Comment on proposed USFS manual change for e-bikes.

RobG said:
Because mountain bikers like to build high gradient high speed trails
Click to expand...
A good example is a long popular trail just south of Bozeman. My wife and I hiked it a few years ago, after it became popular for mountain bikes and was worked on to provide "high gradient high speed trails" with sharp banked curves and gnarly jump ramps. We will never hike it again and will leave it to the bikers to enjoy by themselves, as a hiker is at risk due to the sudden surprise when bikes come literally flying down the trail.
 
Last edited:
Nameless Range said:
This is about the grave mistake it would be to consider electric motorized bikes as non-motorized entities...
Click to expand...
Agree 100% and shared such when this thread was introduced. It's an in your face oxymoron. I guess my Dewalt cordless drill is non motorized...

On note of this topic and as shared prior years though not to the march of the boots only crowd: Alliances with human powered back country cycles would be better suited with biologists and LE to define a quality opportunity for all and to sit at the table and find mutual value. Bring into the fold a recreation stamp (or whatever a person wants to call it) to assist with the funding for the biologists / LE to aid with areas of concern for ALL recreational users.
There are places for all public land users.

As for a cycle creating a human to violate laws - horseshit. If that's the case, you best take your hunting rifle to the pawn shop... God forbid it tells you to use it to commit illegal acts.
 
MTGomer said:
Bring one where I hunt at your own risk.
I have heard that some guys have these.

Click to expand...


87-6-215. Harassment. (1) (a) A person may not:
(i) intentionally interfere with the lawful taking of a wild animal or fishing by another;
(ii) with intent to prevent or hinder its lawful taking or its capture, disturb a wild animal or engage in an activity or place in its way any object or substance that will tend to disturb or otherwise affect the behavior of a wild animal; or
(iii) disturb an individual engaged in the lawful taking of a wild animal or fishing with intent to prevent the taking of the animal or the capture of the fish.
(b) This subsection (1) does not:
(i) prohibit a landowner or lessee from taking reasonable measures to prevent imminent danger to domestic livestock and equipment; or
(ii) prohibit or curtail normal landowner operations or lawful uses of water.
(2) A person convicted of or who forfeits bond or bail after being charged with a violation of this section shall be fined not more than $500 or be imprisoned for not more than 30 days, or both. In addition, the person may be subject to forfeiture of any current hunting, fishing, or trapping license issued by this state and the privilege to hunt, fish, and trap in this state or to use state lands, as defined in 77-1-101, for recreational purposes for a period of time set by the court.
(3) A person convicted of or who forfeits bond or bail after being charged with a second or subsequent violation of this section within 5 years shall be fined not less than $500 or more than $1,000 or be imprisoned for not more than 6 months, or both. In addition, the person shall forfeit any current hunting, fishing, or trapping license issued by this state and the privilege to hunt, fish, and trap in this state for 24 months from the date of conviction or forfeiture of bond or bail unless the court imposes a longer period.
(4) A court of general jurisdiction may enjoin conduct in violation of this section upon petition by a person affected or who reasonably may be affected by that conduct and upon a showing that the conduct is threatened or that it has occurred on a particular premises in the past and that it is not unreasonable to expect that under similar circumstances it will be repeated.
(5) As used in this section:
(a) "fishing" means the lawful means of fishing as described in 87-6-501;
(b) "taking" means the pursuit, hunting, trapping, shooting, or killing of a wild animal on land upon which the affected person has the right or privilege to pursue, hunt, trap, shoot, or kill the wild animal; and
(c) "wild animal" means a game animal, migratory game bird, upland game bird, fur-bearing animal, predatory animal, or fish.
 
I think it would be worth connecting the impact of a recreational activity and the cost of managing said recreational activity vs arguing over the activity in question. For example, I'm a "boots only" hiking hunter but would I be interested in a low speed, quiet, and load capable e-bike? Absolutely! Functionally, it's very similar to an ATV, it's just quiet so it's not so annoying to listen to, it would allow me to get deeper into the back country to hunt. But - now that I have an e-bike, my impact has gone up tremendously because I can get deeper into the woods more easily - so of course I'm going to. How do I "pay" for that increased resource use and how do we manage where that sort of use is allowed.

We see users of Llamas and horses extolling the fact that they can get deeper into the wilderness because of their tools, and that's great, but I don't see why they shouldn't pay to play as it were. Just because you have the ability to either own or rent these critters doesn't mean you should get more access than I do on foot without paying for the privilege. There is nothing like backpacking hard to get to a good spot, and have someone bring an entire settlement up on horseback and pitch 100 yards away.

Don't get me wrong, I see a fundamental difference between mechanized transport and animal transport, but both increase impact (perhaps unequally). Here in Colorado we have lots of folks that are mountain biking (not e-biking) and affecting local wildlife and they contribute nothing to the conservation and support of these resources. For perspective - a non-resident bull tag is $660, but a non-resident mountain biker/skier is free. I'm all for more public using the public land, but hunting is tightly regulated (and expensive!) and we do that to protect and manage the resource, we need to start being more forward in demanding that everyone helps pay to protect and manage our public land.
 
JLS said:
Huh?????
Click to expand...
Specifically we're talking about are ebikes regular bikes or are they motorcycles, and we all agree (I think) that they're motorcycles, and they should be regulated as such.

Broadly, we're discussing that things like bikes cause impacts and in an ideal world they'd help shoulder the burden of funding conservation and management instead of freeloading like they do now. I'm going further to suggest we should regulate and fund based on impact. Want to summit a Colorado 14er? That'll be 3 dollars. Want to ride your bike all over Moab? You'll need a bike tag, 10 bucks. You want to take a mule train with you elk hunting? That's 3 dollars per animal. The greater the impact, the more it's going to cost.
 
CoffeeGoat said:
Specifically we're talking about are ebikes regular bikes or are they motorcycles, and we all agree (I think) that they're motorcycles, and they should be regulated as such.

Broadly, we're discussing that things like bikes cause impacts and in an ideal world they'd help shoulder the burden of funding conservation and management instead of freeloading like they do now. I'm going further to suggest we should regulate and fund based on impact. Want to summit a Colorado 14er? That'll be 3 dollars. