a decade for connectivity purposes. MTB advocates got mtb access written into the nature preserve charter, but really only on a crappy existing road fire corridor that we had to share with horses. Nobody was thrilled with that, but the nature preserve charter was not flexible enough to create a parallel singletrack corridor for mtb's that offered some separation between horses and bikes. The road bed is a mess in some places, and there's really nothing we can do about that, either, because of the restrictions in the nature preserve charter. It's better than being prohibited from riding bikes across the preserve to the trails on the other side, but I think it's an example where more flexibility would have been nice and could have made most everybody happier.


----------



## BumpityBump (Mar 9, 2008)

Harold said:


> The way it's done now is nonsensical, and I cannot support that concept. Either take blanket bans to their logical conclusion (everybody out!), or base trail access on sound science and logical management decisions.
> 
> You can't have that without a major change in policy. What you say you want would be possible AFTER eliminating the blanket ban on bikes. What I don't support is reasonable accommodation to repair or reroute a trail in the event of something like a landslide, flood, or the old tread becomes too damaged to be sustainable. Locally, a state level nature preserve designation was pushed through on a large chunk of land that mtb'ers have had eyes on for at least a decade for connectivity purposes. MTB advocates got mtb access written into the nature preserve charter, but really only on a crappy existing road fire corridor that we had to share with horses. Nobody was thrilled with that, but the nature preserve charter was not flexible enough to create a parallel singletrack corridor for mtb's that offered some separation between horses and bikes. The road bed is a mess in some places, and there's really nothing we can do about that, either, because of the restrictions in the nature preserve charter. It's better than being prohibited from riding bikes across the preserve to the trails on the other side, but I think it's an example where more flexibility would have been nice and could have made most everybody happier.


I think current bans make sense (except horses).

Ah, so you have a burr in your saddle over state lands. Different argument, out.


----------



## norton55 (Oct 5, 2005)

I've been involved with habitat restoration ( salmonids ) and clean-up of marijuana grows on public land for 15 years. I set up a water sampling protocol and trained volunteers to grab samples to get background data for funding sediment removal and building a new bridge, to facilitate spawning of native and hatchery Cojo and Steelhead. I also build mountain bike trails in the same watershed, mitigating old logging skid roads and restoring the natural contours of the land. The land I have access to is private timber land where the owners want us to have a presence to keep the dope growers, equestrians and hikers out. Our trails have no negative impact on the watershed and we are a model for sustainable trail building. This whole idea that you let bikes have access will open the "floodgates" to strip mining and clear cut logging is pure B.S. I've restored the damage that horses have done along with hikers creating social trails through sensitive habitat. 

I've met and lobbied Tom McClintock and he is a very reasonable person, who supports mountain bike access. 

And just so you I'm not blowing smoke here, all of my result can and will hold up in the court of law and all of my lab protocols and procedures were based on the water "bible". If you're a scientist and have to ask what water "bible" is, you have no business in the field. 

Threads like this really piss me off with all the misinformation presented. It reminds of the scene in Good Will Hunting where Matt Damon kicks ass on that preppy POS.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

BumpityBump said:


> I think current bans make sense (except horses).


How does that work? If it works in your mind, then it's not based on any sort of science, which you opened your entire presence in this thread with, as though it predisposed you to evidence-based decision-making. You are demonstrating a pretty emotional attachment to Wilderness and the false narrative that props it up, rather than an evidence-based approach behind reasonable, volume-limited use to keep impacts low.



> Ah, so you have a burr in your saddle over state lands. Different argument, out.


No, it was just an example, which I brought to light as an example of negative consequences of "clear restrictions" that you mentioned.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

Mountain Bikers Against Mountain Biking

/facepalm


----------



## Miker J (Nov 4, 2003)

norton55 said:


> I've been involved with habitat restoration ( salmonids ) and clean-up of marijuana grows on public land for 15 years. I set up a water sampling protocol and trained volunteers to grab samples to get background data for funding sediment removal and building a new bridge, to facilitate spawning of native and hatchery Cojo and Steelhead. I also build mountain bike trails in the same watershed, mitigating old logging skid roads and restoring the natural contours of the land. The land I have access to is private timber land where the owners want us to have a presence to keep the dope growers, equestrians and hikers out. Our trails have no negative impact on the watershed and we are a model for sustainable trail building. This whole idea that you let bikes have access will open the "floodgates" to strip mining and clear cut logging is pure B.S. I've restored the damage that horses have done along with hikers creating social trails through sensitive habitat.
> 
> I've met and lobbied Tom McClintock and he is a very reasonable person, who supports mountain bike access.
> 
> ...


Right on !!!

The blanket ban is not based on reason and science.

It's ok to feel differently but public arguments need to be based on logic and science.

The basis for the support of the blanket ban is the same faulty logic that justifies such vileness as all other forms of prejudice.

No magical thinking please.


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

BumpityBump said:


> Have you been around long enough to watch change in behavior on local trails? What about the new push for adventure / heli biking? Think that won't spill over?
> 
> As per your prior post, researching wilderness impacts outside of wilderness??? Please explain.
> 
> Locally harvested meat impacts vs grocery store??? Please explain


See what bikes on narrow trails lead to???!!!!

HELICOPTERS!!!!!!

BIKES WITH HELICOPTERS

HELIBIKES

BAN HELIBIKES

PLEASE EXPLAIN

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## BumpityBump (Mar 9, 2008)

double post


----------



## BumpityBump (Mar 9, 2008)

Anyone that doesn't think adventure biking is going to start pushing limits is naive. Let's revisit this thread in 10 years and see what opinions are then.

My daughters grew up in southern Utah. I have witnessed the Red Bull rampage **** first hand. It's nauseating to say the least.

Good on you norton55 for your work, but things change and so will the larger impact from biking if we aren't careful. I started backcountry skiing long before the days of heli issues. Areas like the Wasatch are an enormous fustercluck now and plenty of people never thought it would get to the point it is at now. As I said, things change, and once it does it's really hard to go back.

I remember talking to friends many years ago about how Chinese manufacturing would eventually dominate the U.S. economy. They thought I was completely crazy. Keep thinking small.

I've had 3 positive reps on this thread, obviously I'm not the only one thinking along these lines.


----------



## norton55 (Oct 5, 2005)

BumpityBump said:


> Anyone that doesn't think adventure biking is going to start pushing limits is naive. Let's revisit this thread in 10 years and see what opinions are then.
> 
> My daughters grew up in southern Utah. I have witnessed the Red Bull rampage **** first hand. It's nauseating to say the least.
> 
> ...


This has nothing to do with pos reps or heli skiing. It's about the manipulation of scientific data to cloud the facts.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

BumpityBump said:


> Anyone that doesn't think adventure biking is going to start pushing limits is naive. Let's revisit this thread in 10 years and see what opinions are then.
> 
> My daughters grew up in southern Utah. I have witnessed the Red Bull rampage **** first hand. It's nauseating to say the least.
> 
> ...


Yeah, the rep makes it totally legit. Seriously though, you make it sound like 10's of thousands of mountain bikers are going to descend on the Wilderness like locusts and that's simply Alarmist. Most mountain bikers simply want some access to connect routes where it makes sense. Look at the number of re-routes just on the AZ Trail. Blanket bans? Little wonder the anti access are looked on as Fascists by some people. Blanket bans are the tool of the lazy and incompetent. Solutions not exclusions. The only thing that should not be up for discussion of inclusion is motors. My two pesos, which isn't **** at current exchange rates.


----------



## BumpityBump (Mar 9, 2008)

norton55 said:


> This has nothing to do with pos reps or heli skiing. It's about the manipulation of scientific data to cloud the facts.


I haven't manipulated any scientific data to cloud the facts. I have pointed out references to how things can change beyond current perceptions.

If you think current data is the end all be all to predict future impacts and pressure on resources, you need to revisit your thinking and step outside the box a bit.


----------



## BumpityBump (Mar 9, 2008)

tiretracks said:


> Yeah, the rep makes it totally legit. Seriously though, you make it sound like 10's of thousands of mountain bikers are going to descend on the Wilderness like locusts and that's simply Alarmist. Most mountain bikers simply want some access to connect routes where it makes sense. Look at the number of re-routes just on the AZ Trail. Blanket bans? Little wonder the anti access are looked on as Fascists by some people. Blanket bans are the tool of the lazy and incompetent. Solutions not exclusions. The only thing that should not be up for discussion of inclusion is motors. My two pesos, which isn't **** at current exchange rates.


Hmmm, what's the acronym to replace NIMBY with "not my sport"? Don't you see the hypocrisy with all your back and forth on the e-bike thread and this? It's okay to disallow other uses unless it affects you? WTF???

Blanket ban was referring to as it stands now. Not new bans. The rep comment was only to point out that there is more support for my views than currently represented on the thread.


----------



## norton55 (Oct 5, 2005)

BumpityBump said:


> I haven't manipulated any scientific data to cloud the facts. I have pointed out references to how things can change beyond current perceptions.
> 
> If you think current data is the end all be all to predict future impacts and pressure on resources, you need to revisit your thinking and step outside the box a bit.


Really, what have you done to restore and mitigate human impacts. Think outside the box? i do it all the time. Future impacts? i have a 15 year track record of success.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

BumpityBump said:


> Hmmm, what's the acronym to replace NIMBY with "not my sport"? Don't you see the hypocrisy with all your back and forth on the e-bike thread and this? It's okay to disallow other uses unless it affects you? WTF???
> 
> Blanket ban was referring to as it stands now. Not new bans. The rep comment was only to point out that there is more support for my views than currently represented on the thread.


Again. MOTORS.


----------



## BumpityBump (Mar 9, 2008)

norton55 said:


> Really, what have you done to restore and mitigate human impacts. Think outside the box? i do it all the time. Future impacts? i have a 15 year track record of success.


Well, you need to look to the future was the point. I am not discounting your work, only the predictions for changes the future will bring to the sport.

I pull noxious weeds practically every day all summer long, but the importance of that seems to be ignored by bikers since it doesn't impact the ability to ride your bike on a trail. It's not all about water quality, right? Really really sick of spotted knapweed.

What have I done to restore and mitigate human impacts? That's all I deal with professionally day in and day out. Granted it's not biking related but still...

My newest project has an estimated 700,000 gallons of diesel fuel sitting on groundwater. Will it get cleaned up? Yep. Will it be easy? Nope.


----------



## norton55 (Oct 5, 2005)

BumpityBump said:


> Well, you need to look to the future was the point. I am not discounting your work, only the predictions for changes the future will bring to the sport.
> 
> I pull noxious weeds practically every day all summer long, but the importance of that seems to be ignored by bikers since it doesn't impact the ability to ride your bike on a trail. It's not all about water quality, right? Really really sick of spotted knapweed.


Today is the future 15 years ago. The world hasn't come to an end. We have native species returning to the water shed. Think about it.


----------



## BumpityBump (Mar 9, 2008)

See above add on in response to your post (after you replied). Yes, I do a lot to mitigate human impacts, including soil, indoor air vapors, and surface water in addition to groundwater. So, yeah, I care a lot and do a lot to deal with human impacts, even if it's not related to biking.


----------



## norton55 (Oct 5, 2005)

BumpityBump said:


> See above add on in response to your post (after you replied). Yes, I do a lot to mitigate human impacts, including soil, indoor air vapors, and surface water in addition to groundwater. So, yeah, I care a lot and do a lot to deal with human impacts, even if it's not related to biking.


OK, I have 40 years of water/wastewater treatment and disposal, ground water remediation and treatment. I have since retired and have my own consulting business. You are missing the point of this thread. I've dealt with people like you in my career and unless you stick to point of this thread I'm wasting my time in engaging with you.


----------



## BumpityBump (Mar 9, 2008)

norton55 said:


> OK, I have 40 years of water/wastewater treatment and disposal, ground water remediation and treatment. I have since retired and have my own consulting business. You are missing the point of this thread. I've dealt with people like you in my career and unless you stick to point of this thread I'm wasting my time in engaging with you.


You asked what I have done to mitigate human impacts. I simply responded that I have experience mitigating human impacts. You seem pretty thin skinned if you have worked in the realm of remediation.

I have done a lot of watershed management and planning work as well. I think we come from the same realm, just a different slant on things. That's okay. Debate is good, eh?

And you haven't worked with me, so how would you know if you have worked with people "like" me? That doesn't sound very scientific.

I have worked with people from many many different sectors and aspects of life. I have got along just fine with most everyone I have ever worked with. I think you are jumping to conclusions prematurely.


----------



## dave54 (Jul 1, 2003)

Deja vu with the same arguments used when the National Park Service opened up a small number of trails to mountain bikes a few years ago. The trails that ended up being opened were mostly old roads, and somehow entire wilderness ecosystems did not collapse. Most people did not even notice the NPS allowed bikes on some trails.

There are still a few of us around in California that remember Sen barbara boxer introduced a California Wilderness Bill at the behest of the California Wilderness Coalition. This bill proposed numerous new wilderness areas all over the state, some bizarre amoeba shaped gerrymanders specifically drawn to include existing mountain bike trails (they publicly admitted it). Fortunately the bill went nowhere and the organization has since scaled back their proposals. Too many organizations ( IMHO domestic terrorist groups) still hold a secret desire to ban mountain bikes from public lands. They are media savvy enough not to admit it.


----------



## BumpityBump (Mar 9, 2008)

dave54 said:


> Deja vu with the same arguments used when the National Park Service opened up a small number of trails to mountain bikes a few years ago. The trails that ended up being opened were mostly old roads, and somehow entire wilderness ecosystems did not collapse. Most people did not even notice the NPS allowed bikes on some trails.
> 
> There are still a few of us around in California that remember Sen barbara boxer introduced a California Wilderness Bill at the behest of the California Wilderness Coalition. This bill proposed numerous new wilderness areas all over the state, some bizarre amoeba shaped gerrymanders specifically drawn to include existing mountain bike trails (they publicly admitted it). Fortunately the bill went nowhere and the organization has since scaled back their proposals. Too many organizations ( IMHO domestic terrorist groups) still hold a secret desire to ban mountain bikes from public lands. They are media savvy enough not to admit it.


And newly proposed designations versus long existing Wilderness, are a completely different can of worms. So yeah, that's a topic for discussion at the local level for sure.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

I also work in environmental assessment and remediation. I also support the efforts of STC. So maybe my environmental work qualifies for a pro-access argument.


----------



## MarkMass (Sep 10, 2006)

Whoohoo!! I've donated to STC so I consider this money well spent.


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

MarkMass said:


> Whoohoo!! I've donated to STC so I consider this money well spent.


Thank you! Since the board of STC is all volunteer and we are all putting a lot of time and effort into this your money is going a long way. All of your donations are being spent on one simple thing ending the blanket ban on cycling in Wilderness areas.

Contrary to what a select few have posted here this means that local land managers still have a choice to allow cycling or not on any trail. Just as they are allowed to manage camping less than 100' from a stream. Our legislation does not allow cycling on every trail.

If anyone would like to donate please consider buying a shirt through our website:

www.sustainabletrailscoalition.org

You can buy a shirt or add on extra funds in addition to help us return the Wilderness act to its original pre-1977 intent: to allow non motorized travel.

Thanks again!!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tungsten (Apr 7, 2006)

“In this day of man’s increasingly mechanical approach to the outdoors, when thousands experience nature not for what it is through observation but as a playground, there aren’t many places left where one is guaranteed one won’t be run over by a Jeep or snowmobile or mountain bike. Preserving those wilderness areas * at the cost of a disgruntled few seems worth the price.” 

- Dennis Coello, author of The Complete Mountain Biker


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

It seems like the "disgruntled few" aren't so few after all. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

The "disgruntled few" have a bigger stick this time.


----------



## tungsten (Apr 7, 2006)

tiretracks said:


> The "disgruntled few" have a bigger stick this time.


That's the American way, isn't it. 
Right or wrong, just bludgeon your way forward. Screw nuance or thoughtfulness.


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

Man the MBAMB sentiment is thick here today


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

tungsten said:


> That's the American way, isn't it.
> Right or wrong, just bludgeon your way forward. Screw nuance or thoughtfulness.


You describe the process used to exclude bicycles from Wilderness perfectly, thanks.


----------



## tungsten (Apr 7, 2006)

....


----------



## tungsten (Apr 7, 2006)

> Thank you! Since the board of STC is all volunteer and we are all putting a lot of time and effort into this your money is going a long way. All of your donations are being spent on one simple thing ending the blanket ban on cycling in Wilderness areas.
> 
> Contrary to what a select few have posted here this means that local land managers still have a choice to allow cycling or not on any trail. Just as they are allowed to manage camping less than 100' from a stream. Our legislation does not allow cycling on every trail.
> 
> ...


Who are your corporate sponsors?


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

tungsten said:


> Who are your corporate sponsors?


Trump and Putin

But seriously there are no corporate sponsors

All of our donations are from individuals. We've raised a lot of money and because we are organized in such a lean fashion it goes a long way.

So we certainly are not a disgruntled few, thousands support us and want to see the Wilderness act support human powered travel.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

tungsten said:


> Who are your corporate sponsors?


Who are yours?


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

I support the STC. I've bought a shirt, given donations, actually talked with my States Senators and my representatives and I'm an IMBA chapter board member fighting the good fight.

Big thanks to Davey, Ted and the other members of the STC. Great job out there.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

Silentfoe said:


> I support the STC. I've bought a shirt, given donations, actually talked with my States Senators and my representatives and I'm an IMBA chapter board member fighting the good fight.
> 
> Big thanks to Davey, Ted and the other members of the STC. Great job out there.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


Big thanks to you! Especially on engaging your representatives. Many more of us need to do that.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## norton55 (Oct 5, 2005)

tungsten said:


> "In this day of man's increasingly mechanical approach to the outdoors, when thousands experience nature not for what it is through observation but as a playground, there aren't many places left where one is guaranteed one won't be run over by a Jeep or snowmobile or mountain bike. Preserving those wilderness areas * at the cost of a disgruntled few seems worth the price."
> 
> - Dennis Coello, author of The Complete Mountain Biker


This desperate post is supposed to make us feel bad?


----------



## Tommybees (Dec 25, 2014)

I firmly believe that bikes are equivalent to any of the other currently allowed human powered prosthetic devices such as skies, kayaks, tents, rubber rafts, fishing poles, cameras, telescopes, ropes and even swiss army knives that are used in the wilderness. Why, because these are all non essential items for survival yet all are specific to a particular"outdoorsman's" activities. The original Act was undeniably created for the outdoorsman to allow them to do their outdoor activities while ensuring that motorized machines were not present. These motorized machines were also very clearly targeted at automobiles, trucks, trains, snowmobiles, etc., with motors that could propel riders at any speed up and down the mountains. Now that the unimaginable machines have evolved (some say bikes in the mountains could not have been imagined), the so called stewards of the lands have taken it upon themselves to try to include everything while conveniently forgetting about the outdoorsmen narrative. The focus of the argument should be about the definition of an outdoorsman and the activities that are most commonly occurring in the current era and work with the premise that while there are always impacts (oh yeah the pesky humans), they should be mitigated and managed as much as possible or restricted if not possible.

The preservationist really need to take a good look in the mirror. Their circular arguments of convenience are very surprising and frequent. For example, using terms such as "human impact" as a scare tactic is absurd because walking across a meadow causes human impact as does spitting on the ground. Often one sees these terms in the same sentence as arguments and then as defenses; cant have it both ways. Granted in all cases repeated use of any kind causes impact with sustaining evidence, e.g., trails, but this aspect was never part of the original Act. As such, I do believe controlling the use load, when properly monitored, is something that could/should exist. This is a minor nit. 

Maybe this is a battle about the lesser of evils? However, I think not because if that were the case the battle would be fully aligned against mules and horses and yet there seems to be a lot less fight if any at all. Then there are the argument such as bikes are made of steel and rubber and therefor cannot be acceptable. Unfortunately so are all of the other items noted above and all are allowed (rafts with oars, cameras, therma-rests, etc). They endlessly chase their tails on these arguments entrap an all or nothing conclusion, but then say walking does not count as human impact. If the conclusion is that all impact is eliminated, than so shall walking.

So in the end it has become clear to me the preservationist are extremist in disguise? Dr Google says, "a person who holds extreme or fanatical political or religious views, especially one who resorts to or advocates extreme action." I think this language should be noted in every written document on the subject, especially on documents that will be recorded (letters to Congress etc). 

Hat's off to STC for trying to make a difference in a rational and inclusive way. Ill donate for sure...even get a shirt!


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

tungsten said:


> "In this day of man's increasingly mechanical approach to the outdoors, when thousands experience nature not for what it is through observation but as a playground, there aren't many places left where one is guaranteed one won't be run over by a Jeep or snowmobile or mountain bike. Preserving those wilderness areas * at the cost of a disgruntled few seems worth the price."
> 
> - Dennis Coello, author of The Complete Mountain Biker


Ah! Another copy/paste bike hater. How many times and places have you posted this quote?: https://nsmb.com/forum/forum/the-sho...ks-494/?page=2

Maybe Dennis Coello needs to be asked his thoughts, 18 years after he wrote that? How many more tens of thousands (if not millions) of acres of cherished lands have excluded mountain biking due to Wilderness designation since 1989?

Cue up the Edward Abbey quote about hiking, biking and horseback riding vs. motorized sightseeing... ;-)


----------



## jmmUT (Sep 15, 2008)

BumpityBump said:


> I completely disagree with blanket access to Wilderness Areas by bikes. I already access Wilderness a lot, on foot. If you want to access Wilderness, shoulder a pack. Mountain bikers seem to be becoming as self righteous as the motor crowd, sad. (cue horse argument, yawn)


Thank you. I'm with you.

Online forums and bad online polls make it look like all mountain bikers are for wilderness access and it's just not true. I am perfectly fine with not having access. Trail numbers are growing across all other types of designated public land, even if we lost that one trail system in Idaho that someone will certainly mention...

And don't forget the standard civil rights plea, like somehow owning a toy is supposed to be equal to actual discrimination. Wheels are already allowed in wilderness for wheelchair users so the concern for real discrimination is already taken care of.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

I just want to ban horses from wilderness, that's all.


----------



## chuckha62 (Jul 11, 2006)

Blanket bans are the equivalent to zero tolerance policies. 

