# Wilderness and mechanized travel



## fastmtnbiker33w (Feb 3, 2004)

I've been contemplating for a few years the definition of wilderness and the ban on mechanized travel. As a high school physics teacher, I have to teach simple machines which include the lever and wedge. With those two items being classified as simple machines, why are skiing, snowshoeing, climbing, and horseback riding still allowed in wilderness?

Horseback riding should only be allowed in wilderness areas without the use of a bridle and saddle. The stirrups on a saddle act as levers as does the bridle. These devices mechanize the act of horseback riding.

Skis and snowshoes are nothing but big levers. Without them you'd sink through the snow. Skins on backcountry skis are microscopic wedges that drive into the snow to give grip. Mechanization is occuring there.

Climbing uses grippy soles that increase friction. The shape of the toes of climbing shoes look awefully wedge-like to me. And what about jumarring (sp?)? Using those ascenders to go up a rope seems an awful lot like mechanization.

Has anybody used this in court?


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

I would think that circulating petitions , membership in advocacy groups , letters to congressmen , etc. would be a better tact than legal action which would be mired down in motions for year if not decades . Just a thought .


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

In addition : why cant we run mountain biker for congress ?


----------



## Howley (Nov 23, 2005)

*Law review*

Well documented and debated:
http://www.imba.com/resources/land_protection/stroll.pdf

and
Dirt Rag Article Archive

Access: By Law, Mountain Bikes in Wilderness
By Philip Keyes
(Issue #112)

google is our friend...law review, Wilderness and mechanized travel

And this web site: Bicycling and Wilderness

http://www.wildernessbicycling.org/


----------



## fastmtnbiker33w (Feb 3, 2004)

Howley said:


> Well documented and debated:
> http://www.imba.com/resources/land_protection/stroll.pdf
> 
> and
> ...


OOOffff. That's a lot of reading. I'll have to find some time to read all that. I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking down that path. I'm also glad I live next to a state park that is pro-mtb and wants our club to build more trails.


----------



## m3rb (Mar 6, 2007)

Bike banning was an arbitrary act by the agencies in the 1977-1984 time frame. The original regulatory interpretation in 1966 had "mechanical transport" as having a non-human power source. There is zero evidence of any legislative intent to ban bikes.

Personally, I believe the regulatory ban is on very shaky ground. I have a target area to ride when the high country opens up next summer; it's near a wilderness area, and if I get to the boundary and feel like going on, I'm just gonna do it. Maybe I'll get cited, and maybe I'll represent myself and fight it. Most likely, no one will know, and I'll just have a good ride.

IMO, "just go ride" is a perfectly acceptable attitude to counter this bureaucratic nonsense.


----------



## tduro (Jan 2, 2007)

fastmtnbiker33w said:


> I've been contemplating for a few years the definition of wilderness and the ban on mechanized travel. As a high school physics teacher, I have to teach simple machines which include the lever and wedge. With those two items being classified as simple machines, why are skiing, snowshoeing, climbing, and horseback riding still allowed in wilderness?
> 
> Horseback riding should only be allowed in wilderness areas without the use of a bridle and saddle. The stirrups on a saddle act as levers as does the bridle. These devices mechanize the act of horseback riding.
> 
> ...


You're using extremely broad definitions. If one uses one's arms and/or legs, wouldn't those be considered levers as well? You mention climbing shoes. Heck, even sneakers, hiking boots, or a walking stick would fail your mechanization test. Have you looked into how "mechanized travel" is defined within the regulation?


----------



## nogod (May 30, 2009)

i think preserving the use of present trails is more important....


----------



## KonaEnduroJC (Jan 16, 2005)

this has to do with the use of present trails. Hopefully everyone will speak out against this. We are lumped in with dirtbikes and atvs on this issue.


----------



## GregB406 (Dec 19, 2005)

take a moment to read this.

http://www.wildernessbicycling.org/bikesbelong/mechanical_transport.html


----------



## bweide (Dec 27, 2004)

I don't think most environmentalists want to throw mountain bikers under the bus when it comes to wilderness, they just figure we are collateral damage in a war against development and encroachment. They vigorously object to allowing any sort of exceptions to the no-mechanized-stuff-in-the-wilderness rule because they see it as the first step onto a slippery slope. The Forest Service can't be happy they can't use chainsaws to perform trail maintenance in the wilderness areas but they would run into the same environmentalist buzzsaw if they tried to change the rules in their favor.

The question is, if we can't stop the new wilderness designations from being made, can we do something to offset the lost trails? Maybe we should go the wilderness advocates and in trade for our support, get them to agree in advance (and in writing) to support the construction of new trails outside of the wilderness boundries. For every mountain bike friendly mile of trail in the average proposed wilderness, there must be 20 miles of unrideable trails. If we could get them to agree to allow replacement of even 20% of the total lost trail miles outside of the wilderness, we could end up building many miles of new sustainable trail for each lost mile of trail.


