SAJ-99
Well-known member
One could argue that some of those listed reduce the wounding rate. The comparison to ebikes, or crossbows isn’t exactly the same.
Comment on Proposed BLM Rule to Allow E-bikes on Non-Motorized Trails
- Thread starter COEngineer
- Start date
Red Herring alert.
R
rwc101
Guest
It would be dope if there were no optics/electronics areas like there are non-motorized areas.
COEngineer
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2016
- Messages
- 1,509
The whole state of CO is optics/electronics free during archery and muzzleloader season
lifeisgoodsteve
Well-known member
Thanks for sharing the link! Posted comment.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
April 27, 2020
To: Bureau of Land Management
RE: RIN 1004-AE72 (proposal to allow e-bikes to operate on roads and trails currently restricted to non-motorized use)
From: Montana Sportsmen Alliance (MSA)
On behalf of the MSA, a non-partisan volunteer organization of Montana hunters and anglers, we are writing to express our group’s strong opposition to the proposal identified above.
Don Thomas, Lewistown
Joe Perry, Brady MT
Dale Tribby, Miles City MT
JW Westman, Park City MT
Robert Wood, Hamilton MT
Steve Schindler, Glasgow MT
Jeff Herbert, Helena MT
Doug Krings, Lewistown MT
Mike Korn, Clancy MT
Kurt Alt, Bozeman MT
John Borgreen, Great Falls MT
Laura Lundquist, Missoula Mt
To: Bureau of Land Management
RE: RIN 1004-AE72 (proposal to allow e-bikes to operate on roads and trails currently restricted to non-motorized use)
From: Montana Sportsmen Alliance (MSA)
On behalf of the MSA, a non-partisan volunteer organization of Montana hunters and anglers, we are writing to express our group’s strong opposition to the proposal identified above.
- Our first objection is based on a simple matter of definition. The roads and trails under consideration are currently designated for non-motorized use for a variety of valid reasons. E-bikes have motors and should be treated as such.
- The stated rationale for this regulatory change is to expand recreational opportunities on BLM-administered lands. Yet Sec. III of the proposal acknowledges that “the use of off-road vehicles (and therefore e-bikes) is currently allowed on the majority of roads and trails on BLM administered lands.” Therefore, opportunities for this mode of transport already exist, making the proposal redundant and unnecessary.
- The proposal raises significant issues regarding safety (a concern for us) and liability (which should be a concern for the BLM). The proposal’s segment 8340.0-5 (Definitions) Paragraph (j) (3) establishes that some of the vehicles under discussion will be capable of speeds up to 28 mph. Is the BLM prepared to ensure that the roads and trails under discussion will be maintained to a standard that would allow safe travel at that speed? How will you address the safety of hikers, horseback riders, non-motorized bicycle users and others? Who will establish and enforce the rules of the road? Who will be responsible in the case of a collision?
- The proposal makes no provision for potential impacts on wildlife or the quality of the recreational experience for other users traveling by non-motorized means.
- We are concerned about establishing an undesirable precedent by which other motorized means of travel could be approved for roads and trails upon which they are now prohibited.
Don Thomas, Lewistown
Joe Perry, Brady MT
Dale Tribby, Miles City MT
JW Westman, Park City MT
Robert Wood, Hamilton MT
Steve Schindler, Glasgow MT
Jeff Herbert, Helena MT
Doug Krings, Lewistown MT
Mike Korn, Clancy MT
Kurt Alt, Bozeman MT
John Borgreen, Great Falls MT
Laura Lundquist, Missoula Mt
WyoDoug
Well-known member
I am on the fence on this, leaning against the proposed rule. If the roads are not allowed for motors that should also include electrical motors. The intent was to prevent damage to sensitive habitat or wildlife and I fail to see how e-bikes do any damage.
As for the comments on cross-bows that someone threw in, cross-bows are NOT anything close to a rifle or firearm. They have similar range with some just higher range as compared to compound bows depending on how you have it set. I would not take a shot with a cross-bow exceeding 150-200 yards period and prefer 100. I have had multiple shoulder surgeries that sometimes make it painful to pull a compound bow to full draw. People that criticize cross-bows are typically people who have never shot one or hunted with it before.