Why do we pay good money for managers to oversee issues and then strip away their ability to make the tough calls? The fallback position is always, "well, it's policy." BS! If you're paid to make the tough calls, make them and stand by them.


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

jmmUT said:


> Thank you. I'm with you.
> 
> Online forums and bad online polls make it look like all mountain bikers are for wilderness access and it's just not true. I am perfectly fine with not having access. Trail numbers are growing across all other types of designated public land, even if we lost that one trail system in Idaho that someone will certainly mention...
> 
> And don't forget the standard civil rights plea, like somehow owning a toy is supposed to be equal to actual discrimination. Wheels are already allowed in wilderness for wheelchair users so the concern for real discrimination is already taken care of.


STC is not asking for blanket access and never has.

We have thousands of donors who have all contributed a small amount. The sum total amounting to a fund that has kept pressure on this issue for over 2 years and has seen two different bills develop. How can you claim that off road cyclists are not "for Wilderness access"?

No one is making a discrimination case. Even though the 1984 rule making banning bikes was quite biased. STC is approaching this issue from a legislative standpoint.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Fleas (Jan 19, 2006)

Since I am so far removed from the actual location of any wilderness areas, this all seems so backwards and unreasonable. I always thought that controlling/restricting access to wilderness areas had everything to do with preventing fires from internal combustion engines/exhaust, preventing the leakage of fuels or oils, preventing resource exploitation, and generally minimizing human impact. I don't see how bicycles can be excluded under those same criteria.

We have had our share of mountain bike access issues here. The ultimate conclusion across the board was that each land manager would decide where, and often when, mountain bikes would be allowed. Each area is different, so it required a case-by-case approach. Blanket statements just made no sense at all. Local knowledge played a large part in identifying and avoiding sensitive areas. Actual science was brought to bear on the decisions. Statistics were logged. Changes were monitored. Amazingly, not every area allows mountain bikes. Just as amazing, is that some areas that used to be restricted were now opened!

Besides, it's not like someone is going to be building a bike park or something. I would have to think that any new wilderness trails, if they were allowed, would look like the old IMBA-style singletrack, or maybe even more minimalist than that. This hardly promotes the RedBull reputation of MTBing. It results in something more like backpackers on wheels.

-F


----------



## norton55 (Oct 5, 2005)

Davey Simon said:


> STC is not asking for blanket access and never has.
> 
> We have thousands of donors who have all contributed a small amount. The sum total amounting to a fund that has kept pressure on this issue for over 2 years and has seen two different bills develop. How can you claim that off road cyclists are not "for Wilderness access"?
> 
> ...


Davey.....why don't you post a copy of the bill so some of the folks here will make post's based on the real info, not hearsay and blinded prejudice.


----------



## norton55 (Oct 5, 2005)

Jayem said:


> I just want to ban horses from wilderness, that's all.


And the Asses..........Donkeys and Hikers.


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

norton55 said:


> Davey.....why don't you post a copy of the bill so some of the folks here will make post's based on the real info, not hearsay and blinded prejudice.


Sure:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1349/text

Although our quite similar bill last year resulted in a lot of tin foil hat stuff, not because of the bill but because of the sponsors. There is no logic behind these land grab conspiracy theories but they seem quite convincing to a very vocal minority.

Please keep in mind "and other purposes" is legislative boiler plate. This bill will only add bikes, baby strollers, wheelbarrows and game carts on a case by case basis.

STC has never had contact with the oil and gas industry or any other resource extraction industry. If I ever found out about such a tie I would leave STC immediately and publicly denounce the effort.

Thankfully this isn't the case and I don't have to.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## kpdemello (May 3, 2010)

Fleas said:


> We have had our share of mountain bike access issues here. The ultimate conclusion across the board was that each land manager would decide where, and often when, mountain bikes would be allowed. Each area is different, so it required a case-by-case approach. Blanket statements just made no sense at all. Local knowledge played a large part in identifying and avoiding sensitive areas. Actual science was brought to bear on the decisions. Statistics were logged. Changes were monitored. Amazingly, not every area allows mountain bikes. Just as amazing, is that some areas that used to be restricted were now opened!


This seems to me to be the right approach. I have no problem with groups, including MTBers, not being allowed access when there is a science-based rationale. What would be annoying, however, would be seeing certain groups get allowed access (like equestrian) while denying access to other users for no other reason than one group has more power than another.

I would also hate to see pristine wilderness or fragile ecosystems get ruined just because people, MTBers included, want to play.


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

kpdemello said:


> This seems to me to be the right approach. I have no problem with groups, including MTBers, not being allowed access when there is a science-based rationale. What would be annoying, however, would be seeing certain groups get allowed access (like equestrian) while denying access to other users for no other reason than one group has more power than another.
> 
> I would also hate to see pristine wilderness or fragile ecosystems get ruined just because people, MTBers included, want to play.


This is the exact approach of STC's bill. BTW equestrians and hikers excluded cyclists in 1984 just in the exact unfair manner you described. There was no science or safety facts to back up the decision.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Empty_Beer said:


> Ah! Another copy/paste bike hater. How many times and places have you posted this quote?: https://nsmb.com/forum/forum/the-sho...ks-494/?page=2
> 
> Maybe Dennis Coello needs to be asked his thoughts, 18 years after he wrote that? How many more tens of thousands (if not millions) of acres of cherished lands have excluded mountain biking due to Wilderness designation since 1989?
> 
> Cue up the Edward Abbey quote about hiking, biking and horseback riding vs. motorized sightseeing... ;-)


In 1989 I would have had the same opinion. I was quite against bikes in Wilderness back then.

However, a lot of things have changed since then with Wilderness and proposed Wilderness designations removing hundreds of miles of trail mileage in very scenic areas that bikers have enjoyed for decades. The reasons for excluding bikes from these areas just don't make any sense from a logical standpoint and appear to be driven by emotional ideology. And so, the continued loss of riding areas has really changed my mind on the matter.


----------



## chasejj (Sep 22, 2008)

norton55 said:


> And the Asses..........Donkeys and Hikers.


Just hikers. I like donkeys.


----------



## Silent_G (Oct 30, 2010)

Here's what I see, day to day at my shop, that is the real issue. Words like "play" and "toy" and "well it's just a bike..." and "I ride for sport". Kills me. The bicycle is a TOOL for transportation, fitness is an after affect. The riders pushing limits like at the Red Bull Rampage represent 0.0001% of mountain bikers. People looking to "shred" are not going to hump out into the back country unless they can drive there. The main reason that I support the efforts of the STC is so I can pack out my bike with 30lbs of camping gear and head out into the "wilderness", mainly to get away from people and to experience the beauty and ruggedness of nature. Saying that I can just "shoulder a pack" and experience it that way is a statement, not an argument. That is true, I could do that. However, I have a business to run, a family to attend to and all the other aspects of life that limit my time off. So if I get two, maybe three days off, I want to maximize my experience. Using a bicycle facilitates that. How many miles can you average a day hiking? 10? 15? 20 if you march. With a fully loaded bike (40lbs extra), I have averaged 60 miles a day for three days, with plenty of time each night to explore around my camp site. I find it interesting that this never comes up from the HOHA's, most of whom are retired baby boomers, just the whole "safety on the trail" thing. Answer me this, other trail users: do you think I'm going risk $10,000 in bike and camping gear, let alone my health, bombing and shredding a back country trail??? Where rescue would be at best described as delayed? We don't want access for "shredding", we want access be cause we love nature. We want access by bike because for my generation, retirement will consists of getting put in the ground.


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

^ legit


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## hskr101 (Aug 10, 2011)

Here is my 2 cents:

I live in Utah and enjoy mountain biking, hiking, and backpacking. I do fear what will happen if the Wilderness Act is amended.

As an example of my fear, HR 621 was a bill proposed by Jason Chaffetz of Utah that would have allowed 3.3 million acres of public land to be sold.

Here is a quote from Chaffetz as to why he pulled the billChaffetz withdraws public land sale bill after outcry from hunters and anglers | Idaho Statesman)

"The bill would have disposed of small parcels Pres. Clinton identified as serving no public purpose but groups I support and care about fear it sends the wrong message," Chaffetz wrote. "I hear you and HR 621 dies tomorrow. #keepitpublic."

In Chaffetz own words he fears the sale would have sent the wrong message. Does amending the Wilderness Act send the wrong message as well?

One of the most important things to remember though is that Chaffetz pulled the bill because of the outcry from not only conservation groups but hunters and anglers as well. These groups have different agendas but they came together to support saving public lands. All these users want the same thing, a place where they can get away and do what they enjoy. For me, that is what mountain biking is all about and I do not hate other user groups for wanting the same thing.

The big question for me is: Do you take a chance and amend the Wilderness Act and see what happens? I do not have a problem with other user groups but I do see the value in not having commercial development, roads, or structures.


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

Fleas said:


> Since I am so far removed from the actual location of any wilderness areas, this all seems so backwards and unreasonable. I always thought that controlling/restricting access to wilderness areas had everything to do with preventing fires from internal combustion engines/exhaust, preventing the leakage of fuels or oils, preventing resource exploitation, and generally minimizing human impact. I don't see how bicycles can be excluded under those same criteria.
> 
> We have had our share of mountain bike access issues here. The ultimate conclusion across the board was that each land manager would decide where, and often when, mountain bikes would be allowed. Each area is different, so it required a case-by-case approach. Blanket statements just made no sense at all. Local knowledge played a large part in identifying and avoiding sensitive areas. Actual science was brought to bear on the decisions. Statistics were logged. Changes were monitored. Amazingly, not every area allows mountain bikes. Just as amazing, is that some areas that used to be restricted were now opened!
> 
> ...


Quoted Fleas because he seemed interested in the subject:

Despite there being no reported incidents the NPS wrote this history as to why cycling was banned from the Wilderness Areas in Pt Reyes National Seashore:









Please check the header: I still haven't located Mia Monroe's center for reformed cyclists but I'll let you know if I find it.

Plain and simple biased reasoning was used to ban cycling from an area set aside for recreation. The NPS continues to used this biased reasoning and inflammatory language today. The NPS also bars cycling from 2/3rd of the non wilderness trails in the park. Even though the NPS' own history clearly states that cyclists should have access to the non wilderness trails:

https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/pore/admin.pdf

The "fun" starts on page 191


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

NEUT said:


> The big question for me is: Do you take a chance and amend the Wilderness Act and see what happens? I do not have a problem with other user groups but I do see the value in not having commercial development, roads, or structures.


I'd argue that the Wilderness Act and how it was intended to be managed was _amended _in 1984 when bicycles were arbitrarily (and semantically) banned after lots of lobbying from the Sierra Club. Game carts (and other non-motorized wheeled devices) were tossed out shortly after bikes, as collateral damage to the Wilderness purists' preferences. Clearly, game carts, wheelbarrows and strollers existed long before someone decided to put knobby tires on a bicycle... yet those forms of "mechanical transport" weren't banned from the inception of the Wilderness Act. It took 20 years or so to ban them as well.

STC is working to restore the true intent of Wilderness access. The wording in the legislation will change the regulatory piece of the land management... and does NOTHING to open Wilderness to development, roads, extraction or motorized uses.... but that's what the opponents of this legislation are fighting HARD to get people to believe.


----------



## dave54 (Jul 1, 2003)

Silent_G said:


> ...I find it interesting that this never comes up from the HOHA's, most of whom are retired baby boomers, just the whole "safety on the trail" thing. Answer me this, other trail users: do you think I'm going risk $10,000 in bike and camping gear, let alone my health, bombing and shredding a back country trail??? ...


People that use the safety argument are demonstrating their ignorance of how bikers intend to use the Wilderness. You are right no loaded bikepacker is going to be shredding down trails. Generally, shredding like the naysayers fear requires full suspension, and FS bikes do not make good bikepacking rigs. A full loaded hard tail is not going to be careening wildly downhill, skidding corners and making jumps. Much of the time an UL hiker will pass me on my bike.

It's like saying trail running is the same as backpacking. Phony argument.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

NEUT said:


> Here is my 2 cents:
> 
> I live in Utah and enjoy mountain biking, hiking, and backpacking. I do fear what will happen if the Wilderness Act is amended.
> 
> ...


If it's amended in the way that STC proposes, then I don't think that there's anything to worry about. I don't think that any mountain bikers want to see any commercial development, roads, or structures in Wilderness areas and would seriously fight any changes in that direction.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

dave54 said:


> People that use the safety argument are demonstrating their ignorance of how bikers intend to use the Wilderness. You are right no loaded bikepacker is going to be shredding down trails. Generally, shredding like the naysayers fear requires full suspension, and FS bikes do not make good bikepacking rigs. A full loaded hard tail is not going to be careening wildly downhill, skidding corners and making jumps. Much of the time an UL hiker will pass me on my bike.
> 
> It's like saying trail running is the same as backpacking. Phony argument.


There would also be day trippers on FS bikes in the Wilderness. Just how big of a problem would that be?

Prior to the Boulder-White Cloud Wilderness designation, all manner of mountain bikes did roam those trails without conflict with other users or resource damage beyond what hikers did. The riders that choose to use backcountry trails are very respectful of other users and the environment.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

BumpityBump said:


> The last thing I want in Wilderness is this new generation of self absorbed disrespectful aholes.


This statement disqualifies any possibility of objectivity in anything else this person has to say. His opinions have nothing to do with environmental impact, intent of the bill, or any other such falsehoods.

Where do you draw the line? Same place the authors of the wilderness bill did....with a living power source.

.


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

_CJ said:


> This statement disqualifies any possibility of objectivity in anything else this person has to say. His opinions have nothing to do with environmental impact, intent of the bill, or any other such falsehoods.
> 
> Where do you draw the line? Same place the authors of the wilderness bill did....with a living power source.
> 
> .


Well said

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jmmUT (Sep 15, 2008)

Davey Simon said:


> How can you claim that off road cyclists are not "for Wilderness access"?


Never said that. And it's very clear that I never said that.

What I said is that many people like to make stronger claims about how many MTBers actually support your cause than they should. Why? Because they are based in biased polling and anonymous online posts- not science.

Go to any number of Sociology or Tourism and Recreation Depts. in one of our great mountain town colleges and find a professor or grad student who would be interested in getting real numbers about what MTBers and other stakeholders actually think. It would not be that hard or expensive. And it may even help your cause.

About the discrimination trope- it pops up every time. It'll come in time here.


----------



## Giant Warp (Jun 11, 2009)

I ride moto, mountain bike, and ebike. I don't support bikes in the wilderness and I think horses are great. Correct me if I'm wrong but I am sure I have read stories of biking trails that were allowed to go through wilderness after the trail was allocated to "corridor" status. In other words, the bikes are not allowed in the wilderness but a narrow "corridor" was created to keep them legal.


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

jmmUT said:


> Never said that. And it's very clear that I never said that.
> 
> What I said is that many people like to make stronger claims about how many MTBers actually support your cause than they should. Why? Because they are based in biased polling and anonymous online posts- not science.
> 
> ...


You actually said this:

"Online forums and bad online polls make it look like all mountain bikers are for wilderness access and it's just not true."

So what is true then?

STC has never pushed a discrimination argument.

Unless that is coming from someone that isn't part of STC? One of the mountain bikers that couldn't really be in favor of cycling allowed on a case by case basis in the Wilderness. Because that just isn't true. Right?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

Giant Warp said:


> I ride moto, mountain bike, and ebike. I don't support bikes in the wilderness and I think horses are great. Correct me if I'm wrong but I am sure I have read stories of biking trails that were allowed to go through wilderness after the trail was allocated to "corridor" status. In other words, the bikes are not allowed in the wilderness but a narrow "corridor" was created to keep them legal.


I'm unaware of any situation like that. The boundaries of the Wilderness are changed occasionally to preserve access. But generally more trails are lost than those saved. None of these trails exist inside a Wilderness area, at best they remain close to a Wilderness area. Occasionally a cherry stem exists in a Wilderness area but they generally for vehicle access, are not a through access and usually allow access to private property.

Never mind trails that are closed to cyclists because they lead to a Wilderness area. Or trails that are closed to cyclists because they are in a Wilderness Study Area. Or the 2/3 of non Wilderness trails in the Wilderness area close to where I live that are closed to cyclists "just because". Never mind the public meeting closing the Wilderness trails nearby stipulates that the non Wilderness trails remain open.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tungsten (Apr 7, 2006)

> The big question for me is: Do you take a chance and amend the Wilderness Act and see what happens? I do not have a problem with other user groups but I do see the value in not having commercial development, roads, or structures.


I'd think twice about messin' with the Wildness Act with this clown as Sec. of Interior.....


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

Damn tungsten is dropping all of the logical fallacies today.










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

tungsten said:


> I'd think twice about messin' with the Wildness Act with this clown as Sec. of Interior.....


Sea Gulling as usual because you have no substantive argument.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

Giant Warp said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong but I am sure I have read stories of biking trails that were allowed to go through wilderness after the trail was allocated to "corridor" status. In other words, the bikes are not allowed in the wilderness but a narrow "corridor" was created to keep them legal.


That would be called a "cherry stem". It isn't Wilderness, since bikes and OHV may be permitted on it. This pi$$es the Wildernuts off to no end. They want it ALL.


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

Empty_Beer said:


> That would be called a "cherry stem". It isn't Wilderness, since bikes and OHV may be permitted on it. This pi$$es the Wildernuts off to no end. They want it ALL.


I don't know of any that go through a Wilderness area they all dead end.

Do you know of one that does? And does not form the border between two Wilderness areas? Just wondering.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tungsten (Apr 7, 2006)

DECEMBER 16, 2016

Is Mountain Biking the Biggest Threat to New Wilderness Designations?

by GEORGE WUERTHNER

Several years ago, I published a book called Thrillcraft on motorized recreation and its impacts on public lands. In doing the research for that book, one of the statistics that I found interesting is the demographic profile of the "average" motorized ORV user. They tended to be male, between the ages of 20 and 40, and had incomes at or slightly above the national average (It takes a lot of money to buy pick-ups, snowmobiles and dirt bikes).

Another interesting statistic is that most motorized users had an "outlaw" attitude and regularly violated trail closures and felt like they were entitled to go anyplace their machines could carry them. They were adrenaline junkies and like spoiled children who groused at being told they were banned from some landscapes. .

Mountain bikers are, as a demographic group, fit the profile of off-road vehicle users. They are predominately male, between 20-40, and tend to have above average incomes and often have the same outlaw attitude and sense of entitlement.

We see this sense of entitlement in the continual commandeering of trails and/or illegal construction of new trails on public lands by mountain bikers. When the Forest Service or BLM seeks to close some of these trails (very infrequently done) mountain bikers squeal like a poked pig, claiming they being "discriminated against."

A good example is the reaction of mountain bikers in Wyoming to closure of the Dunior Special Management Area near Dubois Wyoming. The Dunior has been a candidate for wilderness for years. But without seeking any permission, mountain bikers began to ride in the area and upgrade trails. The Shoshone National Forest finally closed the trails, and the mountain bikers screamed about their "loss" of access. Access that was garnered illegally.

A similar situation exists in the Palisades Wilderness Study Area on the border of Idaho and Wyoming. Mountain bikers have commandeered trails in the area and are fighting to oppose wilderness designation for the area. This conflict would not have occurred if the Bridger Teton National Forest had simply unambiguously closed the trails to mountain bikers. After a Wilderness Study Area is supposed to be managed for its wilderness qualities until Congress determines its fate and mechanical access is not permitted.

A comparable conflict is being precipitated on the Lewis and Clark National Forest in Montana where mountain bikers are regularly riding in a wilderness study areas like the Big Snowy Mountains. Similarly, mountain bikers regularly ride in the Gallatin Range, another Wilderness Study Area on the Gallatin/Custer National Forest.

When the Forest Service limits mountain bike use, the mountain bikers scream that they are being denied access to public lands. On the contrary, most trails currently used by mountain bikers are available to anyone to walk. The only thing that is being closed is access to their machines (bikes). Most of these users are in better than average physical condition.

While there are local and regional mountain biking advocacy groups as well the International Mountain Biking Association (IMBA) all promoting more mountain bike access and trail construction, there is virtually no push back from conservation groups. I am not aware of a single employee of any conservation group whose sole responsibility is to monitor mountain bike use in proposed wilderness areas and to provide push back and support to public lands managers who might want to limit mountain biking in these areas.

I believe if mountain biking isn't controlled and contained just as motorized ORV use has been limited, we will find it nearly impossible to designate any new wilderness areas.

*Indeed, some of the more aggressive mountain bikers are even seeking to scuttle the prohibition on mountain biking in designated wilderness, which will open the door to a host of other interests to argue they too should be given access to the these lands. In a sense mountain biking, to use a cliché, is the camel's nose under the tent.*

Mountain biking is part of the outdoor recreation industry that is more about physical exercise, challenging one's prowess on a machine and use of our public lands as outdoor gymnasiums than about appreciation of natural systems and/or protecting the ecological integrity of the landscape. It's about speed and domination.

Challenging oneself isn't necessarily bad. We all, I think, enjoy challenges. And mountain biking is great fun. I ride my bike regularly on trails specifically designed for mountain bike use.

However, we must recognize that unlimited access to public lands whether by extractive industry like logging, mining or livestock grazing or recreational users, can threaten the wildlife and ecological whole of the land.

We have so few landscapes specifically set aside to preserve ecological integrity that we must make protection of natural function a primary function. This is an idea that seems foreign to many mountain bikers, just as it seems incomprehensible to many motorized recreationists or a smaller sub-set of bird watchers, hikers and backpacker.

In the end, we must accept limits. One of the lessons one teaches young children as a parent is the need for restrictions on behavior. You can't always get what you want, but you can get what you need. Far too many mountain bikers remind me of spoiled children who put on a tantrum when they are told that no they can't do something.

I may be optimistic, but I am hoping to see a maturing of the mountain biking culture. After all you don't need to bike in roadless lands to get an adrenaline high. You do need to consider one's impacts on other people and critters.

We need wild places for a host of reason, including protecting sensitive wildlife, ecological processes, and scenic beauty. But perhaps one of the most important reasons for creating wilderness areas is that it teaches us humility and self-limits. These are lessons the mountain biking community could use.

_George Wuerthner has published 36 books including Wildfire: A Century of Failed Forest Policy. He serves on the board of the Western Watersheds Project.
_
...


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

tungsten said:


> .