----------



## nogod (May 30, 2009)

that sounds reasonable to us, but. Environmentalist wish to remove the human element of the ecosystem entirely from the equation. if you look around online it wont take long for you to see their objective. i agree that mtb'ing isnt their focus entirely. but it is a part of what they consider the enemy.
all around they see people building jumps, littering, and undoubtedly they oppose the use of petro driven vehicles to transport us to our favorite trailhead. 

as a regular user of our public lands i would like to see them protected also. but i dont want closures. the purpose of the wilderness act is perserve some wild lands as they were. trails need maintained regardless of who or what uses them. horses by far damage a trail more then a mtb. i know some will debate that but i live in horseville and where the equestrians favor the trails are deep. 

like i said before. rather then worrying about gaining access to wilderness trails, our concern should be with environmentalists and their war against humans on public lands.
if the war keeps going in the direction its going we will need a permit to enter public lands much less ride in them. 

but would be nice to ride trails in wilderness areas. after all i live near a very very very large wilderness and the first one that was made. the GILA WILDERNESS/ALDO LEOPOLD WILDERNESS google it


----------



## GregB406 (Dec 19, 2005)

*interesting concept*



nogod said:


> i think preserving the use of present trails is more important....


It hasn't worked in Montana.


----------



## Pintpedaler (Mar 15, 2006)

This is an area I should tread (little pun intended) lightly, only because I don't have all the information, but the same desires as y'all. I would like access to it too, I started my first argument with the NFS for it in 1984, questioning the opinions of "mechanical". 

What we need to focus on is a different designation for all the new wilderness to be. I'm certainly all in favor of preserving the land, just like y'all, but we need to get them to change the designation to a multiple use type. They shut too many doors with the Wilderness label. I don't know for sure, but I think IMBA is working on this idea. Let the corrections fly......

Fighting for access into current wilderness shouldn't falter by any means, but we need to put some sort of braking mechanism on the word usage...you know....something like national scenic or national recreation or the like. Just stop building roads and developing...and let us build trails instead eh?

Different designation, save it all the same.

I'm done
Eric


----------



## thefriar (Jan 23, 2008)

National Wilderness Trail System designations?


----------



## nogod (May 30, 2009)

lol it will never happen. like i said. as much as i would love to legally ride some local wilderness trails. but the fact of the matter is that your not ever going to sway anybody to allow you to ride in wilderness areas. 

best to save the trails we CAN ride on now. i mean more freedom to you. to try a grass roots effort. but it wont work. not in the climate of eco green'ness that we are in. maybe in a couple years when the green fad subsides some, you might get some support from the people who might help. but i wouldnt count on it.

wilderness areas are set aside to keep out ALL SIGN of mankind. the problem with allowing us mtb people on trails. is that some of us will litter and some will venture off trail on their bikes. and if you allow bikes then youve opened the door to other activities too.
next people on E bikes would say what about us.
plus the forestry doesnt have enough money to police wilderness trails. so the easiest method is to ban riding in the wilderness. so basically your trying to fight against impossible odds. better to put all that time and money into saving local trails.


----------



## GregB406 (Dec 19, 2005)

Pintpedaler said:


> This is an area I should tread (little pun intended) lightly, only because I don't have all the information, but the same desires as y'all. I would like access to it too, I started my first argument with the NFS for it in 1984, questioning the opinions of "mechanical".
> 
> What we need to focus on is a different designation for all the new wilderness to be. I'm certainly all in favor of preserving the land, just like y'all, but we need to get them to change the designation to a multiple use type. They shut too many doors with the Wilderness label. I don't know for sure, but I think IMBA is working on this idea. Let the corrections fly......
> 
> ...


There is a restrictive designation that allows for mountain bikers. It is called a National Protection Area. This allows for machine use for trail construction and maintanance. It can allow for winter motorized use, or not. No summer motorized at all. No roads, no structures. Mountain bikes are allowed. Don't forget about it. NATIONAL PROTECTION AREA.

The problem with this designation is that it isn't Wilderness. The Wilderness people are in charge right now, and won't compromise to this level of protection. So don't wish for another designation, we've got one already. Make IMBA more powerful. Build local clubs as big as they can be. Make sure to vote for mountain bike friendly candidates. Then and only then will we be recognized and treated equally.


----------



## rayray74 (Sep 18, 2005)

Yes we need to save local trails. But, I think the wilderness battle is far from over. For some areas being recognized as wilderness are local trails, so we need everyone's support.


----------



## bigskyguy (Apr 6, 2008)

Ok ok let's say I'm disabled and I would like to take my wheelchair into the wilderness, and lets say my wheelchair just happens to be a Santa Cruz blur lt ( a specially designed single track wheelchair). Maybe under the American disabilities act we should all get a doctor (bike friendly of course) to sign us off and "a riding we will go".


