Comment on proposed USFS manual change for e-bikes.

[COEngineer]

I think this manual change is basically just saying that USFS has to consider adding e-bikes (which they have split into 3 classes) to classes of vehicles allowed on certain trails. Maybe not even worth commenting on since it is just common sense that they should be considering them (whether to specifically allow/deny access).

SLOT777: GOL89 Daftar Judi Slot Gacor 777 Online Resmi Terpercaya

SLOT777 & GOL89 merupakan situs judi slot gacor 777 online resmi terpercaya mudah menang di Indonesia, Mainkan situs slot gacor terbaikmu hanya disini.

cara.ecosystem-management.org

 

[Nameless Range]

Thank you for posting this.

Maybe it has been beat to death here, but I hope folks will comment on the USFS's consideration. Like COEngineer pointed out, this seems to be a comment on whether they should consider them or not, so I am not sure of the efficacy of a comment that opposes ebikes on nonmotorized trails would have, but I sent one anyway. Good article in the local newspaper this morning: https://helenair.com/news/beat-feet...cle_647ac759-94a9-5764-bcce-23615e46aea6.html

A 2019 Brigham Young University study found dramatic differences in rider capability on pedal bikes compared to e-bikes. Using a powered bicycle with just a third of the allowable booster force, riders completed a 5.5-mile course with 50 percent faster speed and significantly lower heart rates than those relying on their leg strength alone. That was with a 250-watt e-bike, one-third the capacity of full-strength 750-watt e-bike boosters.

Meditate on that when it comes to the trails you hike or bike to hunt. Over 5 miles, 50% faster, and easier, on an e-bike with 1/3 the wattage that BLM currently allows on non-motorized trails.

Let's encourage the Dept. of Ag to plan ahead, for increased use, strained resources, and technological advancements.

Comment here: https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public/CommentInput?project=ORMS-2619

 

[Sytes]

Maybe I missed prior usfs comment links though this is .org vs .gov However, the website appears as a USFS gov site. This the normal process via .org? Not saying it's incorrect.

I wonder if this is a strategic tactic to toss a few electric levels out there thus, an ebike at a low level might actually have the ability to pretend it's not motorized for the masses. i.e. current opinion that an ebike is motorized vs human super power? Or, is this more procedural?

Thanks for the links CoE and NR.

 

[Nameless Range]

One more day to comment on this.

I will repeat the findings from the study referenced above:



Over 5 miles, riders on Ebikes were 50% faster with less effort than human powered bikes, with 1/3 the wattage that would be allowed on non-motorized trails if ebikes were suddenly considered non-motorized. On top of that I would like you to consider this: on the majority of the USFS system, there is no such thing as off-trail for non-motorized bikes.Legally, they can go everywhere you can hike.

 

[Wildabeest]

A 2019 Brigham Young University study found dramatic differences in rider capability on pedal bikes compared to e-bikes. Using a powered bicycle with just a third of the allowable booster force, riders completed a 5.5-mile course with 50 percent faster speed and significantly lower heart rates than those relying on their leg strength alone. That was with a 250-watt e-bike, one-third the capacity of full-strength 750-watt e-bike boosters.

I wonder if they’ll do a similar study for horses. Just sayin’...

 

[Nameless Range]

I wonder if they’ll do a similar study for horses. Just sayin’...

Right after they compare people who hike barefoot with people who wear boots..

.

 

[Wildabeest]

The point is that horses provide as much if not more advantage to hunters as e-bikes. So using “unfair advantage” as a rationale for not allowing them is unfair in and of itself so long as hunting from horses on these same lands is allowed. I won’t rehash all of the other for/against points that have been well covered in other posts. It’s a tricky issue worthy of debate. So I agree with the call for comment, irregardless of your position on the issue.

 

[Wildabeest]

Now let my flogging begin...