Copy and Paste isn't going to cut it here. Desperation is setting in with the Anti's it seems.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

norton55 said:


> And the Asses..........Donkeys and Hikers.





chasejj said:


> Just hikers. I like donkeys.


Are you guys _really _wanting to ban hikers or were you just being snarky?



dave54 said:


> People that use the safety argument are demonstrating their ignorance of how bikers intend to use the Wilderness. You are right no loaded bikepacker is going to be shredding down trails. Generally, shredding like the naysayers fear requires full suspension, and FS bikes do not make good bikepacking rigs. A full loaded hard tail is not going to be careening wildly downhill, skidding corners and making jumps. Much of the time an UL hiker will pass me on my bike.
> 
> It's like saying trail running is the same as backpacking. Phony argument.





Curveball said:


> There would also be day trippers on FS bikes in the Wilderness. Just how big of a problem would that be?
> 
> Prior to the Boulder-White Cloud Wilderness designation, all manner of mountain bikes did roam those trails without conflict with other users or resource damage beyond what hikers did. The riders that choose to use backcountry trails are very respectful of other users and the environment.


Out here the Wilderness boundary is only 30 minutes up the road, and the PCT is only 10 minutes further. I am certain that if opened there would be more day riders than bikepackers, given the number of mountain bikers who live in Bend and the number of tourists who come each year. When I've hiked and run in our local Wilderness I've often thought about how much speed and air I could get on certain stretches if I were on my bike. If I was thinking it you could be sure others would too.

If opening up Wilderness to bikes were to happen, I'd want local land managers having the final say as to which stretches were opened up.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

Davey Simon said:


> I don't know of any that go through a Wilderness area they all dead end.
> 
> Do you know of one that does? And does not form the border between two Wilderness areas? Just wondering.


I've ridden the Deer Lake OHV trail which bisects the Mokelumne Wilderness between Blue Lakes (Hwy 88) and Hwy 4. Literally splits Wilderness in 2. No idea how that came to be, but I'm guessing the OHV groups had to make it happen.

https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5239092.pdf

tungsten: Weurthner is as nutty as the Wilderness Watch guy you quoted to start this thread... just like Vandeman, and McMahon, and Wolke and D. Scott, and Berto, and Miloslavich and a handful of other very active anti-bike zealots like yourself.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

Nat said:


> Out here the Wilderness boundary is only 30 minutes up the road, and the PCT is only 10 minutes further. I am certain that if opened there would be more day riders than bikepackers, given the number of mountain bikers who live in Bend and the number of tourists who come each year. When I've hiked and run in our local Wilderness I've often thought about how much speed and air I could get on certain stretches if I were on my bike. If I was thinking it you could be sure others would too.
> 
> If opening up Wilderness to bikes were to happen, *I'd want local land managers having the final say as to which stretches were opened up.*


I think that's the point of all this: Local decision making, on a case by case basis. Some trails will never accommodate bikes for various science based and social based reasons. But in your case, if you have a mtb-friendly District Ranger or Forest Supervisor, he or she may decide that section of the PCT can be used by mt. bikers from (e.g.) Oct. 1st until its buried in snow (or something like that). What this does is provides some reasonable, seasonal access... puts some self-policing duties on the mtb community from those who do not want to lose that seasonal access... enables some research to be conducted... and brings mt. bikers to the trail maintenance party once Winter moves along.


----------



## norton55 (Oct 5, 2005)

This thread was over 24 hours ago. Time to move on.


----------



## Miker J (Nov 4, 2003)

tungsten said:


> DECEMBER 16, 2016
> 
> Is Mountain Biking the Biggest Threat to New Wilderness Designations?
> 
> ...


This was an excerpt from Fox News, right ?


----------



## Fleas (Jan 19, 2006)

Empty_Beer said:


> I think that's the point of all this: Local decision making, on a case by case basis. Some trails will never accommodate bikes for various science based and social based reasons. But in your case, if you have a mtb-friendly District Ranger or Forest Supervisor, he or she may decide that section of the PCT can be used by mt. bikers from (e.g.) Oct. 1st until its buried in snow (or something like that). What this does is provides some reasonable, seasonal access... puts some self-policing duties on the mtb community from those who do not want to lose that seasonal access... enables some research to be conducted... and brings mt. bikers to the trail maintenance party once Winter moves along.










Right?

-F


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Empty_Beer said:


> I think that's the point of all this: Local decision making, on a case by case basis. Some trails will never accommodate bikes for various science based and social based reasons. But in your case, if you have a mtb-friendly District Ranger or Forest Supervisor, he or she may decide that section of the PCT can be used by mt. bikers from (e.g.) Oct. 1st until its buried in snow (or something like that). What this does is provides some reasonable, seasonal access... puts some* self-policing duties on the mtb community *from those who do not want to lose that seasonal access... enables some research to be conducted... and brings mt. bikers to the trail maintenance party once Winter moves along.


I'm not sure how we would effectively police ourselves. Some guys are going to go as fast as they can, ride through mud, ride off-trail, and not yield to others no matter how many signs are posted. I think one of the reasons so many trail users in Central Oregon have been able to function around one another is because we're mostly segregated. Equestrians go to their favorite areas, OHV users to theirs, MTBers to ours, and hikers to theirs. A group of racers in team kit blasting around a corner on the PCT into a group of backpackers with heavy packs could end really poorly. Mostly though, I don't want to see Wilderness sold off for privatization.


----------



## Fleas (Jan 19, 2006)

tungsten said:


> DECEMBER 16, 2016
> 
> Is Mountain Biking the Biggest Threat to New Wilderness Designations?
> 
> ...


Just wow.
For one, I had no idea that I was still under 40 y.o.
For two, I had no idea I was an outlaw.
For three, we've been trying for years to attract the under-30 demographic to our MTB club. Thanks so much for solving that for us. I didn't even realize you were working on it. How did you do it?

Or maybe, just maybe, things are different outside of your own backyard.

-F


----------



## BumpityBump (Mar 9, 2008)

norton55 said:


> This thread was over 24 hours ago. Time to move on.


Not really. You wanted to play the "water bible" I set up sediment removal sampling protocols blah blah blah hand as though nobody else could have commentary. That's weaksauce really. We are talking about much more than impacts in logged out forests and marijuana grow operations. By the way, what analytes are you looking at for sediment removal protocols?

I'm personal friends with one of the authors of the River Continuum Concept (PM sent if you need to verify my credentials). You should understand the importance of that work, obviously, if you are doing watershed restoration related to logging. I'm pretty sure he doesn't want to see mountain bikers in Wilderness. That being said, he's a horseman, so go figure (just being forthcoming in my argument). We are not talking logged out National Forest here.

Trying to end debate on a subject based on pretending all should follow you because of your authority status is a pretty weak way to validate your argument IMO.

(edited for clarity on sediment sampling vs turbidity comment made in my initial response)


----------



## cookieMonster (Feb 23, 2004)

tungsten said:


> DECEMBER 16, 2016
> 
> Is Mountain Biking the Biggest Threat to New Wilderness Designations?
> 
> ...


You quoted an author who has no idea what he's talking about. A very large portion of the Gallatin range is non-wilderness and LEGAL to ride. The Gallatin crest area is/was designated wilderness-study area and only fairly recently has been "managed as wilderness." Mountain bikers from the 80s and 90s (including myself) rode that area legally without causing a single problem. That area is so remote, most people would not venture that far even if it was legal today. Utter ******** that it is closed now...

Furthermore -- The Big Snowy mountains are so far from a major population area that the impacts of any mountain biking are negligible -- legally ridden or not.

To address the topic at hand though -- it's about time something is done about the wilderness act and senseless segregation of users. I'm not sure I agree with a blanket opening of WAs to biking, but at least we should open the door to more local discretion.


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

cookieMonster said:


> I'm not sure I agree with a blanket opening of WAs to biking, but at least we should open the door to more local discretion.


No one has ever advocated for a "blanket opening." STC certainly has not. I don't understand why this keeps coming up as a concern.

From a recent STC press release:

A few people are concerned the House of Representatives version of the legislation, H.R. 1349, doesn't give agency officials a say in when and where we could mountain bike. Actually, it doesn't address the issue at all and leaves intact agency regulations that do give officials full authority to manage trail uses. So there'd be no blanket opening and a land manager could choose to keep the no-bike signs. However, we are conferring with the House bill sponsor and the legislation may address this concern in an amended version. Whether it's amended or not, rest assured your local federal land managers will retain complete power to say yes or no to mountain biking. The Senate bill, S.3205 (2016), makes this explicit in the language, so if that version passes it's not even a theoretical concern.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BumpityBump (Mar 9, 2008)

BumpityBump said:


> Trying to end debate on a subject based on pretending all should follow you because of your authority status is a pretty weak way to validate your argument IMO.


Not much time to post today, but thought I should poke fun at myself a little this morning and say others on here might accuse me of doing the same thing as what I accused norton55 of. Plus I wanted to beat them to the punch just in case, ha!

The difference is I'm all about the debate part and the rights of others to express their opinions.

Carry on!


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Nat said:


> Are you guys _really _wanting to ban hikers or were you just being snarky?


I'm for banning horses and pack animals because the erosion caused by them is on par with OHVs. Whether mountain bikes are included with hiking isn't my biggest concern, but I see allowing horses as widely asymmetrical as far as the impacts. If wilderness areas (existing) were limited to on-foot travel I wouldn't be hugely disappointed. This also depends upon not selling out the bulk of forest and BLM land that isn't wilderness.


----------



## BumpityBump (Mar 9, 2008)

Jayem said:


> I'm for banning horses and pack animals because the erosion caused by them is on par with OHVs. Whether mountain bikes are included with hiking isn't my biggest concern, but I see allowing horses as widely asymmetrical as far as the impacts. If wilderness areas (existing) were limited to on-foot travel I wouldn't be hugely disappointed. This also depends upon not selling out the bulk of forest and BLM land that isn't wilderness.


Good post.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Not allowing wheelbarrows and chainsaws? Thats just crazy. How does one do trail work? Tree removal from wind, pest and fire issues?


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Tungsten=Mike Vandeman?


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Nat said:


> Mostly though, I don't want to see Wilderness sold off for privatization.


Could you please explain this further in the context of bike access?


----------



## jimbowho (Dec 16, 2009)

Through lifes struggles I have always been able to go have fun which included skateboarding, desert racing, mtn-bike, shooting, and there is always a large group of anti this and anti that crowd. To me they are just lifes Bogey's like a virus that won't go away unless you get real serious with them. They cannot be spoke with, talk to, there is no chance of a discussion that makes sense in their zombie brain. They are like the Terminator, it's all they know, they won't stop, they are a machine.

My buddies and I we're eating at a restaurant on Ventura Boulevard in California at a very green place. On the wall it said 500 Acres of rainforest is being destroyed every second. We pulled out the calculator and I can't remember but it was close to 3 weeks and the entire Earth would be destroyed according to this propaganda. My point is they the green people just make stuff up.

I have been through all this in the past. S7 S11 it's endless. I hung with the Sahara Club, not to be mistaken for Sierra. I went to Senator hearings in LA, Bishop etc and tried speaking with these freaks. They are zombies and again they cannot be spoke with.

They. Greenpeace, Sierra, Earth First, Forest Service, BLM. (They're on the same team) play tricks. They will close an area down for a speckled frog for a 2 year lame lying test to see if they are really out there. But then never do anything and it never gets opened again.

In the eighties there was a video of Earth firsters sitting around a rock crying and apologizing to The Rock and talking to the trees actually crying. This is what we are dealing with people. We might have a shot at responsible Recreation but we will never have a shot at talking to these type of people.


----------



## Jammor (May 30, 2014)

Great point Jimbo "They. Greenpeace, Sierra, Earth First, Forest Service, BLM. (They're on the same team) play tricks." 

So very true, they are all such liars, with falsehood and mendacity as tools of their trade. And their goal is transparent, they want CONTROL, and they will lie and deceive at every turn to get it. Saul Alinsky and Marxist playbook.


----------



## chasejj (Sep 22, 2008)

jimbo-Thank you . Exactly my experience for the last 30 years of participation in this fight.


----------



## chasejj (Sep 22, 2008)

Jammor said:


> Great point Jimbo "They. Greenpeace, Sierra, Earth First, Forest Service, BLM. (They're on the same team) play tricks."
> 
> So very true, they are all such liars, with falsehood and mendacity as tools of their trade. And their goal is transparent, they want CONTROL, and they will lie and deceive at every turn to get it. Saul Alinsky and Marxist playbook.


Because their mentors Alinsky, Marx and the like preach "end justifies the means".
They toss ethics and the truth aside to achieve their goal. MTB's were lumped into the same user group as Moto, Hunters, 4WD enthusiasts. MTB crowd HATES this fact and have been eating their own trying to escape the label. It will never happen. They HATE MTB riders the same as the others mentioned. Somehow equestrians ride in a grey area of acceptability. Probably due to monied interests more than anything else.


----------



## Giant Warp (Jun 11, 2009)

Why do we have to bring the crying hippies into this?


----------



## dave54 (Jul 1, 2003)

jimbowho said:


> ...
> They. Greenpeace, Sierra, Earth First, Forest Service, BLM. (They're on the same team) play tricks...
> .


Forest Service and BLM on the same team with sierra club and the other domestic terrorist groups? You are sorely mistaken. If anything they are mortal enemies.

In my experience, FS and BLM are dedicated natural resource professionals trying to do their best for the land and serve the people. They are handcuffed by mutually exclusive federal laws and bad court decisions based on ideology and emotion, not sound science. You do not become a senior manager in those agencies without demonstrating an ability and willingness to balance all the conflicting demands on the land and resources.

To claim FS and BLM professionals are greedy and power hungry is both absurd and insulting. You owe them an apology.


----------



## derekbob (May 4, 2005)

The BLM is awesome for mountain biking where I live.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

tungsten said:


> DECEMBER 16, 2016
> 
> Is Mountain Biking the Biggest Threat to New Wilderness Designations?
> 
> ...


Lots of errors in there, but that comes with the source. The Big Snowys are not a WSA. The area was considered for Wilderness recommendation in the 1980s, and not proposed. And as cookiemonster pointed out, the Gallatin Crest is a portion of the Gallatin Range. Wuerthner's mind is too disorganized to even address the subject he chose for the title of his own piece.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

derekbob said:


> The BLM is awesome for mountain biking where I live.


Me too

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## tungsten (Apr 7, 2006)

> To claim FS and BLM professionals are greedy and power hungry is both absurd and insulting. You owe them an apology.


The FS is in the employ of big timber and the BLM is owned by cattle ranchers, oil and gas.
If you don't acknowledge that then maybe it's time to put down the bong. :bluefrown:


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Curveball said:


> Could you please explain this further in the context of bike access?


It's based on what I've been reading in my inbox and newsfeed regarding the GOP-controlled Congress' desire to roll back protections on public lands.

I guess I could spend the time digging up all I've read and posting links but I don't see the point of making that effort here, and honestly this issue falls pretty far down on my scale of important stuff to worry about lately. You can Google "bicycles wilderness" and read if you want.

Here's an article with local perspective on how it would affect my immediate vicinity:
Coming to a wilderness area near you: Mountain bikes?; Proposed bill would allow mountain biking in wilderness areas


----------



## dave54 (Jul 1, 2003)

tungsten said:


> The FS is in the employ of big timber and the BLM is owned by cattle ranchers, oil and gas.
> If you don't acknowledge that then maybe it's time to put down the bong. :bluefrown:


Your head is so far up your ass you can see the back of your own tonsils. You know nothing of how the FS and BLM works, or of private industry. Your claims highlight your total ignorance and bigotry. Stay away from the whacky-doodle conspiracy theory websites that are filling the micro-space between your ears with blathering nonsense.

First you claim the FS and BLM are in the same bed with environmentalist then claim they are in the pocket of private industry. You cannot even keep your contradictions and inconsistencies straight.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Nat said:


> It's based on what I've been reading in my inbox and newsfeed regarding the GOP-controlled Congress' desire to roll back protections on public lands.


I think the desire goes well beyond just rolling back protections. They seem bent on selling off our public lands to private interests.

The sponsors of the bill are no friends of the environment and that is a concern to me as well. It wouldn't be a great surprise if they used mountain bikers for some other agenda and that's something to definitely be alert to. That said, I can support the bill in its current form, but would immediately oppose it if it were changed to suit some other agenda.

Another concern that I have is that if some Wilderness trails are opened up, then it would seem quite likely that e-mtber's would ride there too.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Curveball said:


> It wouldn't be a great surprise if they used mountain bikers for some other agenda and that's something to definitely be alert to.


I mentioned it earlier in the thread, but I don't think the people in power give a rat's ass about mountain biking.



Curveball said:


> Another concern that I have is that if some Wilderness trails are opened up, then it would seem quite likely that e-mtber's would ride there too.


I'm pretty sure they would, even if we "policed ourselves" and put up a thousand signs.


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

Nat said:


> It's based on what I've been reading in my inbox and newsfeed regarding the GOP-controlled Congress' desire to roll back protections on public lands.
> 
> I guess I could spend the time digging up all I've read and posting links but I don't see the point of making that effort here, and honestly this issue falls pretty far down on my scale of important stuff to worry about lately. You can Google "bicycles wilderness" and read if you want.
> 
> ...


The headline is wrong so I didn't read it. That is not what the bill says, it says that the local land manager can choose to allow bikes or not. I assume they would base it on facts. If it's ok, let them in, if not, keep them out.


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

sfgiantsfan said:


> The headline is wrong so I didn't read it. That is not what the bill says, it says that the local land manager can choose to allow bikes or not. I assume they would base it on facts. If it's ok, let them in, if not, keep them out.


I think I've replied to this thread, several times that STC has no ties to Oil and Gas or resource extraction in any form. We also don't have any ties to the Trump administration or any efforts to privatize public land.

You know me (and Jackson too) and know I am entirely focused on cycling. Do you have any ideas on how to convey that STC will only add cycling on a case by case basis to some but not all Wilderness areas? That we have nothing to do with the lies and other malarkey pushed by the Wilderness Society et al?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

jimbowho said:


> They. Greenpeace, Sierra, Earth First, Forest Service, BLM. (They're on the same team) play tricks. They will close an area down for a speckled frog for a 2 year lame lying test to see if they are really out there. But then never do anything and it never gets opened again.





Jammor said:


> Great point Jimbo "They. Greenpeace, Sierra, Earth First, Forest Service, BLM. (They're on the same team) play tricks."
> 
> So very true, they are all such liars, with falsehood and mendacity as tools of their trade. And their goal is transparent, they want CONTROL, and they will lie and deceive at every turn to get it. Saul Alinsky and Marxist playbook.





tungsten said:


> The FS is in the employ of big timber and the BLM is owned by cattle ranchers, oil and gas.
> If you don't acknowledge that then maybe it's time to put down the bong. :bluefrown:


Good God, you're all idiots. The vast majority of USFS and BLM employees are scientists and managers first. I know many people who work for these (and other) agencies. They get completely fed up with the BS from both the enviro-Nazis as well as big extractive industry types who take advantage. I'm a naturalist at a city parks agency and we're scientists and educators first and see quite a lot of the same stuff. We all fall right between all of the crazy. We try to use sound, established science to do our jobs and butt heads with the crazy on all sides.



dave54 said:


> Forest Service and BLM on the same team with sierra club and the other domestic terrorist groups? You are sorely mistaken. If anything they are mortal enemies.
> 
> In my experience, FS and BLM are dedicated natural resource professionals trying to do their best for the land and serve the people. They are handcuffed by mutually exclusive federal laws and bad court decisions based on ideology and emotion, not sound science. You do not become a senior manager in those agencies without demonstrating an ability and willingness to balance all the conflicting demands on the land and resources.
> 
> To claim FS and BLM professionals are greedy and power hungry is both absurd and insulting. You owe them an apology.


This is my exact experience, as well. Some agency staff bring along their own opinions and experience that might run contrary to that, but on the whole, most are professionals first and work hard to balance the realities of the sometimes pretty disparate multiple uses they're required to manage lands under.


----------



## tungsten (Apr 7, 2006)

...


----------



## tungsten (Apr 7, 2006)

dave54 said:


> :madmax:


 You're scary!

Forest Defense Blues

The BLM: a Wholly-Owned Sudsidiary of ExxonMobil


----------



## k2rider1964 (Apr 29, 2010)

norton55 said:


> This thread was over 24 hours ago. Time to move on.


Agreed. Quite frankly, it was over before it started on this board because nobody is changing anybody's mind on this issue.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

tungsten said:


> You're scary!
> 
> Forest Defense Blues
> 
> The BLM: a Wholly-Owned Sudsidiary of ExxonMobil


Editorializing isn't presenting facts and they also disabled comments to prohibit any real conversation. I see you're in Canada, you don't even have a dog in this fight or do you?

What is your hidden agenda?


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

life behind bars said:


> Editorializing isn't presenting facts and they also disabled comments to prohibit any real conversation. I see your in Canada, you don't even have a dog in this fight or do you?
> 
> What is your hidden agenda?


He's just bitter about all the great cycling trails in the Canadian Wilderness

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MtbRN (Jun 8, 2006)

Wow, there is some serious crazy coming out in this thread.ut:


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

Bikes have no more impact than hiking in the same trail. From that standpoint there is no reason to exclude them. There is a lot of hate for bikes and it wilderness is huge. It's very unlikely that it going to be overrun with crazy kids on there bike.
Horses and cows create a massive amount of damage especially after a rain.


----------



## jimbowho (Dec 16, 2009)

Harold. You call us idiots, then blather about FS-BLM are scientists and managers? Aren't you the same guy that when someone asks how to tighten a Spoke you go on and on and on blathering and blathering with a three page post about how to tighten the spoke? And you call me an idiot? I rarely go after anyone but you have no room to talk. My post was spoken with experience many years of it. You are the idiot


----------



## kpdemello (May 3, 2010)

Nat said:


> A group of racers in team kit blasting around a corner on the PCT into a group of backpackers with heavy packs could end really poorly. Mostly though, I don't want to see Wilderness sold off for privatization.


How is opening up wilderness areas to mountain biking somehow going to lead to wilderness areas being sold off for privatization?

Similarly, the crazy article copied and pasted seems to argue that by opening up wilderness areas to mountain biking, all kinds of other users will be allowed access. Why is that necessarily true?