As for the comments on cross-bows that someone threw in, cross-bows are NOT anything close to a rifle or firearm. They have similar range with some just higher range as compared to compound bows depending on how you have it set. I would not take a shot with a cross-bow exceeding 150-200 yards period and prefer 100. I have had multiple shoulder surgeries that sometimes make it painful to pull a compound bow to full draw. People that criticize cross-bows are typically people who have never shot one or hunted with it before.
Wildabeest
Well-known member
In UT, they have special season for muzzleloader, but not crossbows. I’d say a muzzleloader has a slight advantage over a crossbow in distance and lethality. So why have special season for one and not their other? I’m not advocating for or against either one. Just that they should probably be treated the same. Both have benefited in substantial technological advancements in recent years that make them far better than their “primitive” roots, which is why we should be open to reevaluating rules as technology changes.
As to the original topic of e-bikes, those didn't exist wh e those “no motorized vehicles” rules were conceived. So it’s at least worthy of an open debate since things have changed. Simply saying “non motorized means non motorized” doesn’t cut it for me. We should have a discussion about whether in the context of new technology is the current regulation appropriate for its original intensed purpose or should it be adjusted. I’m not strongly advocating either way, as I can see both sides of this. I just wish we could get last polarizing rhetoric and have open discussions where we all listen, understand and try to appreciate the various points of view. There’s not always a single “right” answer, despite what our current media and political culture wants us to believe.
Vehicles, not weapons. No, E-Bikes need to be classified as a motorized vehicle. Period. I've seen them in action. In violation actually here in Montana. They are basically a motorcycle. The regulations banning them on non motorized vehicle trails and roads are "appropriate" and should forever remain that way. Polarizing rhetoric I guess. mtmuley
R
rwc101
Guest
Maybe a Super Cub.
Wildabeest
Well-known member
I can accept that e-bikes be classified as “motorized vehicles” (despite many DMV’s seeing this differently, but that’s a different debate). Assuming we do that, it still leaves open the issue of “should e-bikes be allowed on what are currently labeled as “non-motorized” trails”? If changing regulations is something that is on the table - which I think it always should be given that conditions are constantly changing - then one could just as easily consider changing the regulation of what’s allowed or not vs. changing the definition of “motorized”. That was my point about simply using “non-motorized means non-motorized” as the sole rationale supporting keeping e-bikes banned. The regulations can just as easily be more specific as to what’s allowed or not vs. changing the definition of motorized.
if we take this down to the core issues of “why” one would oppose this, I can think of a few. One is environmental impact / trail destruction / etc. On that issue, I’d submit that e-bikes would have no more negative environmental impact than regular mountain bikes, horses and pack animals. That’s my opinion, not based on scientific evidence, so I’m open to evidence proving me wrong. In addition, I understand there may be a concern that legalizing e-bikes would create a lot more bike traffic on hunting trails. I’m more on the fence about that one. I don’t necessarily think you’ll suddenly have a vast amount of hunters on e-bikes, but I can see where you’ll have more recreational users of trails enjoying them due to the convenience of an e-bike. It’s a valid concern
Another issue is fairness. Is it fair that people on e-bikes can get into the backcountry more easily than those of us currently using human power via walking or riding a regular mountain bike? That would be a fair argument if not for the fact that horses and pack animals in most cases are allowed on those “non motorized trails”. I think those people with access to to those assisting animals have a big advantage over me since I’m not in a position to have them, but I don’t begrudge them for it. I simply look for ways that I can level the playing field given what’s allowed and in my control. I alter my hunting strategy in that context. Is it fair? I don’t get caught up in that. I play the hand I’m dealt, or try to improve my hand where I can. The Serenity Prayer hangs on my wall to remind me of this...
Another objection I can imagine would be the perception of noise and general disruptiveness in the otherwise peaceful backcountry. I can appreciate this as it relates to volume, but e-bikes in and of themselves are not any louder or more disruptive than regular mountain bikes, which are already allowed on those trails.
I as well have witnessed people illegally using e-bikes on non-motorized trails. I have also witnessed other hunters doing other illegal or what I considered to be unethical or rude behaviors. Some of it I report, some I don’t. But I think it’s unfair to assume that all, or even a majority of, legal e-bike users would behave like the ones currently doing it illegally. Those currently doing it have already shown that they don’t have respect for the rules of proper conduct.