 

[BuzzH]

The point is that horses provide as much if not more advantage to hunters as e-bikes. So using “unfair advantage” as a rationale for not allowing them is unfair in and of itself so long as hunting from horses on these same lands is allowed. I won’t rehash all of the other for/against points that have been well covered in other posts. It’s a tricky issue worthy of debate. So I agree with the call for comment, irregardless of your position on the issue.

Here's the difference...not every swinging Richard is going to go through the trouble of buying several thousand dollars worth of horse flesh, feeding them year round, shoeing them, buying tack, buying trailers, trucks to pull them, vet bills, yada yada yada.

It takes a lot of dedication to own and hunt successfully off a horse.

Doesn't take anything but a one time purchase of an e-bike by thousands and thousands of people to turn good areas into just another place to hunt. There is no dedication to buying an e-bike and parking it in the garage and forgetting about it for the 10 months after the season closes.

I was out at the FS office the other day, and they just purchased an e-bike for their LEO to use. On flat ground, with no peddling at all, 2 guys about 190-200 pounds each took turns riding that thing. They reached 22 mph on flat ground in the parking lot without peddling.

IMO, there isn't much difference between that and a honda trail 90 except gasoline...

 

[JLS]

It is easy to tell the guys who are riding e bikes, they pedal up the hills like Captain America. The difference is huge.

I’ll own it, I didn’t think they would be that popular or there would be that much advantage. I was flat wrong.

 

[Sytes]

I wonder if they’ll do a similar study for horses. Just sayin’...

I see your point. The day I see this on a non motorized trail...

I enjoy y'er posts @Wildabeast Rassin' ya.

 

[WapitiBob]

Fortunately, here they're illegal on any ODFW TMA regardless of what the feds say.

 

[RobG]

The article isn't about mountain bikes, or e-bikes, but it discusses the impacts. Check out the mountain bike videos towards the end. These are trails I like to hike...

I was also surprised to learn that it is perfectly legal for mountain bikes to travel off trail. I know of one hidden mountain bike trail that has been illegally built south of town that had banked corners, wooden jumps, etc. E-bikes are just going to bring this to the next level.

 

[Sytes]

I was also surprised to learn that it is perfectly legal for mountain bikes to travel off trail

Hmmm...

Erosion... now this does relate to @Wildabeast earlier comment.

Scientific studies have found cycles cause less impact than horses.

I think horses are good in our back country... on and off trail. All for them! All for llamas, Matt's goats, alpacas, humans... and backcountry cycles - the human powered cycles.
I bet the boots only crowd disagrees.
Public Lands in Public Hands.

 

[Nameless Range]

Hmmm...

Erosion... now this does relate to @Wildabeast earlier comment.

Scientific studies have found cycles cause less impact than horses.

If you are talking about erosion, I don’t think I’d disagree.

The crux to me is effect on wildlife and the character of a place. Electric motorcycles in the backcountry, and even worse those that aren’t limited to codified trails would be a disaster.

https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/csp2.271?utm_campaign=WYM-09102020&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_term=what_you_missed

From the abstract to this study which came out a month ago.



"Here, we used camera traps to assess relative effects of various recreational activities—as compared to each other and to environmental conditions—on a terrestrial wildlife assemblage in British Columbia, Canada. Across 13 species, only two negative associations between recreational activities and wildlife detections were observed at weekly scales: mountain biking on moose and grizzly bears. However, finer‐scale analysis showed that all species avoided humans on trails, with avoidance strongest for mountain biking and motorized vehicles."

 

[mtmuley]

Keep them classified as motorized vehicles. mtmuley

 

[RobG]

Hmmm...

Erosion... now this does relate to @Wildabeast earlier comment.

Scientific studies have found cycles cause less impact than horses.

I think horses are good in our back country... on and off trail. All for them! All for llamas, Matt's goats, alpacas, humans... and backcountry cycles - the human powered cycles.
I bet the boots only crowd disagrees.
Public Lands in Public Hands.

Hmmm...

Erosion... now this does relate to @Wildabeast earlier comment.

Scientific studies have found cycles cause less impact than horses.