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

kpdemello said:


> How is opening up wilderness areas to mountain biking somehow going to lead to wilderness areas being sold off for privatization?
> 
> Similarly, the crazy article copied and pasted seems to argue that by opening up wilderness areas to mountain biking, all kinds of other users will be allowed access. Why is that necessarily true?


Its not true.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

kpdemello said:


> How is opening up wilderness areas to mountain biking somehow going to lead to wilderness areas being sold off for privatization?
> 
> Similarly, the crazy article copied and pasted seems to argue that by opening up wilderness areas to mountain biking, all kinds of other users will be allowed access. Why is that necessarily true?


Are you referring to the article that I linked from our local newspaper or the one that someone else copied and pasted?



Davey Simon said:


> Its not true.


Make really damned sure, alright?


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

WILCO Nat. As I already stated in the thread I'd publicly denounce STC and HR 1349 if I found out it did anything other than add cycling access to some but not all Wilderness areas on a case by case basis.

I assure you all of the board members of STC feel this way. And our conversations with the bills sponsors reflected this viewpoint. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## kpdemello (May 3, 2010)

Nat said:


> Are you referring to the article that I linked from our local newspaper or the one that someone else copied and pasted?


The one someone else copied and pasted.

It seems to me that adding mountain bikers to your user groups would add a group of people with substantial resources who would vehemently oppose any type of development or access that would jeopardize the ecology of the land. The only thing they ask in return is to be able to ride their human-powered bikes on some trails. Seems like a good trade off and a natural ally for environmentalists.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

kpdemello said:


> The one someone else copied and pasted.


You should ask the person who copied and pasted that article.


----------



## dir-T (Jan 20, 2004)

"then blather about FS-BLM are scientists and managers?"

All of the ones I know certainly are - and I know A LOT of them as they are my clients, friends, and neighbors.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

kpdemello said:


> It seems to me that adding mountain bikers to your user groups would add a group of people with substantial resources who would vehemently oppose any type of development or access that would jeopardize the ecology of the land. The only thing they ask in return is to be able to ride their human-powered bikes on some trails. Seems like a good trade off and a natural ally for environmentalists.


Any reasonable person can see the validity of this statement, but we're not dealing with reasonable people. Their opposition to bikes in wilderness has nothing to do with environmental impact, safety, the intent of the authors, etc.



BumpityBump said:


> The last thing I want in Wilderness is this new generation of self absorbed disrespectful aholes.


.


----------



## kpdemello (May 3, 2010)

I mean, I sort of get where they are coming from. They want to keep their own private playground pristine and free from any uses that might interfere with their own, whether that be hiking, camping, or just staring out the window at it. Really, if there are no scientific reasons for keeping mountain biking out, then the only reason to exclude them is a purely subjective aesthetic.

It seems to me that people who accuse users like mountain bikers of being self-absorbed, tantrum-throwing, spoiled children are really the ones acting like self-absorbed, spoiled children because they refuse to share their little private playground for no other reason than they don't like to share. I mean, don't get me wrong, if there are legitimate reasons to keep mountain biking out of wilderness areas, I would certainly support it. But we should give up on access to these areas just because some guy feels like we are immature? Get off the high horse, man.


----------



## tungsten (Apr 7, 2006)

Case by case......

JANUARY 1, 2015

The Mountain Bike Invasion of Wilderness Areas

by GEORGE WUERTHNER

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) brought some early Christmas presents to the mountain biking community at the expense of wilderness.

Buried in the Act was a boundary adjustment to the Wheeler Peak Wilderness of New Mexico. The existing boundary had been put into place 50 years ago with the signing of the Wilderness Act. Since mountain biking (and any mechanical advantage) is not permitted in official Wilderness, technically mountain bikes were excluded from the Wheeler Peak Wilderness.

Approximately a mile of trail was removed from the wilderness protection to allow legal access (mountain bikers had already been illegally using the trail). The deletion of wilderness status allows the creation of a 15 mile long trail, much of it above 10,000 feet, that links the East Fork to Lost Lake and Middle Fork drainages to create what biking enthusiasts describe as a "ripping-fast single track".

The change in the wilderness boundary was part of the Columbine-Hondo Wilderness Act that permanently protects 45,000 acres of the Carson National Forest in Northern New Mexico near Taos. The Columbine-Hondo was a wilderness study area since 1980.

Mountain bikers in the area consider this a small concession to balance out the loss of 75 trails they had been using in the Columbine-Hondo Wilderness Study Area. But that attitude is part of the problem created by the Forest Service's lax approach to mountain biking in the WSA (as they do nearly everywhere else). Instead of banning bikes from WSAs as they should, the agency allows this incompatible use to flourish, thus creating a constituency that frequently opposes new wilderness designations.

This was not the only concession to mountain bikers in the NDAA. The proposed boundary of a 22,000 acre addition to the Alpine Lakes Wilderness was also adjusted to accommodate mountain bike use along the Middle Fork of the Snoqualmie River.

Similar exclusions and revisions to wilderness proposals in the Hermosa Creek Wilderness in Colorado. The original roadless area was more than 148,000 acres, and for decades conservationists had sought to protect about 100,000 acres as wilderness. However, due to active opposition from mountain bikers, the wilderness boundaries were shrunk to 37,000 keepingwildacres with 70,000 acres being designated a "Special Management Area" to permit mountain biking to continue.

Mountain biking also played a part in the designation of the 208,000 acre Conservation Management Area in Montana along the Rocky Mountain Front. Much of this area was considered to have the highest wilderness qualities of any lands in the lower 48 states during the Forest Service Roadless Areas Review Evaluation.

Yet due to opposition to wilderness designation from mountain bikers, along with other interests like ATVs, loggers, ranchers, etc., some of the most outstanding wildlands in the lower 48 will not garner the protection of wilderness designation. The legislation creating the Conservation Management Area also specifically directs the Forest Service to study expanding mountain biking in this area, likely foreclosing forever the opportunity to designate this area as wilderness in the future.

In the Boulder White Cloud (BWC) proposed wilderness in Idaho, mountain bikers managed to get specific trails that traverse the heart of the range (and wilderness proposal) excluded from any wilderness legislation. Unless this is voided by Congress if and when the BWC obtain some protection, these trails will fragment and diminish the wildlands quality. At least in the BWC, the existing proposal calls for allowing mechanical trail maintenance equipment use like bobcat tractors and of course chain saws.

Not all mountain bikers are wilderness opponents. Indeed, it tends to be the most aggressive bikers who lead the opposition. Many mountain bikers are content to ride roads and trails outside of any existing or proposed wilderness. As this quote here in a guest commentary in the Denver Post demonstrates, some mountain bikers understand why we need wilderness free of bikes. Dennis Coello, author of "The Complete Mountain Biker," says, "In this day of man's increasingly mechanical approach to the outdoors, when thousands experience nature not for what it is through observation but as a playground, there aren't many places left where one is guaranteed one won't be run over by a Jeep or snowmobile or mountain bike. Preserving those [wilderness] areas * at the cost of a disgruntled few seems worth the price."

I wish more mountain bike organizations shared Coello's perspective. Unfortunately most leaders for organizations like the International Mountain Biking Association, along with local biking groups, are among the most dedicated and aggressive mountain bikers. This group lobbies ceaselessly to open more public land to mountain bike access. Unless conservationists start organizing soon, we will eventually see far fewer acres being given the gold standard of wilderness protection.

I do not object to mountain biking as an activity-in appropriate locations. But our remaining wildlands are increasingly under assault from a wide range of impacts-not only the traditional industrial sources like mining, oil/gas, agriculture, ranching, and logging, but also increasingly from a variety of recreation pursuits as well. Wilderness designation is about more than just human recreational opportunities. These lands are places we set aside for the "others", the creatures that require natural places that are protected from human intrusion and manipulation.

Wilderness also has symbolic value. These places represent places that we have set aside as a matter of self-restraint and ethical consideration for the rest of Earth's diversity and lifeforms.

_George Wuerthner is an ecologist who has published 37 books, most recently Keeping the Wild: Against the Domestication of the Earth._


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

tungsten said:


> Copy and paste because I am not able to form cohesive trains of thought or use my own words.


Buh Bye.


----------



## kpdemello (May 3, 2010)

All those words and not a single one addressed any legitimate reason WHY mountain bikes should be excluded from wilderness. Other than, that is, "I just don't want them on my trails"


----------



## forkboy (Apr 20, 2004)

Nat said:


> Make really damned sure, alright?


This is the thing for me. It's not about mountain bikes in the wilderness. It's about the ulterior motives behind the legislation. There is no way that the sponsors of this are passing a bill so that a bunch of cyclists can go have a nice time in a previously off-limits area.

There is more going on here, and it is most likely not in "We The People"s best interest.


----------



## mbmb65 (Jan 13, 2004)

kpdemello said:


> All those words and not a single one addressed any legitimate reason WHY mountain bikes should be excluded from wilderness. Other than, that is, "I just don't want them on my trails"


But, they're "aggressive", man.


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

forkboy said:


> This is the thing for me. It's not about mountain bikes in the wilderness. It's about the ulterior motives behind the legislation. There is no way that the sponsors of this are passing a bill so that a bunch of cyclists can go have a nice time in a previously off-limits area.
> 
> There is more going on here, and it is most likely not in "We The People"s best interest.


So are you saying that the board members of STC are in on it? Just wondering because I am one...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

Who lets these crazy F$%# tards on the site. It's just like the protesters at soldiers funerals, no reasoning with them. The best bet is to fight them at every turn as they don't have a rational bone in there body's. We are the enemy and it's war.


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

Davey Simon said:


> I think I've replied to this thread, several times that STC has no ties to Oil and Gas or resource extraction in any form. We also don't have any ties to the Trump administration or any efforts to privatize public land.
> 
> You know me (and Jackson too) and know I am entirely focused on cycling. Do you have any ideas on how to convey that STC will only add cycling on a case by case basis to some but not all Wilderness areas? That we have nothing to do with the lies and other malarkey pushed by the Wilderness Society et al?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I wish I did have some ideas on how to stop these lies, especially when it is other mountain bikers spreading them. I know you and Jackson are all about cycling and would never support a bill that would harm Wilderness, that is the main reason I support STC


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

tungsten said:


> Mountain biking also played a part in the designation of the 208,000 acre Conservation Management Area in Montana along the Rocky Mountain Front. Much of this area was considered to have the highest wilderness qualities of any lands in the lower 48 states during the Forest Service Roadless Areas Review Evaluation.
> 
> Yet due to opposition to wilderness designation from mountain bikers, along with other interests like ATVs, loggers, ranchers, etc., some of the most outstanding wildlands in the lower 48 will not garner the protection of wilderness designation. The legislation creating the Conservation Management Area also specifically directs the Forest Service to study expanding mountain biking in this area, likely foreclosing forever the opportunity to designate this area as wilderness in the future.











Wow, who knew that mountain bikers had such pull?

That study was a fig leaf - a useless paper exercise with no effect on any future Wilderness or potential for expanded MTB opportunities.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

forkboy said:


> This is the thing for me. It's not about mountain bikes in the wilderness. It's about the ulterior motives behind the legislation. There is no way that the sponsors of this are passing a bill so that a bunch of cyclists can go have a nice time in a previously off-limits area.
> 
> There is more going on here, and it is most likely not in "We The People"s best interest.





Davey Simon said:


> So are you saying that the board members of STC are in on it? Just wondering because I am one...


I'm guessing he's referring to Congress rather than you guys.

Rep. Tom McClintock is the sponsor of HR 1349 and his voting record hasn't been pro-environment.

Last year Senators Mike Lee and Orrin Hatch sponsored the Human Powered Travel in Wilderness Act, and neither of them have voted pro-environment either.

I think that's where everyone's (or at least my) suspicions come from. Can you put my mind at ease?


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

Will this help anyone else understand McClintock's thoughts about public access to public land?






I'm in McClintock's district. Other than voting in favor of the Boulder white clouds wilderness (Not in my district ) he has stepped up/ supported mountain bikers at least four times that I can think of.

He may not be your first, second, or third choice for sponsoring this legislation, but he's who we have and I'm comfortable with him and happy he's doing it. If you want to make sure your issues are addressed in this bill, you better be contacting your local representative and asking him or her to cosponsor this bill.


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

Thanks Empty Beer 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## kpdemello (May 3, 2010)

Nat said:


> I'm guessing he's referring to Congress rather than you guys.
> 
> Rep. Tom McClintock is the sponsor of HR 1349 and his voting record hasn't been pro-environment.
> 
> ...


It's a good question. Do these guys get campaign contributions or some other benefit from mountain biking groups? Money is the traditional means of influencing politicians, after all.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

^ OFFS


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

Nat said:


> I'm guessing he's referring to Congress rather than you guys.
> 
> Rep. Tom McClintock is the sponsor of HR 1349 and his voting record hasn't been pro-environment.
> 
> ...


A better question might by why the "saviors of the left" aren't introducing this legislation. If you're so quick to question the supposed ulterior motives of the people trying to help you, why aren't questioning those who continue to slam the door in your face?

The legislation says what it says. To use super secret back room conspiracy theories as justification for opposition to the efforts makes you look like a brainwashed idiot who watches CNN too much.

Read the bill. Support it if you agree with it. Argue against it if you don't. But in the name of all that is holy and right, stop with the conspiracy theory fear mongering. None of those doomsday scenarios are going to happen, and if somebody were going to try to make them happen, I'm willing to bet they'd have the full opposition of mountain bikers. Why the wilder-nuts continue to throw stones and alienate a large group of people who would otherwise support them really defies logic.

.


----------



## BumpityBump (Mar 9, 2008)

_CJ said:


> A better question might by why the "saviors of the left" aren't introducing this legislation. If you're so quick to question the supposed ulterior motives of the people trying to help you, why aren't questioning those who continue to slam the door in your face?


The "trying to help you" portion of your post implies that all avid mountain bikers want access to Wilderness via bicycle. That's a false assumption.

Why propose legislation for alternative access if a large share of your constituent group isn't interested in that type of access? Makes no sense.

I'm no proponent of large scale liberal hippy idiocy either, just to clarify.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Tungsten = Mike Vandeman (sp?).

I think we're being baited here.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

tungsten said:


> Case by case......
> 
> JANUARY 1, 2015
> 
> ...


This opinion appears to be predicated upon a false assumption that mountain bikes cause harm to Wilderness and that we should continue to lose access based upon this perceived harm. It would appear that the author uses inflammatory language to insinuate that bikes are similar to ATVs, dirt bikes, and loggers in our impact.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Curveball said:


> Tungsten = Mike Vandeman (sp?).
> 
> I think we're being baited here.


I posted that same conclusion early on. I also spoke of Trojan Horses in a motorbike thread and there seems to be a couple of them in this thread. Not all alleged "Mountain Bikers" are on our side.


----------



## tungsten (Apr 7, 2006)

> Tungsten = Mike Vandeman (sp?).


Nope. Spent 25 years in the paint/fabrication shops of a major Cdn. mtn. bike manufacturer.


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

tungsten said:


> Nope. Spent 25 years in the paint/fabrication shops of a major Cdn. mtn. bike manufacturer.


It's kind of odd you have focused so much energy on the one country in North America that does not allow cycling on Wilderness trails.

Canada and Mexico have reasonable access policies and less issues with multi use. Does that make you upset?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## kpdemello (May 3, 2010)

Empty_Beer said:


> ^ OFFS


What? It's a valid question. Why would a legislator care mountain biking access? I imagine the groups who advocate for it make up a pretty small percentage of their constituency.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Empty_Beer said:


> Will this help anyone else understand McClintock's thoughts about public access to public land?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks. I'll watch the video when I can.

Edit: I watched the video.


----------



## Spec44 (Aug 17, 2013)

Could it be as simple as they aren't fans of the federal govt limiting access by the public to public lands? Nobody is asking you to support their campaigns for re-election. Read the bill, if you agree with it, send your support for the bill to your reps.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

BumpityBump said:


> I completely disagree with blanket access to Wilderness Areas by bikes. I already access Wilderness a lot, on foot. If you want to access Wilderness, shoulder a pack. Mountain bikers seem to be becoming as self righteous as the motor crowd, sad. (cue horse argument, yawn)


Sorry but if you are accessing Wilderness Areas with a pack, you are almost assuredly doing so while wearing footwear, yes?

If so you are breaking the law if read in the same light that it is read in to ban bicycles, ie transportation using a mechanical advantage. Shoes are ramps and the soles provide rebound, mechanical transportation.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


----------



## kpdemello (May 3, 2010)

Spec44 said:


> Could it be as simple as they aren't fans of the federal govt limiting access by the public to public lands? Nobody is asking you to support their campaigns for re-election. Read the bill, if you agree with it, send your support for the bill to your reps.


I do agree with the bill, I am just curious as to why politicians would sponsor it. I did watch the video posted by Empty_Beer. It was a nice speech. I want to believe that the legislator is sincerely interested in his constituents concerns, but experience has taught me to question such notions.

Let me be clear - I really wouldn't have an issue with MTB groups that I give money to giving money to politicians that support our causes. While I find the notion of giving money to politicians to get something done to be deplorable as a citizen, I have also had enough experience in politics to realize that it is, in many ways, a pay-to-play system. Unfortunately.

So my question is, does STC and the IMBA and other groups donate to political campaigns? I'm guessing no, but perhaps they have an influence the way many groups do - by telling their members which politicians support their causes, and thereby helping these politicians get re-elected. Again, I'm just curious about the motivations of the legislators.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

kpdemello said:


> I do agree with the bill, I am just curious as to why politicians would sponsor it. I did watch the video posted by Empty_Beer. It was a nice speech. I want to believe that the legislator is sincerely interested in his constituents concerns, but experience has taught me to question such notions.
> 
> Let me be clear - I really wouldn't have an issue with MTB groups that I give money to giving money to politicians that support our causes. While I find the notion of giving money to politicians to get something done to be deplorable as a citizen, I have also had enough experience in politics to realize that it is, in many ways, a pay-to-play system. Unfortunately.
> 
> So my question is, does STC and the IMBA and other groups donate to political campaigns? I'm guessing no, but perhaps they have an influence the way many groups do - by telling their members which politicians support their causes, and thereby helping these politicians get re-elected. Again, I'm just curious about the motivations of the legislators.


 What are the political motivations behind locking out a significant user group out of huge swaths of public lands?

Which organizations are contributing money to politicians that oppose mountain bikers? Which corporations are funding the opposition? We may be surprised to find out the answers of which of our favorite outdoor companies are helping to fund the opposition.

If you support this effort, contact your representatives in Congress and let them know you do. Kicking a few ducats to the S.T.C. wouldn't hurt either.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

tungsten said:


> Nope. Spent 25 years in the paint/fabrication shops of a major Cdn. mtn. bike manufacturer.


 Canada? Ya got no skin n the game here.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

As far as I can tell, McClintock introduced the bill because A) STC's lobbyist met, educated and followed up with his DC staff again and again; B) many mt bikers in his district wrote letters/emails and made phone calls to his office; C) a dozen mt bikers in his district met with him in his Roseville, CA office to discuss (he revealed at that meeting he was going to introduce the bill); and D) this issue is in his sweet spot for helping the public enjoy public lands responsibly. He's also been good to mt biking issues locally. 

He's doing this because his constituents (after a lobbyist set the table) helped him understand that this is an important enough issue to pursue legislation. It helps that he's not afraid of his Sierra Club constituents. This is common sense legislation, despite the fear mongering its opponents are throwing at him. 

To think that anyone paid him money to do this is ridiculous.


----------



## kpdemello (May 3, 2010)

That all sounds good, Beer, and that kind of thing can certainly move a politician to act.



Empty_Beer said:


> To think that anyone paid him money to do this is ridiculous.


Really? Do you know how many special interest groups (of which MTB groups are one) donate to campaigns? I work in an industry that is heavily involved in politics. I had a boss who used to require me to show up at fundraisers and write checks to political candidates that I didn't really support. I didn't like it, but if I wanted my bonus check at the end of the year, I had to show up and write a check.

Do you think the politicians he supported actually picked up the phone when he called? You're damn right they did.


----------



## forkboy (Apr 20, 2004)

Davey Simon said:


> So are you saying that the board members of STC are in on it? Just wondering because I am one...


Well, I don't know you, now do I?

You could be anywhere from a naive but well meaning fool to a malicious participant with your own agenda.

McClintock does not appear to have any history as a friend to the environment.

Look into the background of the people you are getting into bed with. Just because they say the words you want to hear doesn't mean they are working in your interest.

Tom McClintock (R-CA) U.S. House | MapLight - Money and Politics
Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT) U.S. Senate | MapLight - Money and Politics
Mike Lee (R-UT) U.S. Senate | MapLight - Money and Politics

So you have a combination of Real Estate, Logging operations and Oil & Gas development.

Tell us again how this is simply about bicycles in the wilderness.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

Well ****, that sounds a lot easier than trying to build a grassroots effort! We didn't even need to pay a lobbyist! ! Let's all start writing checks to Bernie Sanders and get this legislation passed!


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

forkboy said:


> Well, I don't know you, now do I?
> 
> You could be anywhere from a naive but well meaning fool to a malicious participant with your own agenda.
> 
> ...


So I'm either naive (and trying to destroy the Wilderness act) or I'm being malicious (and trying to destroy the Wilderness act)?

You're not leaving me with any good options here and it seems that you have decided our bill is bad. Likely due to falsehoods pushed by the Wilderness Society.

I'm also guessing that you didn't see that McClintock voted for Wilderness areas in the past? For someone who has never done something for the environment?

I can't really address things that don't exist and I don't think I can convince you if you choose to look at the world with such a narrow perspective.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

forkboy said:


> Well, I don't know you, now do I?
> 
> You could be anywhere from a naive but well meaning fool to a malicious participant with your own agenda.
> 
> ...


Holy crap! Now there's a conspiracy theory about Davey?!? Mt bikers are amazing....

Forkboy- If you support the notion of ending the blanket ban, please share with all of us the names of the Congress people you have contacted yourself (the ones you feel super comfortable about with regard to environment) and what their response was, if any. Thanks.


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

Empty_Beer said:


> Holy crap! Now there's a conspiracy theory about Davey?!? Mt bikers are amazing....
> 
> Forkboy- If you support the notion of ending the blanket ban, please share with all of us the names of the Congress people you have contacted yourself (the ones you feel super comfortable about with regard to environment) and what their response was, if any. Thanks.


I feel like I've finally made it I'm finally someone important enough for an omnipotent conspiracy theory. My life is now complete.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## kpdemello (May 3, 2010)

Empty_Beer said:


> Well ****, that sounds a lot easier than trying to build a grassroots effort! We didn't even need to pay a lobbyist! ! Let's all start writing checks to Bernie Sanders and get this legislation passed!


You're acting like it's not a legitimate question. All kinds of groups donate to campaigns in various ways to influence politicians.

I did a bit of checking and found out the STC is a 501(c)(4) which prohibits them from directly donating to campaigns. Saying something like that would have been an easy, respectful response, but instead you decided to be snarky.

Are you upset because your beer is empty? 'cuz I'm just some guy on a forum asking questions.


----------



## forkboy (Apr 20, 2004)

Davey Simon said:


> So I'm either naive (and trying to destroy the Wilderness act) or I'm being malicious (and trying to destroy the Wilderness act)?
> 
> You're not leaving me with any good options here and it seems that you have decided our bill is bad. Likely due to falsehoods pushed by the Wilderness Society.
> 
> ...


Maybe you are. I don't know.

Is it a narrow perspective? It's a different perspective.

Why would a politician spend the time, energy and money to create a bill that allows bicycles in the wilderness?

Is he a cyclist? 
Are a large base of his constituents cyclists?
Are large funders of his campaign cyclists?

No? Then why? Who benefits if not him?


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

forkboy said:


> Who benefits if not him?


Cyclists benefit. Isn't that enough?


----------



## forkboy (Apr 20, 2004)

life behind bars said:


> Cyclists benefit. Isn't that enough?


We can't think like that anymore.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

kpdemello said:


> You're acting like it's not a legitimate question. All kinds of groups donate to campaigns in various ways to influence politicians.
> 
> I did a bit of checking and found out the STC is a 501(c)(4) which prohibits them from directly donating to campaigns. Saying something like that would have been an easy, respectful response, but instead you decided to be snarky.
> 
> Are you upset because your beer is empty? 'cuz I'm just some guy on a forum asking questions.


I'm simply exhausted with reading conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory about being able to ride bikes in the backcountry once in a while. It is no more complex than that. Its tough enough to get mountain bikers to join IMBA or their local advocacy organization... and now you are spreading FUD about dark money mt. bikers are feeding McClintock so that he'll end up raping and pillaging our Wilderness areas.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

forkboy said:


> We can't think like that anymore.


We can however begin the reclamation of what really is ours in the first place. The HOHA's trade in Wilderness and Wilderness Study Areas as political currency. That's the real disgrace yet none of you wish to acknowledge the dirty dealing that the Sierra Club, Wilderness Society and Friends Of The Forest have brought to bear. Wilderness, bought and paid for by the highest bidders.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

If it's really so wild, how will folks know if we pedal there or not? MA rider here, not so much wilderness near me, maybe some in the White mountains of NH? Not that I advocate breaking the law or such. Wouldn't be the first time an act of civil disobedience sought some justice in the eyes of the public.


----------



## kpdemello (May 3, 2010)

Here is a handy map:

Wilderness.net - U.S. National Wilderness Preservation System Map

I, too, am from MA and there are no wildernesses in our little state. Some in NH and VT, but looks like mostly a left coast thing. I would not recommend the civil disobedience thing though because it reinforces the whole MTBers are irresponsible argument. But then, it's easy for me to say because it doesn't much affect me. If I lived over on the left side, though, I'd probably be really annoyed by the blanket ban.


----------



## bakerjw (Oct 8, 2014)

BumpityBump said:


> I completely disagree with blanket access to Wilderness Areas by bikes. I already access Wilderness a lot, on foot. If you want to access Wilderness, shoulder a pack. Mountain bikers seem to be becoming as self righteous as the motor crowd, sad. (cue horse argument, yawn)


the problem is that a bureaucrat, in one fell swoop, will designate an area as wilderness even though there are roads or maintained trails through it. When that happens, bikepackers lose all access. It has happened and will continue to happen.

I am not for unfettered access everywhere. There are a lot of places where bikes don't belong. Horses too for that matter. What most of this legislation does is put access decisions back into the hands of the land managers.

They are expanding a wilderness area where I ride a lot. I can't get an explanation of the intended expansion but if it is to the South East, then one of the major USFS roads will be off limits to bikepackers.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

bakerjw said:


> the problem is that a bureaucrat, in one fell swoop, will designate an area as wilderness even though there are roads or maintained trails through it. When that happens, bikepackers lose all access. It has happened and will continue to happen.
> 
> I am not for unfettered access everywhere. There are a lot of places where bikes don't belong. Horses too for that matter. What most of this legislation does is put access decisions back into the hands of the land managers.
> 
> They are expanding a wilderness area where I ride a lot. I can't get an explanation of the intended expansion but if it is to the South East, then one of the major USFS roads will be off limits to bikepackers.


Hikers are using mechanized transportation as well, well all but the barefoot ones. Just make that cut both ways with the overly literal reading and access will magically return.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


----------



## BumpityBump (Mar 9, 2008)

bakerjw said:


> the problem is that a bureaucrat, in one fell swoop, will designate an area as wilderness even though there are roads or maintained trails through it. When that happens, bikepackers lose all access. It has happened and will continue to happen.
> 
> I am not for unfettered access everywhere. There are a lot of places where bikes don't belong. Horses too for that matter. What most of this legislation does is put access decisions back into the hands of the land managers.
> 
> They are expanding a wilderness area where I ride a lot. I can't get an explanation of the intended expansion but if it is to the South East, then one of the major USFS roads will be off limits to bikepackers.


Yes, understood. Therefore my buffering in later posts on this thread regarding newly proposed vs historic Wilderness designations.


----------



## BumpityBump (Mar 9, 2008)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Sorry but if you are accessing Wilderness Areas with a pack, you are almost assuredly doing so while wearing footwear, yes?
> 
> If so you are breaking the law if read in the same light that it is read in to ban bicycles, ie transportation using a mechanical advantage. Shoes are ramps and the soles provide rebound, mechanical transportation.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


Is this your 2nd year of college?


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

BumpityBump said:


> Is this your 2nd year of college?


Please explain how a shoe is not a mechanized form of transportation. I'll wait.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


----------



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

tuckerjt07 said:


> Please explain how a shoe is not a mechanized form of transportation. I'll wait.


Please explain how a shoe is mechanized without sounding silly.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Please explain how a shoe is not a mechanized form of transportation. I'll wait.


I think you're reaching with that one.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

J.B. Weld said:


> Please explain how a shoe is mechanized without sounding silly.


Definition of mechanized: introduce machines or automatic processes into.

Definition of a machine: A simple machine is a mechanical device that changes the direction or magnitude of a force.

Normal shoes have several aspects of being a simple machine. They are simplistic inclined planes. They have controlled elasticity that recoups stored energy. Also, by definition, the laces or tightening mechanism is a pulley system.

This requires reading the act in the same simplistic manner used to banish bicycles but when done so it still applies. Shoes are technically complex machines.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

I think banning kites for skiing and boarding is a better comparison to shoes. The pulley on the kites rigging is considered mechanical advantage and the kites were banned. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



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

tuckerjt07 said:


> Definition of mechanized: introduce machines or automatic processes into.
> 
> Definition of a machine: A simple machine is a mechanical device that changes the direction or magnitude of a force.
> 
> ...


That still sounds silly and contrived to me, like those ads for sneakers with springs in them that are always in old people magazines.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

J.B. Weld said:


> That still sounds silly and contrived to me, like those ads for sneakers with springs in them that are always in old people magazines.


Do you argue that shoes are generally taller at the heel than toe?

How about the fact that rubber, or even leather for that matter, compresses under load and then rebounds under release?

What about the fact that tightening mechanisms allow for extra leverage making the shoe more comfortable to wear?

All I'm doing is being a devil's advocate by reading the act in the same absurdly simplistic manner.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

I don't know if the "shoes are machines" argument would help the cause. You probably don't want to put that up on the STC website.


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

Nat said:


> I don't know if the "shoes are machines" argument would help the cause. You probably don't want to put that up on the STC website.


It's not. None of the people from STC are taking that tack. It is however an interesting point of discussion. Considering the mechanical advantage argument is extremely biased at best.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



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

tuckerjt07 said:


> Do you argue that shoes are generally taller at the heel than toe?
> 
> How about the fact that rubber, or even leather for that matter, compresses under load and then rebounds under release?
> 
> ...


Honestly I'm not sure about the context of all of this but it seems cut and dry to me that bicycles are mechanized transport and shoes are not, even if the technical definition can be construed otherwise.

I have several pairs of zero drop shoes, if I leave the laces loose would those be considered non-mechanized?


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

J.B. Weld said:


> Honestly I'm not sure about the context of all of this but it seems cut and dry to me that bicycles are mechanized transport and shoes are not, even if the technical definition can be construed otherwise.
> 
> I have several pairs of zero drop shoes, if I leave the laces loose would those be considered non-mechanized?


As long as they contain a compressible material they are machines. It's pretty cut and dry that anything that provides a redirection or enhancement of energy is by definition a machine.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Davey Simon said:


> It's not. None of the people from STC are taking that tack. It is however an interesting point of discussion. Considering the mechanical advantage argument is extremely biased at best.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


That's my entire point. It won't go anywhere but let's call a spade a spade. Shoes and bikes are both forms of human powered mechanized transportation. One is more accepted, even thought of as a "necessity", so we had better not call it what it really is.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Do you argue that shoes are generally taller at the heel than toe?
> 
> How about the fact that rubber, or even leather for that matter, compresses under load and then rebounds under release?
> 
> ...


You, are not helping. Thanks in advance for stowing this nonsense.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

tuckerjt07 said:


> It's pretty cut and dry that anything that provides a redirection or enhancement of energy is by definition a machine.


Water?


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Nat said:


> Water?


Water without mechanical advantage, direction, constriction, etc., is just a force as there is no redirection or change in its applied energy.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


----------



## Surly29 (Jun 8, 2009)

J.B. Weld said:


> I have several pairs of zero drop shoes, if I leave the laces loose would those be considered non-mechanized?


That sounds reckless to me. Better not call for search and rescue with that $hit!

Seriously though, I thought the argument against bikes as mechanized was more about the grease, oil, and now-a-days suspension and brake fluid. I wouldn't want someone to blow a hydro line in a wilderness area and spew DOT-3 brake fluid all over the place. I once blew a seal on a RS Judy and was embarrassed by all the fluid I lost. Luckily I was right next to the highway because it left a bit of a puddle.


----------



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

tuckerjt07 said:


> As long as they contain a compressible material they are machines. It's pretty cut and dry that anything that provides a redirection or enhancement of energy is by definition a machine.


Are you the one selling those springy shoes in the old people magazines?



Nat said:


> Water?


Damn straight, no water and only wooden zero drop shoes with no laces in wilderness areas!


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Water without mechanical advantage, direction, constriction, etc., is just a force as there is no redirection or change in its applied energy.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


Oregon coast water spout machine?

















Old Faithful geyser machine?


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Nat said:


> Oregon coast water spout machine?
> 
> View attachment 1137933
> 
> ...


???Non sequitur machine.

Your point? Those are naturally occurring machines. They are not relevant to a discussion around human created machines.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

bakerjw said:


> the problem is that a bureaucrat, in one fell swoop, will designate an area as wilderness even though there are roads or maintained trails through it. When that happens, bikepackers lose all access. It has happened and will continue to happen.
> 
> I am not for unfettered access everywhere. There are a lot of places where bikes don't belong. Horses too for that matter. What most of this legislation does is put access decisions back into the hands of the land managers.
> 
> They are expanding a wilderness area where I ride a lot. I can't get an explanation of the intended expansion but if it is to the South East, then one of the major USFS roads will be off limits to bikepackers.


I think we all agree that including cycling as mechanized transport is largely BS. Also it's helpful to keep in mind that the Wilderness act originally forbade "mechanical transport from a non living power source." Until it was changed in 1984. So all these arguments about what is mechanical are largely irrelevant to me. Does it have a motor? Or not? That is the question.

The above quote is why I joined STC and why I have been dedicating a lot of my free time to the effort. All of the narrow trails where I lived were lost to cyclists due to this arbitrary decision in 1985.

The history is here. It is important to note that the impacts were not limited to Wilderness:

http://www.georgewright.org/181rothman.pdf

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



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

Davey Simon said:


> I think we all agree that including cycling as mechanized transport is largely BS. Also it's helpful to keep in mind that the Wilderness act originally forbade "mechanical transport from a non living power source." Until it was changed in 1984. So all these arguments about what is mechanical are largely irrelevant to me. Does it have a motor? Or not? That is the question.


Motors are well on their way to becoming a non-living power source in the eyes of the law.


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

J.B. Weld said:


> Motors are well on their way to becoming a non-living power source in the eyes of the law.


Yeah I'm pretty sure that was the intent of the Wilderness Act

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Surly29 (Jun 8, 2009)

What happens if the E-bike lobbyists successfully get those things classified as "just another bike"? Access for e-bikes too?


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Surly29 said:


> What happens if the E-bike lobbyists successfully get those things classified as "just another bike"? Access for e-bikes too?


The motor is and will always be the line of demarcation.


----------



## Surly29 (Jun 8, 2009)

Well, thanks to the lawyers in our country, common sense like this does not always prevail.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

tuckerjt07 said:


> ???Non sequitur machine.
> 
> Your point? Those are naturally occurring machines. They are not relevant to a discussion around human created machines.


I believe it was you who was trying to make a point. I just blew holes in your argument using my hole blowing machine.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Nat said:


> I believe it was you who was trying to make a point. I just blew holes in your argument using my hole blowing machine.


Except your hole blowing machine is a non sequitur, ie a fallacy. Nice try, I guess?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Except your hole blowing machine is a non sequitur, ie a fallacy. Nice try, I guess?


I do not think you are helping the cause.


----------



## bakerjw (Oct 8, 2014)

Surly29 said:


> What happens if the E-bike lobbyists successfully get those things classified as "just another bike"? Access for e-bikes too?


This is why I am generally opposed to e-MTBs.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Nat said:


> I do not think you are helping the cause.


You, and a couple of others, are ignoring the fact that tone and content of message can vary based on the current audience.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


----------



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

life behind bars said:


> The motor is and will always be the line of demarcation.


I used to think the same thing and in the beginning mountain bike advocates like me used that as one of our main arguing points. Organizations like Sierra Club said it was a slippery slope, would be mountain bikers said it was cut and dry. Turns out the "enviro-nuts" were right and the same people who will argue that a shoe is a machine have successfully convoluted some laws into describing a motorbike as a bicycle. Unfortunately technicalities often carry more weight than common sense.


----------



## Surly29 (Jun 8, 2009)

bakerjw said:


> This is why I am generally opposed to e-MTBs.


And way I am generally opposed to blanket bans. Or blanket lifting of bans, if that is a thing.

e-MTBs can have a place. Mountain passes, MUTs that allow motorcycles. But just like e-MTBs don't belong everywhere, there should be a limit to mtn bikes as well.

Maybe I'm just one of those guys who is totally sickened by the changes I've seen in most trails over the past 5 or 10 years. Many have been widened and dumbed down and I think it is mostly mtn bikers that are responsible.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

It's hard to believe that any mountain biker, or normal person for that matter, would believe that riding a bicycle is inappropriate in Wilderness areas.

I'm pretty Liberal generally, but issues like this make me want to vote Conservative.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

I think that the really big kicker for me is that we now enjoy access to many very scenic high mountain trails. Awesome places to ride a bike.

However, bike access to a good many of those places is threatened by possible Wilderness designations. Here in Washington State, there are some the best trails that you can imagine that are threatened by proposed Wilderness designation. If we don't support the efforts of the STC, then we stand to lose out on some of the very best trails in the country. This should be more than enough reason to support the access bill.

On another tangent, to get a sense of the impacts of biking in wild areas, Canada allows biking in magnificent high mountain areas with little detriment.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

bakerjw said:


> This is why I am generally opposed to e-MTBs.


Yep. Me too.


----------



## Surly29 (Jun 8, 2009)

Here's what I'd like to see. Just my 2 cents.

How about a simple, straight forward bill, possibly an amendment/addendum to the current law, which states that all newly designated Wilderness Areas or Study Areas must have 50 ft easements for all existing trails and roads? Existing restrictions could remain in place in existing areas.

In addition, any public or private entities that receive permission from the govt. to work or do research in a protected area have to collect data for a study into bike vs non-bike trails. Actual scientific evidence to support the extent to which mtn bike affect the environment.


----------



## Surly29 (Jun 8, 2009)

Suns_PSD said:


> It's hard to believe that any mountain biker, or normal person for that matter, would believe that riding a bicycle is inappropriate in Wilderness areas.


I eluded to it in post #218, but have you ever ridden through a stream deeper than your chain? See the rainbow ribbon that floated down the water?

The question is to what extent are you willing to pollute the environment.


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

Surly29 said:


> Here's what I'd like to see. Just my 2 cents.
> 
> How about a simple, straight forward bill, possibly an amendment/addendum to the current law, which states that all newly designated Wilderness Areas or Study Areas must have 50 ft easements for all existing trails and roads? Existing restrictions could remain in place in existing areas.
> 
> In addition, any public or private entities that receive permission from the govt. to work or do research in a protected area have to collect data for a study into bike vs non-bike trails. Actual scientific evidence to support the extent to which mtn bike affect the environment.


You should get to work on that...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Surly29 (Jun 8, 2009)

Not an issue in my area.

Stay out of my Wilderness Areas!


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

Surly29 said:


> Not an issue in my area.
> 
> Stay out of my Wilderness Areas!


I think you're posting in the wrong sub forum. We need FC to create a Mountain Bikers Against Mountain Biking forum for you...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Surly29 (Jun 8, 2009)

Davey Simon said:


> I think you're posting in the wrong sub forum. We need FC to create a Mountain Bikers Against Mountain Biking forum for you...
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Because I express a view different from your's? Wanna get your buddies a MTBR to intervene on your behalf.

A threat of trail lose in Washington should not effect Wilderness Areas in Colorado. That's all I'm saying.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Davey Simon said:


> I think you're posting in the wrong sub forum. We need FC to create a Mountain Bikers Against Mountain Biking forum for you...
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


There it is. Later than expected, but there it is.

Anyone with a different opinion than Davey Simon is a hater, an anti-, a HOH, against mountain biking, etc.

Davey, you make some damn good points. You're quite pursuasive, very passionate and know a lot about the subject. But when you make the inevitable personal attack, you lose people.

Stay on message, stay positive, and you'll attract more people to your cause.

I expect Empty_beer and the rest of the gang to pile on shortly.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Le Duke said:


> I expect Empty_beer and the rest of the gang to pile on shortly.
> 
> Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


Probably not, it's been surprising civil for a hot topic on MTBR.


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

Le Duke said:


> There it is. Later than expected, but there it is.
> 
> Anyone with a different opinion than Davey Simon is a hater, an anti-, a HOH, against mountain biking, etc.
> 
> ...


Really? So a guy(?) starts claiming STAY OUT OF MY WILDERNESS AREAS!!! on a cycling forum, after claiming the oil from my chain will be damaging to wildlife after I've ridden it submerged and I'm supposed to keep it civil?

Seriously how many trolls are you going to have to throw at me claiming that I'm part of some anti environment cabal, a lacky for the Oil and Gas industry, one of Trumps minions or that my bike is some kind of Exxon oil tanker just waiting to spring a leak and defile a Wilderness area before I call it like it is?

Let's address the problem of underwater chain lube and the health of creeks. Tell us what you think of the validity of that concern LeDuke before you call me out as being intolerant. Because I've heard a metric ton of ******** already on this thread and I can't wait to hear about that.

Im just filling up my camp stove with white gas as I await your reply...

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Surly29 (Jun 8, 2009)

Davey Simon said:


> Really? So a guy(?) starts claiming STAY OUT OF MY WILDERNESS AREAS!!! on a cycling forum, after claiming the oil from my chain will be damaging to wildlife after I've ridden it submerged and I'm supposed to keep it civil?


You quoted my post first.

I am concerned about further polluting our wilderness areas.


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

Surly29 said:


> You quoted my post first.
> 
> I am concerned about further polluting our wilderness areas.


The fact you think the issue of people riding with their drivechain submerged in a water body long enough for the chain lube to interact with the environment is a very clear indication you are not a cyclist.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Surly29 (Jun 8, 2009)

Davey Simon said:


> The fact you think the issue of people riding with their drivechain submerged in a water body long enough for the chain lube to interact with the environment is a very clear indication you are not a cyclist.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Okay. More personal attacks?

Care to explain how this has ZERO effect on the water quality again?


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

Surly29 said:


> Okay. More personal attacks?
> 
> Care to explain how this has ZERO effect on the water quality again?


I'm saying the scenario is so implausible that it could only be presented by someone who doesn't ride bikes.

Generally it's made clear when someone claims they are a cyclist but says bikes cause v shaped ruts or bikes will be ridden with the drive chain submerged in a creek that they are an anti posing as a cyclist and trolling the forum.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Surly29 (Jun 8, 2009)

Seems implausible to me that someone could ride a bike for 30+ years and NOT notice trail damage. Minimal? Sure, but its still needs to addressed.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

I generally portage my bike across creeks rather than risk damage to the environment or my bike. I also believe that you'd find than most if not all back country Cyclists have the same concerns. You have to take care of the ride or you're packing it out. We get it, not everyone want's bicycles to have access and I respect that but, throwing out highly improbable scenarios to try to support your position isn't the way to sway opinion imo.


----------



## Surly29 (Jun 8, 2009)

Went hiking in Utah once where they asked us to pack out our TOILET PAPER. I complied.


----------



## Surly29 (Jun 8, 2009)

I get your point, but I also think it could be possible that someone blows a hydro line within a Wilderness Boundary.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Surly29 said:


> I get your point, but I also think it could be possible that someone blows a hydro line within a Wilderness Boundary.


Dude, I know people that claim to have seen Bigfoot in the wilderness. I know one infamous person that claimed to have been abducted by Aliens. Sounds improbable doesn't it? The simple fact is that before there were Wilderness areas there were much more severe spills than a few ounces of mineral oil. I'll use your toilet paper analogy, it could be cleaned up and packed out. Easy peezy. Solutions, not exclusions.