----------



## GregB406 (Dec 19, 2005)

bigskyguy said:


> Ok ok let's say I'm disabled and I would like to take my wheelchair into the wilderness, and lets say my wheelchair just happens to be a Santa Cruz blur lt ( a specially designed single track wheelchair). Maybe under the American disabilities act we should all get a doctor (bike friendly of course) to sign us off and "a riding we will go".


It's a fantasy that I had many times in the last years before back surgery. I would ride miles, but could only walk a few hundred yards at best.

Many people could qualify for a permit, if only one were available. I don't think that this could be abused, like medical pot is...

Oh well, I'm too busy struggling to keep a few of our existing trails open. Special permits can be someone else's quest.


----------



## Skookum (Jan 17, 2005)

bweide i'm not trying to attack you here, i just wanted to pick apart and debate the ideas that you raise and interject point by point from my percpective.



bweide said:


> I don't think most environmentalists want to throw mountain bikers under the bus when it comes to wilderness, they just figure we are collateral damage in a war against development and encroachment.


i think that is the thought of conservationist, but i think that many environmentalists are anti-bike, but will keep their prejudice hidden to push their agenda. Remember environmentalism today has tranformed into a psuedo-religion of sorts. Their preferred management is complete hands off, the less people in the woods the happier they will be.

Either way the end result is the same, mountain bikers are kicked off, whether they feel little or no remorse over it doesn't change the fact that Wilderness always means loss of access period.



bweide said:


> They vigorously object to allowing any sort of exceptions to the no-mechanized-stuff-in-the-wilderness rule because they see it as the first step onto a slippery slope.


This just sounds like a justification which isn't based with any logic. No the fact still remains that the only slippery slope is listening to the rationalizations of environmentalist justifying Wilderness. The end result is always the same we lose access.



bweide said:


> The Forest Service can't be happy they can't use chainsaws to perform trail maintenance in the wilderness areas but they would run into the same environmentalist buzzsaw if they tried to change the rules in their favor.


i think most Forest Service workers will play the hand they are dealt. They will follow the rules of the management that applies. i do think even conservation types are now coming to realize that with budget shortfalls that maintenance is an extremely daunting task which is requiring more and more dependance on volunteer labor.
Wilderness is being pushed in more places and the very rules of the Wilderness Designation Management Plan by default create an unsustainable path for proper trail maintenance. Recreational user-groups are being called upon to be the savior of trails, but Wilderness kicks a vast percentage out, and then asks the ones that stay to hike in 5 miles and saw a 36" round old growth with hand tools. Or clear 50 deadfall and blowdown up one 3 mile spur trail each year. 
More workload, more trails simply decommissioned in the future or just left in disrepair.



bweide said:


> The question is, if we can't stop the new wilderness designations from being made, can we do something to offset the lost trails? Maybe we should go the wilderness advocates and in trade for our support, get them to agree in advance (and in writing) to support the construction of new trails outside of the wilderness boundries. For every mountain bike friendly mile of trail in the average proposed wilderness, there must be 20 miles of unrideable trails. If we could get them to agree to allow replacement of even 20% of the total lost trail miles outside of the wilderness, we could end up building many miles of new sustainable trail for each lost mile of trail.


They sure can do that, get us to sign onto Wilderness with this prospect. But the problem is that mitigation of trail will fall before congress as an unfunded mandate.

So what will happen is this.

We lose killer trail for just a "promise" of new trail. The new trail have no guarantees and usually will fall short of giving you a pristine natural experience we also appreciate equally as the Wilderness advocates.

The price of new trail requires TONS of money, since it will be an unfunded mandate, nobody will move on it unless mt. bike groups get a whole lot of other stakeholders together and rally for the cause to motivate, and still there are no guarantees, as the current money situation for trails is super bleak. And has been even before this economic downturn.

Even IF you secure funding for this "promise" (which will take years) you then have to clear the NEPA process on the selected route, put the contract out for bid, and by the very least are looking at 8 to 15 years before the crews start to move in to build new trail.

And you will be LUCKY to get anything as remotely as cool as what you just signed over to lose.


----------



## Skookum (Jan 17, 2005)

Pintpedaler said:


> This is an area I should tread (little pun intended) lightly, only because I don't have all the information, but the same desires as y'all. I would like access to it too, I started my first argument with the NFS for it in 1984, questioning the opinions of "mechanical".
> 
> What we need to focus on is a different designation for all the new wilderness to be. I'm certainly all in favor of preserving the land, just like y'all, but we need to get them to change the designation to a multiple use type. They shut too many doors with the Wilderness label. I don't know for sure, but I think IMBA is working on this idea. Let the corrections fly......
> 
> ...