@mtmuley, I completely respect your position on this and understand that I am very unlikely to change your mind about it. And that’s OK. I’m supportive of changing the regulation on this due to the reasons above, and have responded to the request for input. Part my rationale is personal. I’m 55 with physical limitations that are getting more problematic at an accelerated pace. So I realize that my days of being able to hike 10 miles into the backcountry are numbered. I’m interested in anything that can help me continue to enjoy the backcountry, but only if it doesn’t have a significant negative impact on others. That’s the context by which I’ve formed my opinion on this, and I fully respect that others may validly have the complete opposite opinion based on their own points of view. Just wanted to share mine with no disrespect for those who may disagree.
I’m not sure about y’all, but I’m looking forward to fall then I don’t have time to do this much typing!
if we take this down to the core issues of “why” one would oppose this, I can think of a few. One is environmental impact / trail destruction / etc. On that issue, I’d submit that e-bikes would have no more negative environmental impact than regular mountain bikes, horses and pack animals. That’s my opinion, not based on scientific evidence, so I’m open to evidence proving me wrong. In addition, I understand there may be a concern that legalizing e-bikes would create a lot more bike traffic on hunting trails. I’m more on the fence about that one. I don’t necessarily think you’ll suddenly have a vast amount of hunters on e-bikes, but I can see where you’ll have more recreational users of trails enjoying them due to the convenience of an e-bike. It’s a valid concern
Another issue is fairness. Is it fair that people on e-bikes can get into the backcountry more easily than those of us currently using human power via walking or riding a regular mountain bike? That would be a fair argument if not for the fact that horses and pack animals in most cases are allowed on those “non motorized trails”. I think those people with access to to those assisting animals have a big advantage over me since I’m not in a position to have them, but I don’t begrudge them for it. I simply look for ways that I can level the playing field given what’s allowed and in my control. I alter my hunting strategy in that context. Is it fair? I don’t get caught up in that. I play the hand I’m dealt, or try to improve my hand where I can. The Serenity Prayer hangs on my wall to remind me of this...
Another objection I can imagine would be the perception of noise and general disruptiveness in the otherwise peaceful backcountry. I can appreciate this as it relates to volume, but e-bikes in and of themselves are not any louder or more disruptive than regular mountain bikes, which are already allowed on those trails.
I as well have witnessed people illegally using e-bikes on non-motorized trails. I have also witnessed other hunters doing other illegal or what I considered to be unethical or rude behaviors. Some of it I report, some I don’t. But I think it’s unfair to assume that all, or even a majority of, legal e-bike users would behave like the ones currently doing it illegally. Those currently doing it have already shown that they don’t have respect for the rules of proper conduct.
@mtmuley, I completely respect your position on this and understand that I am very unlikely to change your mind about it. And that’s OK. I’m supportive of changing the regulation on this due to the reasons above, and have responded to the request for input. Part my rationale is personal. I’m 55 with physical limitations that are getting more problematic at an accelerated pace. So I realize that my days of being able to hike 10 miles into the backcountry are numbered. I’m interested in anything that can help me continue to enjoy the backcountry, but only if it doesn’t have a significant negative impact on others. That’s the context by which I’ve formed my opinion on this, and I fully respect that others may validly have the complete opposite opinion based on their own points of view. Just wanted to share mine with no disrespect for those who may disagree.
I’m not sure about y’all, but I’m looking forward to fall then I don’t have time to do this much typing!
rtraverdavis
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2016
- Messages
- 4,078
Finally took the time to write my comment this evening. To me it comes down to limiting the number of people who are willing to access wildlife sanctuary areas. With the number of people on this planet continuing it's ever-steady climb, those areas are shrinking, plain and simple. For what it's worth, this is the comment I made:
"I write to ask that the BLM not allow the use of any class of e-bikes on trails designated for non-motorized use. Inherent to every e-bike is its self-defining object--an electric motor. It is paradoxical to allow one type of motor, and yet not another, in areas specifically designated for non-motorized use; areas that enjoy that designation for good reason. It is a means to propel more people more easily to areas that are hard to reach, areas that are critical sanctuaries away from humans that are necessary to the health of our already stressed and fragmented wildlife populations.