----------



## mbmb65 (Jan 13, 2004)

Surly29 said:


> I get your point, but I also think it could be possible that someone blows a hydro line within a Wilderness Boundary.


How many times has that happened to you? How many times have you seen it happen to others? Heard of it happening? I'm sure it has happened, but in the nearly 20 years I've been riding hydraulic discs, I've never once seen it happen, or even heard of happening. Leaching of petroleum from your hiking boots likely probably causes more contamination. And you do realize that, whatever goes in water, moves down stream? Right?


----------



## Surly29 (Jun 8, 2009)

Do you really think someone would clean up their spill? With what, a cycling jersey?


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Surly29 said:


> Do you really think someone would clean up their spill? With what, a cycling jersey?


The same way a hiker or backpacker would or are you inferring that people don't clean up after themselves in the back country? The only difference is the method of conveyance. We are all the same people, the same tribe in the back country


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

It's amazing how someone can get so worked up about a few ounces of mineral oil but completely ignore the aircraft that have crashed into fish lake. So many have done so on this approach it's lovingly called "Lake Cessna".

Never mind that the double L in 100LL stands for lead.






But hey this is allowed in a Wilderness area but cycling isn't.

Seems legit.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Surly29 (Jun 8, 2009)

Twice. Once was a full blow-out where the line actually separated right at a fitting, the other was a crimp that leaked very slowly and could have easily been stopped in the field.

Point is things happen.


----------



## Surly29 (Jun 8, 2009)

DOT-3 fliud. I wish it was only mineral oil.


----------



## mbmb65 (Jan 13, 2004)

Surly29 said:


> Do you really think someone would clean up their spill? With what, a cycling jersey?


What about back packer's and their cook fuel? Do they ever spill that ****?


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

mbmb65 said:


> What about back packer's and their cook fuel? Do they ever spill that ****?


No it's whisked away by angels

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Surly29 (Jun 8, 2009)

Your ALLOWED to crash planes in your wilderness areas?


----------



## mbmb65 (Jan 13, 2004)

Davey Simon said:


> No it's whisked away by angels
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


River angels?


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

mbmb65 said:


> River angels?


Superiority Angels!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Surly29 said:


> I get your point, but I also think it could be possible that someone blows a hydro line within a Wilderness Boundary.


And what about the backcountry areas that are not within designated Wilderness boundary?

Shouldn't we be concerned about all wild areas regardless of drawn boundaries?


----------



## mbmb65 (Jan 13, 2004)

Curveball said:


> And what about the backcountry areas that are not within designated Wilderness boundary?
> 
> Shouldn't we be concerned about all wild areas regardless of drawn boundaries?


Apparently not. Just the aquatic environment's within the "wilderness".


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Surly29 said:


> Your ALLOWED to crash planes in your wilderness areas?


His making light of your well it might happen fallacy. 
.
.
.
.
.
. 
.
.
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
Your head

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


----------



## mbmb65 (Jan 13, 2004)

Davey Simon said:


> Superiority Angels!
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Man, I need one of those on my shoulder!


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Surly29 said:


> DOT-3 fliud. I wish it was only mineral oil.


It's not the S.S. Valdez FFS, it can be cleaned up if the very unlikely event ever happens. Hell, we could all just use mechanical brakes to ally any fears of contamination. You act like Cyclist are going to descend upon the Wilderness like locusts, you could not be further from the realities of it.

Solutions, not exclusions.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Surly29 said:


> Point is things happen.


Following this reasoning, bikes should be banned from all trails based upon risk to the environment. You don't think that all environmentally sensitive areas are limited to within Wilderness boundaries do you?


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Curveball said:


> Following this reasoning, bikes should be banned from all trails based upon risk to the environment. You don't think that all environmentally sensitive areas are limited to within Wilderness boundaries do you?


Following that reasoning humans should be banned from everywhere. A person could die, never be recovered and the environmental impact of their possessions leaching into the environment could be much worse than any brake line rupture.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


----------



## Surly29 (Jun 8, 2009)

Curveball said:


> And what about the backcountry areas that are not within designated Wilderness boundary?
> 
> Shouldn't we be concerned about all wild areas regardless of drawn boundaries?


Isn't that the idea behind wilderness areas? Someplace that is preserved a little more.


----------



## Surly29 (Jun 8, 2009)

For future generations? What is so wrong with putting aside a little piece of nature and saying "no, we want to try our hardest to keep this area pristine..." 

EDIT: wishing I hadn't responded to name calling. Sorry to those who read it.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Surly29 said:


> Isn't that the idea behind wilderness areas? Someplace that is preserved a little more.


Can you go to a high backcountry trail that used by bikes and a Wilderness trail used by hikers and actually tell any difference whatsoever?


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Surly29 said:


> For future generations? What is so wrong with putting aside a little piece of nature and saying "no, we want to try our hardest to keep this area pristine..."


 Cyclists have no more impact that hikers so that's a Red Herring.

I would also posit that because Cyclists travel with more efficiency that they actually have less of an impact in the back country because their camps tend to be further apart than other users.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Surly29 said:


> For future generations? What is so wrong with putting aside a little piece of nature and saying "no, we want to try our hardest to keep this area pristine..."


I think it depends upon what you consider pristine. I'd think that pristine would mean no trails or human presence whatsoever.

If you consider an area laced with hiking trails pristine, then you'd have to demonstrate that bikes on those trails degrade them more than the hikers and horsies do. That may be a tough case to make.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Curveball said:


> Can you go to a high backcountry trail that used by bikes and a Wilderness trail used by hikers and actually tell any difference whatsoever?


Well, actually yes. I go to both a lot and there is a distinct difference (at least around here).


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Nat said:


> Well, actually yes. I go to both a lot and there is a distinct difference (at least around here).


Interesting. What sort of differences do you notice?

I'm curious about this.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Here's a couple of trails in a local to me Wilderness area. As you can see, Wilderness areas aren't all the same and would not be impacted in the same ways. Access should be handled on a case by case basis by local Land Managers.


----------



## Surly29 (Jun 8, 2009)

All depends on how much traffic the trails see. I gave an example in the other thread of a backcountry trail along a wilderness boundary that has seen an impact from bikers.

I'm not trying to be an a absolutist here, but many people are concerned about impacts from allowing bicycles in wilderness areas. Maybe it's a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" attitude. Maybe its that most of these concerns are met with a "you're being completely ridiculous and we don't even want to respond to your concerns" attitude.


----------



## Surly29 (Jun 8, 2009)

And this is where I agree with everyone. Case-by-case.

Please don't come to my Wilderness Areas in Colorado and tell me you just have to have access.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Surly29 said:


> All depends on how much traffic the trails see. I gave an example in the other thread of a backcountry trail along a wilderness boundary that has seen an impact from bikers.
> 
> I'm not trying to be an a absolutist here, but many people are concerned about impacts from allowing bicycles in wilderness areas. Maybe it's a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" attitude. Maybe its that most of these concerns are met with a "you're being completely ridiculous and we don't even want to respond to your concerns" attitude.


But many are responding and not all of the people that are responding are dismissive. Most would acknowledge that not all Wilderness areas should even be candidates for inclusion of Cyclists or even are suitable for it. On the other hand, why not include Cyclists in the areas that could be deemed suitable?


----------



## Surly29 (Jun 8, 2009)

Curveball said:


> I think it depends upon what you consider pristine. I'd think that pristine would mean no trails or human presence whatsoever.
> 
> If you consider an area laced with hiking trails pristine, then you'd have to demonstrate that bikes on those trails degrade them more than the hikers and horsies do. That may be a tough case to make.


I don't even agree with this one myself totally, but here goes...

Wouldn't you need to demonstrate that bikes on those trails DO NOT degrade them more than hikers and horses?


----------



## Surly29 (Jun 8, 2009)

life behind bars said:


> But many are responding and not all of the people that are responding are dismissive. Most would acknowledge that not all Wilderness areas should even be candidates for inclusion of Cyclists or even are suitable for it. On the other hand, why not include Cyclists in the areas that could be deemed suitable?


Yes. Thanks again for your well thought out replies. Others as well.

I'd probably agree with most situation, but the blanket ban or the blanket inclusion is what bothers me.


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

Surly29 said:


> And this is where I agree with everyone. Case-by-case.
> 
> Please don't come to my Wilderness Areas in Colorado and tell me you just have to have access.


Don't you understand that this is what STCs bill is trying to accomplish.

Case by case Wilderness access for some trails. Only where the land manager and locals agree on it.

If you want to organize a MBAMB group in "your" Wilderness areas and you can get the ear of the land manager it's a certainty that you would never see access.

Areas that already have cycling such as the many in the proposed NREPA Wilderness bill could likely remain open to cycling but still get the benefit of Wilderness protection.

Here's a handy map if you aren't familiar with NREPA:

http://www.saveamericasforests.org/NREPA/S.3022-2016-maps/NREPA_4_28_16.pdf

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Curveball said:


> Interesting. What sort of differences do you notice?
> 
> I'm curious about this.


In Central Oregon we have some high country single track open to biking, which get a lot of use. They are in close proximity to trails within the Wilderness boundary that sees only foot and horse traffic, so the geology and climate are the same.

I've noticed that the trails on which there is a lot of bike traffic tend to have a U-shaped cross section, deeper in the center of the track. The trails without bike traffic tend to have a flat base with a cross section that looks more like |____| (unless horses have turned them into total F-ed up bombing ranges). Corners on the bike trails have a bit of a berm (wheeee!) whereas the non-bike trails do not. I'll see if I can pull up some of my photos that show it well.



life behind bars said:


> Here's a couple of trails in a local to me Wilderness area. As you can see, Wilderness areas aren't all the same and would not be impacted in the same ways. Access should be handled on a case by case basis by local Land Managers.


I think that having local land managers make the final decision would be wise. I did read some articles though that said there would be a two year time limit to do so, after which if the local Land Manager did not close a trail to bikes then it is by default open. The concern with the two year time limit was that for a government agency to do impact assessments could easily take more than two years, especially if they have a lot of mileage to evaluate within their district. What's your opinion on this idea? Do you think it's a valid concern?


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

Nat said:


> In Central Oregon we have some high country single track open to biking, which get a lot of use. They are in close proximity to trails within the Wilderness boundary that sees only foot and horse traffic, so the geology and climate are the same.
> 
> I've noticed that the trails on which there is a lot of bike traffic tend to have a U-shaped cross section, deeper in the center of the track. The trails without bike traffic tend to have a flat base with a cross section that looks more like |____| (unless horses have turned them into total F-ed up bombing ranges). Corners on the bike trails have a bit of a berm (wheeee!) whereas the non-bike trails do not. I'll see if I can pull up some of my photos that show it well.
> 
> I think that having local land managers make the final decision would be wise. I did read some articles though that said there would be a two year time limit to do so, after which if the local Land Manager did not close a trail to bikes then it is by default open. The concern with the two year time limit was that for a government agency to do impact assessments could easily take more than two years, especially if they have a lot of mileage to evaluate within their district. What's your opinion on this idea? Do you think it's a valid concern?


The two year time limit is no longer part of the bill. So it is no longer a concern.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Davey Simon said:


> The two year time limit is no longer part of the bill. So it is no longer a concern.


That's good to know. So would the default be everything is opened until closed, or everything stays closed until opened?


----------



## Surly29 (Jun 8, 2009)

Davey Simon said:


> Don't you understand that this is what STCs bill is trying to accomplish.
> 
> Case by case Wilderness access for some trails. Only where the land manager and locals agree on it.


The bill, HR 1349, was introduced on March 15th on behalf of the mountain biker organization, the Sustainable Trails Coalition (STC). This bill would amend the Wilderness Act to allow bikes, strollers, wheelbarrows, game carts, survey wheels, and measuring wheels in every unit of the National Wilderness Preservation System.

So was this quoted wrong in the original post? I've been mostly arguing against allowing any of these things in "EVERY UNIT OF THE NWPS"


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

Nat said:


> That's good to know. So would the default be everything is opened until closed, or everything stays closed until opened?


As previously designated (closed).

Again all we are doing is giving the land managers the ability to open a trail to cycling in a Wilderness area.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Surly29 (Jun 8, 2009)

Nat said:


> That's good to know. So would the default be everything is opened until closed, or everything stays closed until opened?


That would make all the difference to me.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Surly29 said:


> That would make all the difference to me.


Same here.



Davey Simon said:


> As previously designated (closed).
> 
> Again all we are doing is giving the land managers the ability to open a trail to cycling in a Wilderness area.


Davey, maybe you should've opened with that, like in your first post instead of that thing about helicopters, LOL.

Maybe make it crystal clear in the first paragraph of the STC website too, "default is closed unless opened by the land managers."

I think it would make a difference to a lot of people if they understood the default.


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

Nat said:


> Same here.
> 
> Davey, maybe you should've opened with that, like in your first post instead of that thing about helicopters, LOL.
> 
> ...


Did you read the recent press release. It's all addressed there.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Davey Simon said:


> Did you read the recent press release. It's all addressed there.


Yes, I even went back and re-read it. I'm trying to help you by telling you, it wasn't clear enough. The press release had _a lot _of info that people will skim right over. If I could miss it, so could others, and the burden is on you guys to communicate your proposal well.

Or don't listen to me and continue to run into needless opposition. If the press release had stated the default right at the top I would've had my concerns allayed before the end of page 1.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Davey Simon said:


> Did you read the recent press release. It's all addressed there.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


With all due respect, people should not have to ask. It should be out front, center. In your face transparency so it's crystal clear. Ally peoples fears of a take over because it's not happening like that.

Mountain Bikers are not going take over the Wilderness, most just want to transit it to connect already existing routes or regain recently lost legacy trails.


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

I'll pass it along to the board 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Surly29 (Jun 8, 2009)

I saw different statements on your web-site. Only link to the bill I found still had a 2-year limit with all areas being open to bikes if a decision wasn't made.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

life behind bars said:


> With all due respect, people should not have to ask. It should be out front, center. In your face transparency so it's crystal clear. Ally peoples fears of a take over because it's not happening like that.


Exactly. This fight is going to come down to communication skills. STC might even want to hire a pro PR person if they're serious.


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

Nat said:


> Exactly. This fight is going to come down to communication skills. STC might even want to hire a pro PR person if they're serious.


Would you care to help with a donation to accomplish that?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

I'll consider it.

Right now my fight is with health care and immigration. Bikes in Wilderness is far down my list of importance. Like I said before, I'm fine with the status quo.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

IBEXLVR said:


> Uh oh, watch out. Here comes the nazi to shut down free speech... I thought I was in the usa... maybe the servers are based in North korea...





IBEXLVR said:


> "Preserved a little more."
> For what reason?
> For people to see it?
> How many people will see it if there are no trails through it?





IBEXLVR said:


> I smell a jew... trying to monopolize alot of land with fancy words and nonsensical idealism. But hey if it sounds good it must feel good, so let's give the land to the owners of the *****!


Hey there, genius.

The only entity that can (illegally) infringe upon your right to free speech is the government. Also, they are the only entity that guarantees that right.

This is a message board. You have no right to free speech here. If you want spew vile hate speech, do it somewhere else.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## Surly29 (Jun 8, 2009)

115th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1349

To amend the Wilderness Act to ensure that the use of bicycles, wheelchairs, strollers, and game carts is not prohibited in Wilderness Areas, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 2, 2017

Mr. McClintock (for himself, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Westerman, and Mr. Pearce) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources
A BILL

To amend the Wilderness Act to ensure that the use of bicycles, wheelchairs, strollers, and game carts is not prohibited in Wilderness Areas, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. Use of certain wheeled devices not prohibited in Wilderness Areas.

Section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1133(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following: “Nothing in this section shall prohibit the use of motorized wheelchairs, non-motorized wheelchairs, non-motorized bicycles, strollers, wheelbarrows, survey wheels, measuring wheels, or game carts within any wilderness area.”.


This is the bill I don't like.

The Hatch bill is much more agreeable, but I read this one first and guess I missed the other. This bill does not seem to allow for local land managers and seems to be a blanket inclusion of all bikes in all wilderness areas.


----------



## 779334 (Oct 10, 2014)

Whoah, there. Posts deleted. I hope an admin can log in soon and ban that dufus.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

AshevilleMTB said:


> Whoah, there. Posts deleted. I hope an admin can log in soon and ban that dufus.


Thank you.


----------



## norton55 (Oct 5, 2005)

AshevilleMTB said:


> Whoah, there. Posts deleted. I hope an admin can log in soon and ban that dufus.


I thought the mods have the power to ban. That's why I use the report button.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Curveball said:


> Interesting. What sort of differences do you notice?
> 
> I'm curious about this.


Curveball, since you asked... I just scrolled through a few thousand photos (on a Friday evening pre-bbq no less. You're welcome.) and most of my trail shots are bigger scale. I don't have too many that are down at the ground level, but here's what I've found. The images of course don't show a dramatic difference, kind of like how hills are always steeper than they look, but maybe you can see it a little bit. You can definitely see the differences out on the trails though, so before anyone says they all look the same, they're not. My photography just doesn't show it well.

With bikes. Notice a slight trough shape in which the centerline of the track is a little deeper.
















Without bikes. Notice the width of the track is about the same level.


----------



## 779334 (Oct 10, 2014)

norton55 said:


> I thought the mods have the power to ban. That's why I use the report button.


Hi Norton,

Supermods can. Regular mods can only delete, edit, make things invisible. They don't have access over a user's account.

No worries, I PMed the concern to someone with more privileges.


----------



## Ericmopar (Aug 23, 2003)

BumpityBump said:


> And those hucking off rocks? Mountain bikers have attracted a major asshole crowd since I started 30 years ago. I get more annoyed by bikers than any other faction except poorly behaved dogs on my local trails. My dog listens to voice commands and stops on a dime, it isn't that hard but people are lazy regarding training. The last thing I want in Wilderness is this new generation of self absorbed disrespectful aholes.
> 
> I find it funny (sad really) that you fight ebikes on your current trails but think you should open access over protests of hikers. Where do you draw the line?? Don't you realize that sentiment will be used against you?


I'm afraid I agree with this. 
I've run into a whole new bunch of first class A-Holes on the trails these days. Cutting corners, illegal trail building, no respect for hikers, or even other bikers etc. When I first started riding in the mid 90s, the claims of what mountain bikers were doing, were almost entirely false, now I see a whole lot of skidding up trails and other crap, at least here in S. Nevada... Illegal trail building is a fricking disease around here. 
My only complaint about Wilderness Areas, is that horses are allowed in many, and they are far more destructive than bikes. 
I've seen trails that were fine for years, like in Cotton Wood, get opened to horses, and they were powder in just 90 days flat. Those trails were terribly damaged when we get summer T-Storms.


----------



## norton55 (Oct 5, 2005)

AshevilleMTB said:


> Hi Norton,
> 
> Supermods can. Regular mods can only delete, edit, make things invisible. They don't have access over a user's account.
> 
> No worries, I PMed the concern to someone with more privileges.


Got it. Thanks. That post was way out of line.


----------



## Surly29 (Jun 8, 2009)

> Got it. Thanks. That post was way out of line.


Hi AshvilleMTB,

I edited my post #275 because I repeated the things that guy said, but I noticed it got quoted before I could edit and now those two particular words are still out there.

If you could, I would love it if you remove that part of the quote from Curveball's post #278.

Thank you. And again, I apologize for even responding to that.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

Davey Simon said:


> The two year time limit is no longer part of the bill. So it is no longer a concern.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


That's too bad. Local bike haters wilderness managers will simply do nothing. As for surly, he seems to be grasping at straws to justify his support of the bike exclusion.

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk


----------



## 779334 (Oct 10, 2014)

Done!


----------



## Picard (Apr 5, 2005)

Americans must be running out of wilderness to ride bikes. Sheesh 

Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## Surly29 (Jun 8, 2009)

AshevilleMTB said:


> Done!


Thanks


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

zorg said:


> That's too bad. Local bike haters wilderness managers will simply do nothing. As for surly, he seems to be grasping at straws to justify his support of the bike exclusion.
> 
> Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk


If you look at his post history it's pretty obvious he's a troll.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Surly29 said:


> And this is where I agree with everyone. Case-by-case.
> 
> Please don't come to my Wilderness Areas in Colorado and tell me you just have to have access.


Whoa!!! What the hell is this?

We agree on something!:thumbsup:


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

zorg said:


> That's too bad. Local bike haters wilderness managers will simply do nothing. As for surly, he seems to be grasping at straws to justify his support of the bike exclusion.
> 
> Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk


It would appear that Surly isn't as opposed to us as it seemed at first. He posted that he'd be okay with evaluating access on a case by case basis.


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

Curveball said:


> It would appear that Surly isn't as opposed to us as it seemed at first. He posted that he'd be okay with evaluating access on a case by case basis.


He's just trolling. He already changed his position yet again and proposed a ridiculous red herring to support his viewpoint. He's also posted on other threads that he is adamantly against any cycling in Wilderness areas.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Davey Simon said:


> If you look at his post history it's pretty obvious he's a troll.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Perhaps not. He did post that he may agree with access on a case by case basis which the STC bill includes.

You may end up owing him an apology.


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

Curveball said:


> Perhaps not. He did post that he may agree with access on a case by case basis which the STC bill includes.
> 
> You may end up owing him an apology.


If you look at his posts he clearly states his position in another thread: he is dead set against cycling access in Wilderness. Yet he is here stating that he'd be OK with it if his ridiculous concerns like mineral oil or chain lube contaminating "his" Wilderness areas can be addressed. These red herrings are not only impossible to address but steer the conversation the way he wants.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Nat said:


> Curveball, since you asked... I just scrolled through a few thousand photos (on a Friday evening pre-bbq no less. You're welcome.) and most of my trail shots are bigger scale. I don't have too many that are down at the ground level, but here's what I've found. The images of course don't show a dramatic difference, kind of like how hills are always steeper than they look, but maybe you can see it a little bit. You can definitely see the differences out on the trails though, so before anyone says they all look the same, they're not. My photography just doesn't show it well.
> 
> With bikes. Notice a slight trough shape in which the centerline of the track is a little deeper.