For saying you don't know much you're on the right track.

i think IMBA and all mt. bikers need are waking up to the fact that we are always having to follow the dictates of the Conservation Groups. They beat the drum and we have to follow their groove. Mountain Bikers and other recreationalists need to be MUCH more assertive and pro-active in the process, so we write up our own legislation that makes sense, is environmentally responsible, but based more with common sense conservation and management, instead of the old antiquated Wilderness kick everyone out management.

i'm not against current Wilderness. But my own personal opinion is not being for Wilderness as it's being pushed for areas that are not even appropriate for it's original intent anymore. The management was to preserve areas that have been untouched to keep them pristine, that's not the case anymore. They have many if not all those areas locked up, but they are still moving for more and more and as of today there is no intention to stop.

i think looking at fighting the 84 bicycle ban is something that could and should be explored.

But i know what's more important is to do as much as we can to get better more suitable management plans submitted for out national forest that include mt. bike access where appropriate.

If we are thinking a bit outside the box like challenging the 1984 Wilderness Bike ban, we should be thinking also about making some of the Recreation Designations that exist written with permanence just like Wilderness is permenent. In my opinion the only valid argument an enviro can muster most of the time is the protections are mandated as permanent (Unless you get a GW Bush in office with a little more gusto to run a pipe through caribou land). Nothing is ever truly set in stone it seems, but yah if we could submit legislation that is rock solid, but flexible with management that make more local stakeholders happy, and protect the wildlands with our own permanant management plan, that is a real solution.


----------



## nogod (May 30, 2009)

you cant change wilderness laws anymore then you can change the constitution. think about that a little.once you grasp that youll understand why the hill wont move. fighting to ride on wilderness trails wont ever succeed give up do something else that would work.


----------



## yetipop (Jul 27, 2009)

*Unfair is unfair*

This issue has bothered me since 1989 when I discovered fantastic single-track in the Gila and in other (to remain unamed wilderness areas). I don't think giving up on the issue is an option either, and when I rode in wilderness, I used my oldest beater bike. Once you realize the government is not omnipotent and does'nt have the funds to catch your annual sneak into some remote area, it removes some pent up anger.


----------



## nogod (May 30, 2009)

yetipop said:


> This issue has bothered me since 1989 when I discovered fantastic single-track in the Gila and in other (to remain unamed wilderness areas). I don't think giving up on the issue is an option either, and when I rode in wilderness, I used my oldest beater bike. Once you realize the government is not omnipotent and does'nt have the funds to catch your annual sneak into some remote area, it removes some pent up anger.


thats the point though. 1 or 2 of us riding illegal trails is one thing but if everyone rides those trails they'll lose their mystique.


----------



## rayray74 (Sep 18, 2005)

nogod said:


> you cant change wilderness laws anymore then you can change the constitution. think about that a little.once you grasp that youll understand why the hill wont move. fighting to ride on wilderness trails wont ever succeed give up do something else that would work.


Why? It was changed in 1984.


----------



## socal_jack (Dec 30, 2008)

The IMBA itself needs to change its stance on not fighting WIlderness designation, a deal it made with the Sierra Club long ago. Take a look at IMBA's alert page

http://www.imba.com/news/action_alerts/index.html

Nothing. You can look up the info on both IMBA's and Sierra's sites but it was a deal with the devil made back when the devil had not been taken over by whackos yet. I think they'd be justified in breaking the agreement as the Wilderness Act is now being applied to roaded and other areas that were never the intention for its use. We had a reprieve under Bush whose Interior policy was "no more wilderness" after the abuse under Clinton, but the abuse has started again. The Omnibus bill earlier in the year wiped out alot of the West, Red Rocks up next. Sierra and other groups now pushing letter-writing campaign to the FS and BLM to enforce Wilderness designation even if the area is only under consideration, like the Red Rocks Bill.


----------



## Fullrange Drew (May 13, 2004)

I posted a comment in a similar thread on the sierra issue earlier today, but it bears repeating. For what it matters, I'm an mtb trail advocate in Australia.

*Prohibition does not work.* Alcohol, 1920's anyone? If there's a need, people will find a way to meet that need, legal or otherwise.

All prohibition does is force an activity underground and massively increase the costs related to enforcement and damage control. If people desire to carry out an activity, they will do so.

By banning bikes from wilderness or applying wilderness designations to previously accessible areas, all land managers achieve is to increase their costs, lose their support base and lose any control over where and how an activity is carried out.

A small number of well designed, enjoyable trails that are legal enable folks to get their ride buzz, while simultaneously allowing any detrimental impact that riding may have to be localised and focused into a specific area where the impact will be as small as possible and where survey of conditions can occur and remediation carried out as soon as neccesary.

In Australia we have a soil fungus that causes dieback in native plants. The argument is regularly trotted out that bikes can spread this fungus and should therefore be banned. What is conveniently ignored is that it can also be carried on the soles of walking boots and that while riders almost never go off the pre existing singletrack, walkers regularly do, so the area through which bikes spread the fungus is localised to a narrow singletrack corridor while hikers and orienteering folks spread it over a much wider area.

By all means ban bikes from a specific area if there is a legitimate environmental (as opposed to emotional) need to do so, but do it on a case by case basis, do it only where necessary and ensure that a legal alternative is supplied. Blanket bans and prohibition do not achieve compliance, they please stakeholders who want to stick their heads in the sand and hope that a problem will go away.

Sustainable trails are a key part of the solution, not part of the problem. Too many trail advocates go cap in hand to legislators and land managers with the mindset that they are asking for a favor in being granted access. We're not asking for a favor, we're doing them a favor by solving their preservation problem with sustainable trails.

In no way am I of the belief that MTB's are appropriate everywhere. I am of the belief that where populations of riders exist, it's a fool who bans them from an area without providing an alternative ride option and then expects compliance.


----------



## Visicypher (Aug 5, 2004)

Skookum said:


> They sure can do that, get us to sign onto Wilderness with this prospect. But the problem is that mitigation of trail will fall before congress as an unfunded mandate.
> 
> So what will happen is this.
> 
> ...


Wowser. Do I really sound like that???


----------



## nogod (May 30, 2009)

rayray74 said:


> Why? It was changed in 1984.


im talking about the integrity of the idea. if you allow one change (i mean less restrictions) 
then you have started a downhill slide toward development of wilderness areas.

let me say this again: Save the trails you can ride on now! before its too late. you will never get legal permission to ride in the wilderness. its a fools errand.

as a matter of fact. if your seriously trying to make it legal to ride wilderness trails. you are just shooting all MTB riders in the foot. keep pushing the forest service and they might decide that it costs too much to upkeep our trails. theres already lots of backlash from idiots building jumps and ladders on public lands.


----------



## Fullrange Drew (May 13, 2004)

At best the concept of wilderness has a deeply flawed integrity unless people believe that the designation is appropriately applied.

Outside of a police state environment you will not get compliance with a law that people do not believe in that prohibits an activity they choose to take part in, you will simply lose control of how they take part in it.

Banning mountain bikers carte blanche from wilderness areas simply makes mountain bikers the enemy of those pushing for wilderness designation, a ridiculous situation when riders value precisely the same values as walkers, hikers, climbers, equestrians, those who enjoy canoeing and orienteering.

Anyone who believes that they are protecting wilderness by increasing the range or pre-existing activities that are banned there rather than sustainably managing/relocating those activities is kidding themselves.

Take you example of "idiots building jumps and ladders on public land". The only reason that they are being built is due to an unmet recreational need. Saying "Hey you kids, stop that!" doesn't work. What _does work_ is having a skills park or dirt jumps built in the local area which are designed and maintained by riders who know what the recreational needs are (as opposed by planners who build what they think riders want).


----------



## rayray74 (Sep 18, 2005)

"Save the trails you can ride on now!"
This sometimes means fighting new Wilderness, and that makes us an "enemy". I don't think allowing mountain bikes on selected trails in Wilderness is a downhill slide towards "development". Yes, that's the argument the pro-Wilderness people will use, but it doesn't hold much water. If we don't seek acceptance in Wilderness, we will continue to lose trails. How does that old saying go...."the squeaky wheel gets the grease". There are already several "exceptions" that decrease restrictions. There needs to be an exception for mountain biking, it's been proved to have about the same impact as hiking, and that is a strong basis for argument. Also, many of the "exceptions" are based on certain activities being allowed before an area was recognized as Wilderness. Mountain biking was allowed in Wilderness until 1984, another strong argument. And finally, Theodore Stroll's law review seems to reveal, that it was not the intent of congress to ban mountain bikes.

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


----------



## Duvers (Jul 18, 2007)

GregB406 said:


> It's a fantasy that I had many times in the last years before back surgery. I would ride miles, but could only walk a few hundred yards at best.
> 
> Many people could qualify for a permit, if only one were available. I don't think that this could be abused, like medical pot is...
> 
> Oh well, I'm too busy struggling to keep a few of our existing trails open. Special permits can be someone else's quest.


Funny, I have also wondered about this. I had knee surgery which required removal of a meniscus (shock absorbing cartilage) in my left knee. I can ride my bike all the time w/o pain, but spending much time on my feet at all (walking, standing, etc) sends a deep, unrelenting ache through my left knee that only goes away if I stay off it.


----------



## sbsbiker (Dec 1, 2007)

this is an interesting thread and I often wonder why trails open to me prior to the '89 act are close to me now. Isn't there a provision for historical use that would allow bikes onto trails that we had access to before a wilderness area was established? Could historical use be used to allow mtbikers to support new wilderness designations without giving up our access?

My other question is with regards to breaking the law and what type of penalty is involved with poaching trails, If caught in a wilderness on a bike what happens? If ticketed, can you take the case to court and fight the charges? Could a court case alter the present bike ban?