From paragraph three of Section III, it's stated, "Travel management is an ongoing and dynamic process through which roads and trails for different modes of travel can be added and/or subtracted from the available travel system at any time through the appropriate planning and NEPA processes. These changes may be necessary based on access needs, resource objectives, and impacts to natural resources or the human environment." In the area I hunt elk in Oregon, there is a widespread travel management plan. Many roads are closed for motorized use. The closures of said roads allow elk to find sanctuary in hard-to-reach areas where few people will put in the effort to get to. Because of that, many elk escape being killed during the hunting season. Because fewer elk get killed, the state fish and wildlife agency, ODFW, is able to issue more tags, creating more revenue for conservation and allowing more people the opportunity to hunt. That would all change if e-bikes were allowed on the multitude of roads closed to motorized use, as it would create a new ease-of-access for many who wouldn't ordinarily put in the effort. More importantly, it would put the squeeze on wildlife that has already been squeezed enough. Let's be honest, we're never going to run out of roads. What we very well could run out of, if more rules like the one proposed here were to pass, are the truly wild places that our native wildlife need to survive.
So I ask again, please do not allow e-bikes on non-motorized trails. It doesn't make sense for such a designation, and it doesn't make sense for wildlife.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Sincerely,
Randy T Davis"
"I write to ask that the BLM not allow the use of any class of e-bikes on trails designated for non-motorized use. Inherent to every e-bike is its self-defining object--an electric motor. It is paradoxical to allow one type of motor, and yet not another, in areas specifically designated for non-motorized use; areas that enjoy that designation for good reason. It is a means to propel more people more easily to areas that are hard to reach, areas that are critical sanctuaries away from humans that are necessary to the health of our already stressed and fragmented wildlife populations.
From paragraph three of Section III, it's stated, "Travel management is an ongoing and dynamic process through which roads and trails for different modes of travel can be added and/or subtracted from the available travel system at any time through the appropriate planning and NEPA processes. These changes may be necessary based on access needs, resource objectives, and impacts to natural resources or the human environment." In the area I hunt elk in Oregon, there is a widespread travel management plan. Many roads are closed for motorized use. The closures of said roads allow elk to find sanctuary in hard-to-reach areas where few people will put in the effort to get to. Because of that, many elk escape being killed during the hunting season. Because fewer elk get killed, the state fish and wildlife agency, ODFW, is able to issue more tags, creating more revenue for conservation and allowing more people the opportunity to hunt. That would all change if e-bikes were allowed on the multitude of roads closed to motorized use, as it would create a new ease-of-access for many who wouldn't ordinarily put in the effort. More importantly, it would put the squeeze on wildlife that has already been squeezed enough. Let's be honest, we're never going to run out of roads. What we very well could run out of, if more rules like the one proposed here were to pass, are the truly wild places that our native wildlife need to survive.
So I ask again, please do not allow e-bikes on non-motorized trails. It doesn't make sense for such a designation, and it doesn't make sense for wildlife.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Sincerely,
Randy T Davis"
Nameless Range
Well-known member
Because clothing and optics are analogous, in terms of their effect on a place, as motorized transportation?
No but it seems everyone wants to cherry-pick what should be allowed. You want wilderness area's, then I say lets make it a true wilderness area's. Guess we'll have to cherry pick the white man and the horse hahaha...
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Oh the logic in comparing apples to oranges ... or in this case, watermelons to giraffes.
thusby
Well-known member
You guys got a laugh out of me. Went from ebikes (electric go-carts) to hunting in buckskins in the course of a dozen posts.
COEngineer
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2016
- Messages
- 1,509
Wilderness with a capital "W" was defined by Congress. The legislation doesn't mention anything about the list you presented. It does, however, mention mechanization in the first sentence: "In order to assure that an increasing population, accompanied by expanding settlement and growing mechanization, does not occupy and modify all areas within the United States and its possessions..." Nothing on your list (range finders, gps, centerfire rifles, compound bows, synthetic clothing, spotting scopes) is going to modify the landscape. If you want motorbikes in wilderness areas, that's fine. Advocate for that. But you are going to have to find a better argument than ebikes = spotting scopes to convince some of us to join your position.
Wildabeest
Well-known member
Then we also should clarify that "Wilderness" (with a capital "W") does not equal "Non-motorized Trails". There's lots of trails currently classified as non-motorized that are on public lands that are not designated as Wilderness Areas. I bring this up not to nit-pick semantics, but to clarify my opinion on the OP issue of "E-bikes on Non-motorized Trails". I do not support e-bikes (or any bikes for that matter) in designated Wilderness Areas. Neither is currently allowed, and I think that policy should continue. I am, however, in favor of e-bikes being allowed on public land trails otherwise open to conventional bikes. I understand and respect that others have different opinions on even that change. Valid arguments can be made on both sides.