Nat, you really didn't have to go to so much effort to answer my question and I appreciate the photos. As a geologist, you'd think that I'd notice the tread differences but apparently not. I agree with you that there are differences.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Le Duke said:


> Hey there, genius.
> 
> The only entity that can (illegally) infringe upon your right to free speech is the government. Also, they are the only entity that guarantees that right.
> 
> ...


Duke, since I can't add any more to your reputation, I'll give you a big thumbs up for this post!:thumbsup:


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Davey Simon said:


> Would you care to help with a donation to accomplish that?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Why yes, yes I would.


----------



## Surly29 (Jun 8, 2009)

Davey Simon said:


> If you look at his post history it's pretty obvious he's a troll.


I never heard the term "Sustainable Trails" before about the time IMBA started giving guild lines for building trails. They told us mtn bikes won't cause additional trail damage if the trails are built properly. The Telluride Ski Area abandoned most of their trails to be replaced with a system of sustainable trails. If your org. is named Sustainable Trails, isn't that admitting there non-sustainable trails.

Obviously many people, mtn bikers included, are concerned about the additional impacts from mtn biking in wilderness areas. But STC does nothing to quell these fears, if anyone speaks out against them they start mud slinging.

I see this organization as just another special interest group. Political lobbyists who aren't nearly as interested in what's best for this country, or even bikers for that matter, as they are with their bottom line.

I got no solutions form this thread, only solicitation for donation!!!


----------



## Surly29 (Jun 8, 2009)

Whow, took me so long to write that post that you guys covered a lot of it for me.


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

Surly29 said:


> I never heard the term "Sustainable Trails" before about the time IMBA started giving guild lines for building trails. They told us mtn bikes won't cause additional trail damage if the trails are built properly. The Telluride Ski Area abandoned most of their trails to be replaced with a system of sustainable trails. If your org. is named Sustainable Trails, isn't that admitting there non-sustainable trails.
> 
> Obviously many people, mtn bikers included, are concerned about the additional impacts from mtn biking in wilderness areas. But STC does nothing to quell these fears, if anyone speaks out against them they start mud slinging.
> 
> ...


I've addressed everyone's concerns but balked at your ridiculous and impossible to address issue of chain oil contaminating streams in Wilderness areas. Looking back at your forum posts you spend quite a bit of time bad mouthing STC and our bill.

Just don't be disingenuous that you're not absolutely opposed to cycling in Wilderness areas. You've stated that before.

Now you're coming on here stating that STC hasn't addressed sustainable trails and that all we do is ask for donations. Both completely untrue.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Surly29 (Jun 8, 2009)

I've bad mouthed STC? Where?

I stated I'm opposed to allowing mtn bikes in ALL wilderness areas. If someone comes up with a specific case, I'll listen. As far as "MY" wilderness areas (yes, they are public lands and I pay taxes) I don't want riders to be allowed without some assurances that they will not cause additional damage.

You're not going to bully me into changing my position on this.


----------



## Surly29 (Jun 8, 2009)

Mtn bikes can cause deeper ruts that hiking. Where did you address that concern?


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

You're just showing your true colors now.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Surly29 (Jun 8, 2009)

Yup. Red, white, and blue!


----------



## powpig (May 27, 2008)

Surly29 said:


> Mtn bikes can cause deeper ruts that hiking. Where did you address that concern?


You are reaching bad right now Surly.

If the condition of a trail is a concern (which by your quoted post it obviously is), this has absolutely nothing to do with Wilderness.

Trails are never "untrammeled by man", that's pretty much the point of a trail.

If Wilderness has a trail through it, then it doesn't really qualify as true Wilderness then does it?

So any place that has trails can't possibly be Wilderness, right?


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

So how many wildernuts on this thread?

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

zorg said:


> So how many wildernuts on this thread?
> 
> Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk


It's the same 3 or 4, as on other threads.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



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

What is a wildernut?


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Name calling is the refuge of those that cannot respond in a thoughtful manner. Please do not derail this thread with baseless attacks as they are detrimental to the efforts of those on both sides of the issue.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Curveball said:


> Nat, you really didn't have to go to so much effort to answer my question and I appreciate the photos. As a geologist, you'd think that I'd notice the tread differences but apparently not. I agree with you that there are differences.


No big deal. I enjoyed flipping through my old photos. It could just be our local trails that respond differently to different users. Or maybe not.

Wildernat


----------



## dave54 (Jul 1, 2003)

powpig said:


> ...
> If the condition of a trail is a concern (which by your quoted post it obviously is), this has absolutely nothing to do with Wilderness.
> 
> Trails are never "untrammeled by man", that's pretty much the point of a trail.
> ...


True. 3 miles of hiking trail built to standard design specs = 1 acre clearcut. Actually worse than a clearcut. BMPs for timber harvesting call for erosion and soil disturbance mitigation, and clearcuts are reforested as soon as possible. Trails are by design to be permanent.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

zorg said:


> So how many wildernuts on this thread?
> 
> Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk


I guess you could call me a wildernut because I really love wilderness. I just happen to think that bikes should not be excluded from wilderness areas without reason.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Surly29 said:


> I never heard the term "Sustainable Trails" before about the time IMBA started giving guild lines for building trails. They told us mtn bikes won't cause additional trail damage if the trails are built properly. The Telluride Ski Area abandoned most of their trails to be replaced with a system of sustainable trails. If your org. is named Sustainable Trails, isn't that admitting there non-sustainable trails.
> 
> Obviously many people, mtn bikers included, are concerned about the additional impacts from mtn biking in wilderness areas. But STC does nothing to quell these fears, if anyone speaks out against them they start mud slinging.
> 
> ...


 Just because you never heard of them doesn't meant they did not exist. Study after study shows mt bikes and hiking have similar impacts. Horses? Talk abut laying waste to a trail and run off, start there. The idea of a sustainable trail is one that is designed well, with the slope, terrain, soil consistency and topography considered. Old game trails and hiking trails going strait up and down a slope are not considered sustainable. Switchbacks, limited trail grade( not too steep of a pitch) rolling grade dips and trail reversals all help to make the trail sustainable, ie not washed out by water. Impacts? Like from hikers just doing the same out and back. Or say bikepackers covering a much lager, dispersed, spread out trail route, away from the trail head congestion. Hmmm.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

I can hardly believe that any mountain biker would support these Arcane Wilderness laws that only serve to separate citizens from what is rightfully theirs to enjoy and limits these resources only to a very small segment of the population.
Let me give you a clue, it's rocks dirt and grass. That's it. You're not going to hurt it by riding a bicycle over it, you might make a little worn spot but I promise you in a thousand years it's not going to exist anyways
This is just selfish people that think their preferred way of enjoying the outdoors is the only acceptable way and trying to force their beliefs on everyone else and steal public land from the other 99%. Despicable..


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk


----------



## tungsten (Apr 7, 2006)

............


----------



## tungsten (Apr 7, 2006)

> Canada allows biking in magnificent high mountain areas with little detriment.


How do you know?
Remember Canada only has 35,000,000 people.
What would happen to that "magnificent high mountain area" after it was discovered by you yanks?
Oh wait, you want to **** in your own nest? Go ahead.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

tungsten said:


> Remember Canada only has 35,000,000 people.


Should be pretty easy to over run it then.


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

It would be cool if there was one thread on MTBR regarding STC and our that wasn't started and frequented by trolls. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

tungsten said:


> Remember Canada only has 35,000,000 people.


That's like 140 million collarbones.

I'm learning so much about Canada this week.


----------



## norton55 (Oct 5, 2005)

tungsten said:


> How do you know?
> Remember Canada only has 35,000,000 people.
> What would happen to that "magnificent high mountain area" after it was discovered by you yanks?
> Oh wait, you want to **** in your own nest? Go ahead.


Just like the kilometer after kilometer of clearcuts on the YellowHead Highway from Jasper to Prince Rupert. Just like the Canadian Government dumping units of Doug Fir here cheaper than my local mill can cut and mill. Go away.


----------



## tungsten (Apr 7, 2006)

norton55 said:


> Just like the kilometer after kilometer of clearcuts on the YellowHead Highway from Jasper to Prince Rupert. Just like the Canadian Government dumping units of Doug Fir here cheaper than my local mill can cut and mill. Go away.


Ah yes softwood lumber. We've punked you guys what, three times on this already and they'll rule in our favour again.



> North America, USA, Washington, Olympic Peninsula.


Oregon or Idaho....


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

tungsten said:


> We've


We? The only thing you've ever contributed to is the ever rising unemployment numbers.


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

*Nice Red Chicklets*

How'd those come about?


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

Cleared2land said:


> How'd those come about?
> 
> View attachment 1139309


Seems like they were earned. I wish IP address were published on posts so we could see who is using sock puppet accounts to bolster their opinions.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Curveball said:


> Interesting. What sort of differences do you notice?
> 
> I'm curious about this.


Curveball, I took a couple of photos from the same geographical vicinity with the camera set down at ground level in the center of the trail. It shows the difference in contour to which I was referring earlier. The first image is from a trail used primarily by bikes, the second one allows no bikes. Each tread is approximately 2' wide where the camera was.


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

Nat the photos show cupping. This happens on all trails. The first photo is a likely a trail that sees heavier traffic or is older. Or both. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Davey Simon said:


> Nat the photos show cupping. This happens on all trails. The first photo is a likely a trail that sees heavier traffic or is older. Or both.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


The first also is not out-sloped to a cliff/exposure as the second is. The increased runoff due to the cliff and slope to it will also help "wash" the cupping away.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

You guys, try not to read too much into it. The pics were for Curveball and are posted without accusation. 

BTW, both trails see high user volume. The no-bikes trail has been there over a hundred years, the trail with bikes allowed has been there less than fifteen. Even on level ground the same cross section wear patterns take place on our local soils. I just happened to snap the pics where I did.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

So 15 years of mountain bikes puts a 2 inch cup in a trail.
rain and 1 week of cows/horse does this to a trail. Horses have access because?


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

alexbn921 said:


> So 15 years of mountain bikes puts a 2 inch cup in a trail.
> rain and 1 week of cows/horse does this to a trail. Horses have access because?


Horses is a non starter. The conversation is about bikes and their access and we're trying really hard not to throw any user groups under the bus.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Nat said:


> You guys, try not to read too much into it. The pics were for Curveball and are posted without accusation.
> 
> BTW, both trails see high user volume. The no-bikes trail has been there over a hundred years, the trail with bikes allowed has been there less than fifteen. Even on level ground the same cross section wear patterns take place on our local soils. I just happened to snap the pics where I did.


That looks like a pretty typical tread for a well constructed bike trail in my modest experience and I find that land managers generally find that to be acceptable impact. Thanks for the pics.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

It is a well designed bike trail that has held up to heavy use. The pic was not implying that the cupping is bad.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Nat said:


> The pic was not implying that the cupping is bad.


I in no way took it that way. It's a good example that should be used as an example of good trail design and construction.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

Mostly I see dirt and no reason to exclude bikes 

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

life behind bars said:


> Horses is a non starter. The conversation is about bikes and their access and we're trying really hard not to throw any user groups under the bus.


You're correct. I was not trying to throw horse under the bus. We are having an irrational conversion about erosion. It has been proven threw multiple studies that bikes have no more impact then hikers. My point was that other factors have a massive impact on the trails. The storms this year have proven that. I like horses and want them to continue to have access.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

life behind bars said:


> I in no way took it that way. It's a good example that should be used as an example of good trail design and construction.


Thanks, I understand. I'm spelling it out for anyone else who's itching for an e-fight. Curveball asked if anyone has noticed a difference and I told him yes, I have (because I consistently have, and I'm out in the woods on both types of trails _a lot_). Never implied one was good and the other was bad, and I don't recall saying anything in this thread about erosion.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

The fact that someone cares that 2" of rock have shifted over a few inches underscores the level of insanity with these eco nuts.
It's not even going to exist there in a few thousand years you bozos. It's rocks and dirt!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk


----------



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

Hoof prints and boot tracks aren't the only impacts on a trail, and there's good reason why one user group might be excluded from certain areas besides erosion issues. One example would be no fly zones over the Grand Canyon.


----------



## NH Mtbiker (Nov 6, 2004)

This moves to the house floor for a vote and then signed into law by "The Apprentice" himself. Sorry, still can't combine the words Trump and President together. :madman:

https://www.bikemag.com/news/mounta...36:2523773&_wcsid=C5772796AF7EA8E9529D5162B22

:thumbsup:


----------



## powpig (May 27, 2008)

Letter sent to my Senator



> Dear Senator Heller -
> 
> I moved to Nevada in 1992 so I've lived here for more than 25 years. I am an avid mt biker and have watched as available trails to ride across the country have been closed to bikes due to their re-classification as Wilderness. At least this has not happened here in Nevada.
> 
> ...


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

powpig said:


> ...Thanks for taking the time to read my thoughts.


I kinda doubt that happened.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

Cleared2land said:


> I kinda doubt that happened.


You might be surprised. Our Congressional Representative actually organized a "community meeting" when we lost a local trail to enviro-whackos, and if not for his involvement, I doubt the trail that was built to replace it would exist today.

.


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

You're fortunate!


----------



## Giant Warp (Jun 11, 2009)

In my local forum (in Utah) there is a guy that rides a mountain unicycle. At first I thought, "hey, he could ride that in the wilderness". But then I remembered sometimes people on unicycles like to juggle balls when they ride. We don't need that kind of non-sense in the wilderness...... just saying.....


----------



## powpig (May 27, 2008)

Cleared2land said:


> I kinda doubt that happened.


Is that a comment on Heller or politicians in general? Don't really care, just curious.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

Cleared2land said:


> You're fortunate!


I really doubt he even knew what a mountain bike was prior to the trail getting shut down, but he had enough bikers and motorcycle guys emailing him that he got involved. And let me tell you, when a congressmen gets involved, people show up, and people pay attention. He definitely earned some votes going forward that day.

.


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

Cleared2land said:


> You're fortunate!





powpig said:


> Is that a comment on Heller or politicians in general? Don't really care, just curious.


It was a comment based on the detail of the OP's letter. The comment was made towards politicians in general.

I am one who will commonly send my elected officials' an email sharing my thoughts and opinions when a topic has relevance to me. I have learned to really capture their attention, you have to be part of a larger consensus of agreeing voters and be direct in your point.

The OP was fortunate that the outcome was fruitful and I applaud his efforts and success.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

Me and some local mt bikers wrote some letters to McClintock last year, then we asked to meet with him. At the meeting he listened to us and then announced to us he would introduce a bill to restore bike access in Wilderness. Yes he was influenced by STC's lobbyist too. That wouldn't have happened if all we did was debate this on the Internet with strangers. Good job powpig.

Since this is a thread resurrection of a Wilderness purist wacko article, here's your Sunday morning reading 

https://idahostatejournal.com/opini...cle_2f37d85b-a133-5038-b1dc-d4ebcc5fd882.html


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Surly29 said:


> Mtn bikes can cause deeper ruts that hiking. Where did you address that concern?


 And the grazing cattle and loaded pack horses? Dance gracefully on the trail?


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

Curveball said:


> I guess you could call me a wildernut because I really love wilderness. I just happen to think that bikes should not be excluded from wilderness areas without reason.


I think I fit the profile even better.
I love wilderness* and *nuts--almonds, especially.

I also think bikes are doing plenty to be excluded from currently legal trails, so I think the WA argument is pretty much moot, or just an argument to get even more public push back and paint MTB in an even more unflattering light.

But no one cares what I think, so don't worry about it.


----------



## tungsten (Apr 7, 2006)

.......


----------



## tungsten (Apr 7, 2006)

> There is overwhelming evidence that all recreational use can negatively impact wildlife. However, not all recreational use is equal. Mechanical access including mountain biking can increase displacement and stress for sensitive wildlife more so than hikers.


https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/08/20/why-the-gallatin-range-deserves-protection/


----------



## 93EXCivic (Mar 12, 2018)

Silent_G said:


> Here's what I see, day to day at my shop, that is the real issue. Words like "play" and "toy" and "well it's just a bike..." and "I ride for sport". Kills me.


What is so wrong with that? My bikes are just fancy (well not that fancy) toys.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

tungsten said:


> https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/08/20/why-the-gallatin-range-deserves-protection/


As soon as I saw Vandeman's name in there, the article lost all credibility.


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Curveball said:


> As soon as I saw Vandeman's name in there, the article lost all credibility.


And I stand corrected. I researched several papers linked in the referenced article that do document negative effects from mountain biking to elk. It would seem that some degree of regulation may be warranted in that regard.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

Curveball said:


> And I stand corrected. I researched several papers linked in the referenced article that do document negative effects from mountain biking to elk. It would seem that some degree of regulation may be warranted in that regard.


Find a study of unhunted elk. There aren't any; all the papers cited to argue that recreation is an issue state that more study is needed. Unhunted elk don't demonstrate a flight response to humans. Ever been to Yellowstone?

Also- hunting is recreation, and causes probable mortality to elk. Mountain biking does not cause elk mortality.


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

I’m sure all human activity has an effect on all wildlife. Why single out a specific user group. Oh yeah because it totally fits the existing bias...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Abox (Feb 27, 2004)

tungsten said:


> https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/08/20/why-the-gallatin-range-deserves-protection/


Forget all this. Tell us what you love about mountain biking, guy posting on a mountain biking site.


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

George Wuerthner is a profoundly anti cycling author. His work is hardly an unbiased look at the reality on the ground 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Davey Simon said:


> I'm sure all human activity has an effect on all wildlife.


Bingo. It does. Some wildlife species are more sensitive to it than others. Hell, the simple presence of a trail has an effect on a lot of species, regardless of whether people are present or not. The presence of a tree has an effect on an awful lot of species (and for some species, that effect is a negative one). If the purpose of a specific unit of land is 100% to protect certain species, people DO get excluded. But this is not the case for a vast majority of managed land units. They balance human use. In the grand scheme, nonconsumptive, nonmotorized recreation has pretty low effects. Especially if visitations are rarer and if trail density is much lower.

But when Vandeman is part of the discussion (whether he enters it on his own, or gets inserted into it by lunatics like tungsten), none of that is really what the discussion is about.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

I would expect hikers to have a far greater impact on wildlife due to sheer numbers. In my area, hikers outnumber bikers by a huge margin. I expect that to be the case for Montana as well.

Given this, if wildlife protection is the main goal, then I'd expect to exclude all humans from the area of interest.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

evasive said:


> Find a study of unhunted elk. There aren't any; all the papers cited to argue that recreation is an issue state that more study is needed. Unhunted elk don't demonstrate a flight response to humans. Ever been to Yellowstone?
> 
> Also- hunting is recreation, and causes probable mortality to elk. Mountain biking does not cause elk mortality.


Yes, I have been to Yellowstone.

Just to clarify, when I said that some degree of regulation may be warranted, I certainly did not mean banning bikes from Wilderness. What I meant was that certain trails might be closed at different times of the year to protect elk herds for example. Basically accommodating wildlife needs in recreation planning.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Curveball said:


> What I meant was that certain trails might be closed at different times of the year to protect elk herds for example. Basically accommodating wildlife needs in recreation planning.


We have seasonal trail closures (in non-Wilderness areas) here in Bend to protect calving elk.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Curveball said:


> Yes, I have been to Yellowstone.
> 
> Just to clarify, when I said that some degree of regulation may be warranted, I certainly did not mean banning bikes from Wilderness. What I meant was that certain trails might be closed at different times of the year to protect elk herds for example. Basically accommodating wildlife needs in recreation planning.





Nat said:


> We have seasonal trail closures here in Bend to protect calving elk even in non-Wilderness areas.


Solutions are the way forward, not exclusions like Vanderman espouses. tungsten very well may be Vanderman.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

life behind bars said:


> Solutions are the way forward, not exclusions like Vanderman espouses. tungsten very well may be Vanderman.


look at his posts in off camber. I wouldn't be surprised.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

Curveball said:


> Yes, I have been to Yellowstone.
> 
> Just to clarify, when I said that some degree of regulation may be warranted, I certainly did not mean banning bikes from Wilderness. What I meant was that certain trails might be closed at different times of the year to protect elk herds for example. Basically accommodating wildlife needs in recreation planning.


Seasonal closures are entirely appropriate management tools. I think they should apply to all (nonmotorized) uses and users, though. In many cases they do. Backcountry Hunters & Anglers were pushing for a local one applied solely to bicycles during fall. That's not wildlife management so much as recreation management.


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

Yep. There is a Federal designation to protect Wildlife called a Wildlife Preserve. It severely restrictive of all human activity. Therefore unpopular with the hiking stick crew...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Davey Simon said:


> Yep. There is a Federal designation to protect Wildlife called a Wildlife Preserve. It severely restrictive of all human activity. Therefore unpopular with the hiking stick crew...
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Cool, I'm completely fine with leaving critical wildlife habitat alone.

That said, I think it's important to realize that there are vast areas within the Wilderness system that are not critical habitat.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Curveball said:


> Cool, I'm completely fine with leaving critical wildlife habitat alone.
> 
> That said, I think it's important to realize that there are vast areas within the Wilderness system that are not critical habitat.


Yeah, like the one wilderness I backpacked in tx where the "trail" was an old county road

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk


----------



## tungsten (Apr 7, 2006)

Harold said:


> Yeah, like the one wilderness I backpacked in tx where the "trail" was an old county road
> 
> Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk


If you couldn't find "wilderness" in Texas I don't think you're qualified to call people "lunatics", let alone engage in this discussion. :lol:


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

tungsten said:


> If you went to Texas looking for "wilderness" I don't think you're qualified to call people "lunatics", let alone engage in this discussion. :lol:


Regardless of what you want to call me, the USFS has designated quite a few big-w Wilderness areas in Texas, most of which are in the far eastern part of the state. On whether they should be designated Wilderness areas in the first place, I think you've made my point for me, inadvertently, perhaps. There is no good reason for excluding bicycle use on said closed county road.

My reasons for going there are irrelevant. I went there, nonetheless.


----------



## Sage of the Sage (Nov 10, 2011)

tungsten said:


> If you couldn't find "wilderness" in Texas I don't think you're qualified to call people "lunatics", let alone engage in this discussion. :lol:


Regurgitated talking points, rehashed opinion pieces, and grade-school level insults are all signs of intellectual bankruptcy, Mr. Tungsten. Perhaps if you'd care to formulate an original, well-structured rebuttal, folks would be more willing to "discuss" things with you.