----------



## socal_jack (Dec 30, 2008)

It used to be more common to grandfather is prior use for Wilderness designation areas. In places especially where there is offroading presently allowed these groups fight hard against draconian Wilderness designation or at least to grandfather in prior recreational uses. IMBA will only fight to modify boundaries if that, plus it has bought into the Sierra Club definition of MTB = motorized. Simultaneouslty the Wilderness proponents like Sierra Club have become radicalized to the point where they no longer negotiate to any degree and will go back later to get the rest of their agenda(progressive) ramrodded in thru the courts.

The Mojave Wilderness in cali is an example where prior recreational uses were grandfathered in, but now groups like the Sierra Club are going back and trying to get hunting banned as they claim its killing the desert tortoises even though research has show for years its the exploding population of crows/ravens doing the job. Eventually they will blame everything else one at a time and always thru the courts.

Some links on the exploding desert raven population and predation of desert tortoises

http://www2.csusm.edu/wkristan/RavenBBSv4_1.pdf

http://www.werc.usgs.gov/sandiego/pdfs/Raven%20Pred%20chapt.pdf

http://www.werc.usgs.gov/sandiego/pdfs/RavenMgt.pdf

QUOTE=sbsbiker]this is an interesting thread and I often wonder why trails open to me prior to the '89 act are close to me now. Isn't there a provision for historical use that would allow bikes onto trails that we had access to before a wilderness area was established? Could historical use be used to allow mtbikers to support new wilderness designations without giving up our access?

My other question is with regards to breaking the law and what type of penalty is involved with poaching trails, If caught in a wilderness on a bike what happens? If ticketed, can you take the case to court and fight the charges? Could a court case alter the present bike ban?[/QUOTE]


----------



## sbsbiker (Dec 1, 2007)

Sometimes I wonder If at the Sierra Club meetings there is a radical that says "WE need to establish wilderness, and remove all human contact within so that the real natural state of affairs can resume?" Let's face it if mtbikes are bad than all human interaction should be bad, and removed. Let's plow all trails and really let nature rule in wilderness areas. 

Secretly I'de like to go to their meetings and be that radical no-humans in wilderness guy, just to see the response.


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

sbsbiker said:


> Sometimes I wonder If at the Sierra Club meetings there is a radical that says "WE need to establish wilderness, and remove all human contact within so that the real natural state of affairs can resume?" Let's face it if mtbikes are bad than all human interaction should be bad, and removed. Let's plow all trails and really let nature rule in wilderness areas.
> 
> Secretly I'de like to go to their meetings and be that radical no-humans in wilderness guy, just to see the response.


No.

I think if you joined and attended Sierra Club meetings you'd find mostly a bunch of people who passionately believe in preserving wild lands. While there is no doubt that most of those folks are not pro MTB, I haven't found anywhere near the widespread vitriol that so many who post on these forums seem to think there is. Certainly no more than the vitriol against hikers/horses/etc that is spewed so often in MTBR and other MTB sites.

A lot of that discomfort has to do with the whole X-games/Red Bull Rampage/Mountain Dew image that mountain biking seems to have embraced. While you and I might know that there is a lot more to the MTB spectrum than that it seems that is what gets the publicity. If you where a person who was dedicated to land conservation and that was you image of an activity, would you embrace it as a legitimate activity on land set aside for the highest level of protection?


----------



## Skookum (Jan 17, 2005)

Visicypher said:


> Wowser. Do I really sound like that???


No you are much more eloquent, that usually happens when you actually know what you're talkin about.:thumbsup:


----------



## Skookum (Jan 17, 2005)

zrm said:


> No.
> 
> I think if you joined and attended Sierra Club meetings you'd find mostly a bunch of people who passionately believe in preserving wild lands. While there is no doubt that most of those folks are not pro MTB, I haven't found anywhere near the widespread vitriol that so many who post on these forums seem to think there is. Certainly no more than the vitriol against hikers/horses/etc that is spewed so often in MTBR and other MTB sites.


Well you certainly have a point but c'mon zrm, you don't have mt. bikers actively working on denying them access. The vitriol is promoted by anger and fear of more loss of access. Rightly so in that mt. biking doesn't degrade from the wilderness character whatsoever, especially in places where access is difficult, which Wilderness Designation usually creates with decommissioning service roads etc...



zrm said:


> A lot of that discomfort has to do with the whole X-games/Red Bull Rampage/Mountain Dew image that mountain biking seems to have embraced. While you and I might know that there is a lot more to the MTB spectrum than that it seems that is what gets the publicity. If you where a person who was dedicated to land conservation and that was you image of an activity, would you embrace it as a legitimate activity on land set aside for the highest level of protection?


See above point. You know better than to read a book by it's cover. The adrenaline charged riders generally hikes and rides as well. 
So if this is indeed about user conflict then that tells me what i already know as fact, that there is a contingent of environmentalists that just don't plain like bikes on their trails, and the exclusion of access is a convenient bonus. This is based on misunderstanding. Instead of the gripe on the internet you've just seen for the past few decades, you've just read and heard about non-truths about cycling in Wilderness perpetuated disproven and raised again.

But you're right in a sense in that it seems like i've seen only one granola add where a girl climbs to the top of a mountain to gain a wide sweeping view. A recent Subaru add wasn't as bad, but they still couldn't resist having the rider do a skidding power slide when he returned back to his car haha, and of course the Jack Links Sasquatch add where the ******** mt. biker skids into a puddle, giving bigfoot a nice douche before he recieves the typical commupance...

But anyways what good does it do to examine where stakeholders differ when in fact there is a wide expanse of common ground. Again therein lies another source of frustration... But still when you hear from a trusted professional person within a mt. bike advocacy group who works in a collaboration, and another group's lead square face tells them that they don't like bikes and will not work with them. Yes it's important to not say passionate conservationists as many of us are who just happen to mt. bike are not so black/white, but let's not kid ourselves and think every group person is without agenda either...


----------



## twingate (Jul 6, 2007)

Very interesting thread!
Over the last year and a half I have been digging up as much serious research as I can on the systemic impacts on ecosystems by mountain biking and related activities (trail access, trail building, etc.) and I think it is relatively safe to say that there is a lot of research missing. 
More studies on ecosystem impacts covering a greater range of climates and conditions and more comparative studies across a wider range of outdoors activities would help define and shape the whole discourse. I think we as a community understand the issues at hand in general terms but we don't have nearly enough research to back it up.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

There are an awful lot of people (I know specifically of some hikers, but I bet that many horse riders feel the same way) who push Wilderness designations simply because they ban mountain bikes and they simply do not wish to be on the same trails as mountain bikes. I've had arguments with some of these people. They may or may not be members of the Sierra Club or any other organization, but they absolutely support ALL Wilderness designations because they effectively remove bikes from trails they enjoy hiking.

Those people are out there, and I have no doubt that many of them are members of groups like the Sierra Club.

We have to work against these people at ALL STAGES of a management review process or land designation change. 

Furthermore, the Wilderness bike ban was not an actual change in the Wilderness Act. It was simply an interpretation of the way the Act was written. As such, it will not be as difficult to change as it is to pass an amendment to the Constitution. A simple majority ought to do it. That's not to say that it will be easy. Certainly the issue is not on the mind of congresspeople now and most would fear being seen as anti-Wilderness if they supported a different interpretation of the law. In the end, I don't believe that allowing bikes in Wilderness will affect anyone but mt bikers who live near trails through Wilderness areas. I've got a few local Wilderness areas, but I'm only aware of a single trail that passes through a corner of one Wilderness. But I do think that allowing bikes would generate quite an emotional response from a great deal of the Wilderness advocates who use Wilderness designation as a tool to exclude mountain bikes and other user groups.


----------



## Fullrange Drew (May 13, 2004)

NateHawk said:


> There are an awful lot of people (I know specifically of some hikers, but I bet that many horse riders feel the same way) who push Wilderness designations simply because they ban mountain bikes and they simply do not wish to be on the same trails as mountain bikes. I've had arguments with some of these people. They may or may not be members of the Sierra Club or any other organization, but they absolutely support ALL Wilderness designations because they effectively remove bikes from trails they enjoy hiking.
> 
> Those people are out there, and I have no doubt that many of them are members of groups like the Sierra Club.


In most cases, trails that are good for walking aren't ideal for riding and trails that are good for riding aren't that great for walking. The two user groups have different needs and want different features.

Rider/ walker conflict is about poor (or non existent) trail design.


----------



## sbsbiker (Dec 1, 2007)

"In most cases, trails that are good for walking aren't ideal for riding and trails that are good for riding aren't that great for walking. The two user groups have different needs and want different features.

Rider/ walker conflict is about poor (or non existent) trail design. "


I agree that all trails inside the wilderness would not be best suited for mtbike use, but not having a way to allow USFS managers decide which to exclude or include for mtbikes is something we should be working on, case by case, instead of a blanket ban. One trail near my home runs 20+ miles point to point, crosses into the wilderness for less than three miles but I cannot access that portion, only the 12 on one side, and 6 on the other. The trail within the Wilderness in little used,and in disrepair because it's too far off the trailhead for hikers, and the horses only use the route for access to the higher up wilderness. If we could rebuild the trail outside the WA, we could have an excellent point to point but the USFS dosn't see the need because noone uses the trail, 'cause it dosn't go anywhere, 'cause the mtbikes that do use the trail as an out and back can't go through, and it's too long a hike for most.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Fullrange Drew said:


> In most cases, trails that are good for walking aren't ideal for riding and trails that are good for riding aren't that great for walking. The two user groups have different needs and want different features.
> 
> Rider/ walker conflict is about poor (or non existent) trail design.


Indeed...a lot of old hiking trail I've hiked had ZERO design consideration or sustainable construction.