I think horses are good in our back country... on and off trail. All for them! All for llamas, Matt's goats, alpacas, humans... and backcountry cycles - the human powered cycles.
I bet the boots only crowd disagrees.
Public Lands in Public Hands.

Because mountain bikers like to build high gradient high speed trails

 

[Sytes]

Electric motorcycles in the backcountry,

Agree. If we are comparing animal and human powered. Motorized cycles, IMO, are in the exact same category as motorized anything and have their legally designated areas on our public Lands.

Human power and animal power is open to designated areas as well. Ever tried pedaling a cycle off trail? Its no fun thrill.

As for illegal activity, the hunt rifle doesn't fire on its own, nor does a cycle commit a criminal offense. Its the person.

Human activity did not have particularly strong or consistent negative effects

human activity variables accounted for 6 of the 30 statistically‐significant variables, and only two of those, mountain biking for moose and grizzly bears were negatively associated with probability of use

In contrast, environmental variables at the site level (n = 8) and the larger landscape surrounding the site (n = 6) accounted for half of all statistically significant variables, with temporal autocorrelation (n = 7) and trail/camera characteristics (n = 3) accounting for the remainder.

Random effect estimates revealed that most species showed no statistically significant differences among one another for any of the recreation types

My reading of the study suggests the need for further research of the secondary adverse effects on moose and grizzly. I would fully support further objective research that gave a strong adverse effect for those two species and ensure the areas that hold a certain population of those species, off limits to backcountry cyclists.

I believe, just as well, humans should maintain a defined legal boundary from calving areas.

Basically, there should be off limit areas for humans and further specify the modes of transport used.

Funding? I'm a firm believer anyone who uses our public lands should pony up for enforcement, etc in the form of a recreational use stamp.

I oppose any form of motor in non motorized use areas.

on this forum, guess I'll join wildabeast in the vocal few HT penalty box. Haha! All in good conversation.

 

[RobG]

Human power and animal power is open to designated areas as well. Ever tried pedaling a cycle off trail? Its no fun thrill.

As for illegal activity, the hunt rifle doesn't fire on its own, nor does a cycle commit a criminal offense. Its the person.

Sytes, in all honesty, around here peddling a cycle off trail is a real thrill. Soon the paths become trails and soon the trails get reinforced berms and jumps built into them. Every once in a while a hunter like me runs into them and reports them to the FS, but they don't have enough resources to keep up with "the person." A couple years ago they used dynamite to blow up one of the trails, but "the person" built another trail close by. You don't see this level of problems with horse and foot. Bike technology just invites "the person" to get his thrill in the woods at the expense of the wildness of the area. E-bikes will take the problem a step further.

 

[Nameless Range]

Sytes, in all honesty, around here peddling a cycle off trail is a real thrill. Soon the paths become trails and soon the trails get reinforced berms and jumps built into them. Every once in a while a hunter like me runs into them and reports them to the FS, but they don't have enough resources to keep up with "the person." A couple years ago they used dynamite to blow up one of the trails, but "the person" built another trail close by. You don't see this level of problems with horse and foot. Bike technology just invites "the person" to get his thrill in the woods at the expense of the wildness of the area. E-bikes will take the problem a step further.

What Rob says above is absolutely true. There is no off trail, and there wouldn’t be for Ebikes under the current administrative rules. A couple trails turn into a half a dozen trails with old elk trails as connectors. Then, industrious recreationists go out there with saws, shovels, and picks, and literally build thousands of feet of trail down gulches and up ridges. And the next thing you know the USFS, looking for a win, is codifying miles and miles of trails that 20 years ago did not exist, or were old roads that had been closed for habitat security. The effects that that specific type of recreation has on a place and the way it spreads on a landscape is different than other nonmotorized uses. I say that as someone who has seen it and can log into TrailForks and watch it happen in real-time.But that isn’t the point.

This is about the grave mistake it would be to consider electric motorized bikes as non-motorized entities on 193,000,000 acres of the last wild places in The United States.

I encourage folks to comment on that.