Allowing certain user groups in wilderness areas and excluding others that have similar, if not less, impact stinks of favoritism and pseudoscience. STC simply endeavors to return the control of the area in question to the individual presumably most qualified to judge impacts on expanding its use... the local land manager.


----------



## veloborealis (Oct 25, 2009)

tungsten said:


> If you couldn't find "wilderness" in Texas I don't think you're qualified to call people "lunatics", let alone engage in this discussion. :lol:


You're deliberately missing the point. Not that he needs my support, but Harold's judgement is valued by many on this forum. Yours not so much.

Your position is clear, but what qualifies you to engage in this discussion?


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

Wilderness is for the public to enjoy. 
MTBers need to join together to fight to recreate in all wilderness areas and essentially reject all arguments to the contrary. 
These people that want to prevent the public from enjoying the land that is rightfully theirs to enjoy, do it out of pure selfishness. All of their talking points are lies to manipulate the public. 
Reject them completely. 

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk


----------



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

Suns_PSD said:


> Wilderness is for the public to enjoy.


All of it? For everyone? Why are mountain bikes ok and 500cc petrol bikes aren't? What about their right to enjoy it their way?

Just saying there's either a line in the sand somewhere or there isn't, and if there is there's always going to be some people who feel that they've been wronged. Personally I don't think all wilderness areas are appropriate for all access and believe that some core areas should even be human-free. Help keep America wild!


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

J.B. Weld said:


> All of it? For everyone? Why are mountain bikes ok and 500cc petrol bikes aren't? What about their right to enjoy it their way?
> 
> Just saying there's either a line in the sand somewhere or there isn't, and if there is there's always going to be some people who feel that they've been wronged. Personally I don't think all wilderness areas are appropriate for all access and believe that some core areas should even be human-free. Help keep America wild!


Yep, fortunately most mountain bikers really just want to open some wilderness areas that have already existing trails/roads that have to be navigated around because wilderness designations cut off access to already in place trails, making unwieldy detours necessary.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

tungsten said:


> If you couldn't find "wilderness" in Texas I don't think you're qualified to call people "lunatics", let alone engage in this discussion. :lol:


Have you been to Texas? It's huge and over 95% of it is privately owned ranch land.


----------



## SteveF (Mar 5, 2004)

Suns_PSD said:


> Wilderness is for the public to enjoy.
> MTBers need to join together to fight to recreate in all wilderness areas and essentially reject all arguments to the contrary.
> These people that want to prevent the public from enjoying the land that is rightfully theirs to enjoy, do it out of pure selfishness. All of their talking points are lies to manipulate the public.
> Reject them completely.
> ...


I think you're confusing recreational land with wilderness land. Wilderness land is set aside to be protected from human impact as much as possible. Recreational land is for the public to enjoy, though I think it's important that it be protected from over-use and over-development. I'd like to see some mtb trail access in wilderness areas where it is judged appropriate usage, not too impactful, etc. But I get why sometimes it isn't allowed. The way it's set up now, wilderness land can't be locally managed to that degree, removing the knee-jerk ban on mtb's and allowing managers (and advocates) to make that call on a case by case basis would be sufficient, IMO.


----------



## jestep (Jul 23, 2004)

mack_turtle said:


> Have you been to Texas? It's huge and over 95% of it is privately owned ranch land.


Yeah, it's ridiculous down here. Coming from Colorado, I'm still appalled at the lack of public land for the size of the state. The spanish land grant system left almost nothing at all. This always makes me equally appalled when people from states like this want to gut the BLM, and USFS, and other regulatory agencies that manage public land in the west.


----------



## Abox (Feb 27, 2004)

J.B. Weld said:


> All of it? For everyone? Why are mountain bikes ok and 500cc petrol bikes aren't? What about their right to enjoy it their way?
> 
> Just saying there's either a line in the sand somewhere or there isn't, and if there is there's always going to be some people who feel that they've been wronged.


I vote we advocate for mountain bikes and stop there.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

tungsten said:


> If you couldn't find "wilderness" in Texas I don't think you're qualified to call people "lunatics", let alone engage in this discussion. :lol:


When you degrade the conversation to childish insults, you lose all credibility.

You also help make the case that you really are Vanderman and have no place on this forum.


----------



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

Abox said:


> I vote we advocate for mountain bikes and stop there.


Of course, me too. Just keep in mind that until the ebike issue settles out if you advocate for mtb access you might also be advocating for electric mountain bikes.

Until you get to the top of the food chain everyone thinks we should stop wherever their interests lie. Tank driving enthusiasts don't care much who else has access.


----------



## ALimon (Oct 12, 2017)

BumpityBump said:


> I completely disagree with blanket access to Wilderness Areas by bikes. I already access Wilderness a lot, on foot. If you want to access Wilderness, shoulder a pack. Mountain bikers seem to be becoming as self righteous as the motor crowd, sad. (cue horse argument, yawn)


I do shoulder a pack when I ride. . By claiming mountain bikers shouldn't have access to the wilderness, well that there my friend, is the very definition of self-righteous


----------



## Abox (Feb 27, 2004)

J.B. Weld said:


> Of course, me too. Just keep in mind that until the ebike issue settles out if you advocate for mtb access you might also be advocating for electric mountain bikes.


That's perfect we can exclude ebikes as a concession.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Abox said:


> That's perfect we can exclude ebikes as a concession.


That's why e-motorbikes are considered "motorized" but not motor vehicles.


----------



## JACKL (Sep 18, 2011)

Abox said:


> That's perfect we can exclude ebikes as a concession.


Oh No!!

That really hurts, but I suppose I could take one for the team and go along with that concession.


----------



## tungsten (Apr 7, 2006)

Sage of the Sage said:


> return the control of the area in question to the individual presumably most qualified to judge impacts on expanding its use... the local land manager.


Who is far more likely to be corrupted in some way for short term fiduciary interests rather than long term goals which have the interests of flora and fauna at heart.


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

tungsten said:


> Who is far more likely to be corrupted in some way for short term fiduciary interests rather than long term goals which have the interests of flora and fauna at heart.


So you're saying that USFS and NPS land managers are easily corrupted??

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tungsten (Apr 7, 2006)

Curveball said:


> When you degrade the conversation to childish insults, you lose all credibility.





Harold said:


> (whether he enters it on his own, or gets inserted into it by lunatics like tungsten)


Right, dude.


----------



## Sage of the Sage (Nov 10, 2011)

tungsten said:


> Who is far more likely to be corrupted in some way for short term fiduciary interests rather than long term goals which have the interests of flora and fauna at heart.


So you're saying that someone who lives and works in the area they are responsible for is more likely to be corrupt than someone in Washington DC who has absolutely no clue about a) historic land use in the area, b) current land use in the area, c) probable impacts of different uses in an area, and sees special interest lobbyists on a daily basis?


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

tungsten said:


> Who is far more likely to be corrupted in some way for short term fiduciary interests rather than long term goals which have the interests of flora and fauna at heart.


Has to be M. Vanderman


----------



## DrDon (Sep 25, 2004)

Hate me if you will. I feel wilderness should be off limits to bikes. Hike in, hike out. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Sage of the Sage (Nov 10, 2011)

DrDon said:


> Hate me if you will. I feel wilderness should be off limits to bikes. Hike in, hike out.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Why?


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

DrDon said:


> Hate me if you will. I feel wilderness should be off limits to bikes. Hike in, hike out.


Hike in and hike out. That's a purely human function by most definitions.

Where does equine fit into this equation? Are you in favor of removing the language that entitles equine and endorsing humans only?


----------



## JACKL (Sep 18, 2011)

DrDon said:


> Hate me if you will. I feel wilderness should be off limits to bikes. Hike in, hike out.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


No hate from me, it's a valid point of view. Been discussed before.

On the plus side, a bicycle is fully human-powered, but it is a mechanized device. I'm sure that reasonable people can disagree on what is appropriate for these areas.


----------



## DrDon (Sep 25, 2004)

Cleared2land said:


> Hike in and hike out. That's a purely human function by most definitions.
> 
> Where does equine fit into this equation? Are you in favor of removing the language that entitles equine and endorsing humans only?


I have family members who are equestrians. And I know how much damage horses cause. Plus, equestrians rarely do trail development or maintenance. And I've been chastised by equestrians and hikers on mountain bike developed trails.

The belief I have is one based on maintaining a sense of purity and not based on studies or data. Also, I live close to wilderness, but have access to trails in other areas. There are many other places that can be developed. Just because a trail is in the wilderness, doesn't make it necessary enjoyable to ride.

If i had limited access, I may feel differently. But I live in Sedona so there are many places to ride, but the tourists take a toll on the trails. Like other places I lived, there are non-wilderness areas that could be developed.

I also believe in choosing ones battles. Wilderness access seems to me to be harder than state or national forest or BLM, but I'm making an assumption.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Ah, the ol fake sense of "purity" angle.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Harold said:


> Ah, the ol fake sense of "purity" angle.


Yep. If it was really based on purity they'd be walking barefoot, naked, rubbing sticks together to make fire and with no modern amenities at all. So much bullshit.


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

DrDon said:


> I also believe in choosing ones battles. Wilderness access seems to me to be harder than state or national forest or BLM, but I'm making an assumption.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


Do you understand how land designation works? BLM and FS lands can be used for cycling on a case by case basis approval. Unless of course it's Wilderness that's managed by the BLM or FS. In that case their hands are tied. That's the point of STC's legislation: to allow cycling in Wilderness on a case by case basis...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

I feel otherwise.


DrDon said:


> Hate me if you will. I feel wilderness should be off limits to bikes. Hike in, hike out.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk


----------



## DrDon (Sep 25, 2004)

To each his own. I do understand access is case by case. I just do not see a need to access Wilderness if there are so many other options. Are specific case by case scenarios that are relevant?

FWIW, I’ve been mountain biking for over 30 years. I belong to IMBA. I know prominent local individuals within the community. Alone I can’t change policy. Together we can. Why should people mobilize behind a cause if someone insults them? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

DrDon said:


> To each his own. I do understand access is case by case. I just do not see a need to access Wilderness if there are so many other options. Are specific case by case scenarios that are relevant?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Wilderness areas that bisect the AZ. Trail?


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

DrDon said:


> To each his own. I do understand access is case by case. I just do not see a need to access Wilderness if there are so many other options. Are specific case by case scenarios that are relevant?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Other options are irrelevant to this discussion.

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk


----------



## DrDon (Sep 25, 2004)

zorg said:


> Other options are irrelevant to this discussion.
> 
> Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk


It's not irrelevant to me. Maybe not to other mountain bikers. I can't speak for them.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## DrDon (Sep 25, 2004)

life behind bars said:


> Wilderness areas that bisect the AZ. Trail?


Ok. That's a damn good point.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

And the Mah Dah Hey trail. Did I spell that right?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

DrDon said:


> To each his own. I do understand access is case by case. I just do not see a need to access Wilderness if there are so many other options. Are specific case by case scenarios that are relevant?
> 
> FWIW, I've been mountain biking for over 30 years. I belong to IMBA. I know prominent local individuals within the community. Alone I can't change policy. Together we can. Why should people mobilize behind a cause if someone insults them?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


via Imgflip Meme Generator


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

DrDon said:


> It's not irrelevant to me. Maybe not to other mountain bikers. I can't speak for them.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Still irrelevant to the merit of allowing bikes in wilderness. Options are an argument used by those that don't understand basic logic.

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk


----------



## DrDon (Sep 25, 2004)

Silentfoe said:


> And the Mah Dah Hey trail. Did I spell that right?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


I don't know enough about that trail. There's a picture of a mountain biker on the trail association website.

I was under the impression the entire AZT was open to bikers. If it isn't, I feel it should be.

So yeah, I see your point of view, although I think as whole we shouldn't go to that well too often. My 2c. I just spent some time in Grand Teton and Glacier National. Highly regulated which was somewhat annoying, but freakin gorgeous. I guess my fear is, unrestrained heavy usage, which not only damages the land but damages our sport.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

DrDon said:


> I don't know enough about that trail. There's a picture of a mountain biker on the trail association website.
> 
> I was under the impression the entire AZT was open to bikers. If it isn't, I feel it should be.
> 
> ...


More FUD.

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk


----------



## DrDon (Sep 25, 2004)

zorg said:


> Still irrelevant to the merit of allowing bikes in wilderness. Options are an argument used by those that don't understand basic logic.
> 
> Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk


The point I'm trying to make is if you are trying to win someone to your point of view, telling them their beliefs are irrelevant is not going to be of benefit. You just have two sides telling each other that their opinions are irrelevant and illogical. Relevance and logic are both subjective and not data driven. I see your point of view, but ambivalence amongst mountain bikers I feel is the biggest obstacle to your goal. I personally don't know of any bikers that are fired up enough to enact change. I not saying your goal is not worthy. I think it needs more focus.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

DrDon said:


> I don't know enough about that trail. There's a picture of a mountain biker on the trail association website.
> 
> I was under the impression the entire AZT was open to bikers. If it isn't, I feel it should be.
> 
> ...


The thing is, cycling use can be heavily regulated. Just like any other use.

Quite simply the solution isn't to make bikes absent from the picture.

If you actually looked at the issue without bias and researched why exactly things changed. What areas were affected and most importantly: what areas in non Wilderness are affected due to small connectors being closed that are in Wilderness. All due to a rule change, pushed by an extremely biased private interest group. That applies to public land. I think it would be quite difficult to see this issue as being morally correct at the moment.

Or religiously correct in the case of those that view this as a religious issue. Trust me this is real.

Or at least in the case of the PCT it isn't legally correct. As many parts of the PCT are not in a Wilderness area but are managed as such (but only in the single issue of bike use). Why it isn't legal is a long story but the ruling did not use the public process.

If you look at this issue logically it reeks of corruption and a lack of logic.

I think it would be fair to say this is what Zorg is getting at.

I'm simply saying that cycling use doesn't mean unconstrained use. Doubly so for backcountry cycling use.

Also you mentioned there are plenty of other options. This quite simply is true in rare cases in the Western United States but is not the case most of the time. In the central and eastern portions of the US, there is little Wilderness. So its a non issue. The rule change process is national and it becomes more complex.

My personal feelings are that those who have cycling access and ignore the plight of those who are not allowed to access public land are bound to eventually lose access themselves.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

More focus? That actually makes no sense. The goal is very narrowly focused. Please try again.

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk


----------



## DrDon (Sep 25, 2004)

zorg said:


> More focus? That actually makes no sense. The goal is very narrowly focused. Please try again.
> 
> Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk


Your perspective is your perspective. You are entitled to your perspective. I understand your goal. I just don't see it being accomplished with the approach you're taking. This has been a topic for years, and once again mountain bikers are unable to unite to find a solution. Mainly because of not being able to see other perspectives and compromise. It's one thing to have an opinion. It's what defines us. But you have to push the ball over the goal line. A lot of talk, but no do. God, I miss Senator McCain.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

DrDon said:


> Your perspective is your perspective. You are entitled to your perspective. I understand your goal. I just don't see it being accomplished with the approach you're taking. This has been a topic for years, and once again mountain bikers are unable to unite to find a solution. Mainly because of not being able to see other perspectives and compromise. It's one thing to have an opinion. It's what defines us. But you have to push the ball over the goal line. A lot of talk, but no do. God, I miss Senator McCain.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


More incoherent arguments... you just full of yourself. Good night.

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

DrDon said:


> Your perspective is your perspective. You are entitled to your perspective. I understand your goal. I just don't see it being accomplished with the approach you're taking. This has been a topic for years, and once again mountain bikers are unable to unite to find a solution. Mainly because of not being able to see other perspectives and compromise. It's one thing to have an opinion. It's what defines us. But you have to push the ball over the goal line. A lot of talk, but no do. God, I miss Senator McCain.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


The STC has one goal. Plenty is being done as well. How about a contribution to further the work being done? Write to your congressman? All help is welcomed, you can be part of a solution.

Sustainable Trails Coalition

They have pretty cool shirts too.

Failbook group;

https://www.facebook.com/SustainableTrailsCoalition/?ref=br_rs


----------



## DrDon (Sep 25, 2004)

life behind bars said:


> The STC has one goal. Plenty is being done as well. How about a contribution to further the work being done? Write to your congressman? All help is welcomed, you can be part of a solution.
> 
> Sustainable Trails Coalition
> 
> ...


That I can and will do. Thanks for the info.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

DrDon said:


> Mainly because of not being able to see other perspectives and compromise.


Not really. The reason is because so many people think (either due to their own failures, or because they believe the wildernuts) that STC wants to open ALL Wilderness trails in ALL Wildernesses to bikes. That is simply not true. It has never been true, and never will be true.

They want to stop Wilderness designation from being used as a weapon to get bikes off of trails, because it is one of the few weapons that the anti-mtb crowd has left (of course it is not necessarily diplomatic for them to phrase it that way). It is easier for them to get us excluded from trails in large areas that way than it is to address each trail on a case by case basis.

Side benefit: if mtb use is permitted as a legitimate potential use within Wilderness, new Wilderness designation is likely to GAIN support within the mtb community.

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Harold said:


> *Side benefit: if mtb use is permitted as a legitimate potential use within Wilderness, new Wilderness designation is likely to GAIN support within the mtb community.
> *
> Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk


This is actually a rather huge factor for me.

I would like to see mountain bikers more actively involved in land preservation and STC's proposal, if enacted, would go a long way in that direction.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Curveball said:


> This is actually a rather huge factor for me.
> 
> I would like to see mountain bikers more actively involved in land preservation and STC's proposal, if enacted, would go a long way in that direction.


Absolutely. MTB riders would have more skin in the game, so to speak. If MTB riders support stronger land protections now, they do it for other reasons than protecting places to ride, because currently, stronger land protections pretty much means MTB riders get kicked out.

It creates fairly significant conflict for people like me, with my biology, wildlife, environmental science, environmental education, and conservation background, yet who enjoys outdoor recreation. IME, if land protectionism is so strong and widespread that it begins to exclude relatively low impact uses, then the general population loses interest in conservation in general.

Conservation needs two big things, IMO. First, it needs space. Public land is what most people think about when it comes to conservation efforts, but conservation can (and should) happen on private land, too. But, the critical part to getting the public to support conservation efforts at the government level, and at the level of pressuring corporations to do better is ACCESSIBILITY. That's all fine and dandy if you've got huge swathes of land that are protected, but if you can't figure out how to get the public to visit it and appreciate it, then it's a losing battle.

In my time doing environmental education work, I worked primarily with urban kids who mostly didn't get exposed to nature any other way. For as crowded as some Wilderness areas are, there's an incredible number of people in this country that have no concept of such places. The last thing we should be doing is restricting access further. We should be looking at ways to get MORE people to support public land protection, and Wilderness specifically.


----------



## DrDon (Sep 25, 2004)

Valid points. Since gaining wilderness access is not high or no priority with many bikers across the country, increasing promotion of the STC could obviously be helpful. Living on the east coast and the in the Midwest the fight seemed to be with local and state governments. Where I’m at now in AZ there seems to be lower hanging fruit. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

DrDon said:


> Valid points. Since gaining wilderness access is not high or no priority with many bikers across the country, increasing promotion of the STC could obviously be helpful. Living on the east coast and the in the Midwest the fight seemed to be with local and state governments. Where I'm at now in AZ there seems to be lower hanging fruit.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


STC does quite a lot of promotion. For the most part, if you are a mountain biker and don't know what they are really about, willful ignorance is probably the most likely explanation. Especially if you've been mountain biking for awhile, you're probably aware of many of the specific cases that built the current movement to regain access to Wilderness (I am, and I'm a midwestern boy).

I have also read much of the documentation that the current policy of the prohibition of bikes is based on. It's not even a law. It's just an interpretation of the original Wilderness Act that was written decades after the original Act was passed. It could just as easily be rewritten without involving Congress, if TPTB would just do so. The original Wilderness Act PERMITTED bikes!


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

Losing this because of semantics is why I fight for STC.






And I don't live in Idaho and I have never ridden that route.


----------



## DrDon (Sep 25, 2004)

Harold said:


> STC does quite a lot of promotion. For the most part, if you are a mountain biker and don't know what they are really about, willful ignorance is probably the most likely explanation. Especially if you've been mountain biking for awhile, you're probably aware of many of the specific cases that built the current movement to regain access to Wilderness (I am, and I'm a midwestern boy).
> 
> I have also read much of the documentation that the current policy of the prohibition of bikes is based on. It's not even a law. It's just an interpretation of the original Wilderness Act that was written decades after the original Act was passed. It could just as easily be rewritten without involving Congress, if TPTB would just do so. The original Wilderness Act PERMITTED bikes!


Willful ignorance? Maybe career. Maybe single dad. Now you lost me. I'll spend my time and money doing voter registration.. Peace out.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

DrDon said:


> Willful ignorance? Maybe career. Maybe single dad. Now you lost me. I'll spend my time and money doing voter registration.. Peace out.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


your choice (see how that works?)


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Harold said:


> STC does quite a lot of promotion. For the most part, if you are a mountain biker and don't know what they are really about, willful ignorance is probably the most likely explanation. Especially if you've been mountain biking for awhile, you're probably aware of many of the specific cases that built the current movement to regain access to Wilderness (I am, and I'm a midwestern boy).
> 
> I have also read much of the documentation that the current policy of the prohibition of bikes is based on. It's not even a law. It's just an interpretation of the original Wilderness Act that was written decades after the original Act was passed. It could just as easily be rewritten without involving Congress, if TPTB would just do so. The original Wilderness Act PERMITTED bikes!


 Agreed, bad interpretation of " mechanized transport" The whole idea of wilderness was getting out, under ones own power and exploring. Bikepacking and day trips would fit this perfectly. MA guy here, was looking to link up some bikepacking segments in the NH white mts. Part of an old rail trail ran into the Dry Gulf Wilderness area, no bikes. So hiking on railroad ballast and grass is ok, but bikes would hurt it? Yikes.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

The writer makes a good case for prohibiting himself and his family and his friends from exploring public wild lands, and I'll bet he'd never support such a regulation.


----------



## MOJO K (Jan 26, 2007)

TUNGSTEN!!!:thumbsup:


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

Mountain bike manufacturers are building trails here in Montana? Strange I first heard about it here.


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

So how did Tungsten get my comment deleted? In addition to his...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------