But those trails need redesigns, anyway, and should largely be closed to all users for revegetation. I would argue that hikers and mountain bikers aren't looking for drastically different trails for the most part. Now certainly, a trail built for downhill mountain bikes is probably going to be a dud for hikers...because what would they want with jumps, tabletops, rock gardens, and banked turns, anyway? But for the average mountain biker who just wants to ride a bike in the woods, the sort of trail they want is going to be very similar to what a hiker will want.

I think that sort of riding (that, and bikepacking) are compatible with a general wilderness experience. Wilderness areas wouldn't be appropriate for constructed stunts and obstacles, but they would be good places for riders who like all day or multi-day epics, assuming trails that are appropriate for bikes to use (trails sustainably built in the first place...not just extended fall line crap). I could see Wilderness trails that require extended hike-a-bike sections being the sort of experience one should expect, not the groomed butter of a city park or a ski resort.

Fewer mountain bikers would seek that sort of experience, but would that be a bad thing? Some Wilderness areas have problems with overuse by hikers, anyway. IMO, a permit system for all Wilderness users is perfectly appropriate to keep traffic down. And such a system exists already for many popular hiking destinations.


----------



## rayray74 (Sep 18, 2005)

Our local group has done a lot of redesigns/re-routes, and even some new sections on our local trail system. The city and FWP(land manager), and trail users are pretty impressed, and the forest service wants to work with us as a result. It would be nice if this would carry over into Wilderness. As pointed out, many of these trails need redesigns and re-routes. It seems, as NateHawk pointed out, that most of the pro-Wilderness types are more concerned about keeping it to themselves.


----------



## rfeather (Aug 22, 2006)

*The Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness has motor boats*

The BWCAW has some of the larger lakes open to motor boats and portage trails made for wheeled portage carts. Seems like if a "Canoe area Wildernes" can have lakes open to motor boats then other wilderness areas should be able to have a few trails open to human powered vehicles. It's a matter of having enough people bugging their US representatives and land managers about it. That's what keeps motor boat use in the Boundary waters.


----------



## rayray74 (Sep 18, 2005)

Yes, and jet boats are allowed in the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness.


----------



## nogod (May 30, 2009)

like i said once you open the door......


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

There's an exemption in the original Act (it's probably been closed by now) that small airfields within a newly designated Wilderness would also be grandfathered in. It wouldn't take as much as some think to have the act 'interpreted' to include mountain bikes into a grandfather clause for other uses or to have the 'interpretation' altered to allow human-powered nonmotorized use. There could be multiple avenues of attack on this issue. It will take legal wrangling, however. Because you know that the enviro-groups will fight back with the most expensive lawyers they can get.


----------



## socal_jack (Dec 30, 2008)

Go on the Sierra Club blogs and you will find all the vitriol you want, way outdoes anything here. They keep their main website all friendly even have a hunting section (which they also actively try to eliminate on Federal lands).



zrm said:


> No.
> 
> I think if you joined and attended Sierra Club meetings you'd find mostly a bunch of people who passionately believe in preserving wild lands. While there is no doubt that most of those folks are not pro MTB, I haven't found anywhere near the widespread vitriol that so many who post on these forums seem to think there is. Certainly no more than the vitriol against hikers/horses/etc that is spewed so often in MTBR and other MTB sites.
> 
> A lot of that discomfort has to do with the whole X-games/Red Bull Rampage/Mountain Dew image that mountain biking seems to have embraced. While you and I might know that there is a lot more to the MTB spectrum than that it seems that is what gets the publicity. If you where a person who was dedicated to land conservation and that was you image of an activity, would you embrace it as a legitimate activity on land set aside for the highest level of protection?


----------



## rayray74 (Sep 18, 2005)

The door has been open for a while. I'm not sure how allowing bikes in wilderness would be a slippery slope towards "development" when it would just increase the number of people who supported it. If you've ever read the original Wilderness act, and the law review in the link I posted earlier in the thread, it seems obvious that the intent of congress wasn't to exclude a human powered activity. I think the way bikes have pretty much been singled out in the way Wilderness is managed takes away it's "integrity".


----------



## sbsbiker (Dec 1, 2007)

NateHawk said:


> There's an exemption in the original Act (it's probably been closed by now) that small airfields within a newly designated Wilderness would also be grandfathered in. It wouldn't take as much as some think to have the act 'interpreted' to include mountain bikes into a grandfather clause for other uses or to have the 'interpretation' altered to allow human-powered nonmotorized use. There could be multiple avenues of attack on this issue. It will take legal wrangling, however. Because you know that the enviro-groups will fight back with the most expensive lawyers they can get.


So how do we as mtbikers force this issue into a court for review? If we disagree with a law, or is't interpretation, can't we file a lawsuit or get charged with a entering a WA and get those charges reviewed in order to push the review of the WAct's no-bikes policy?


----------

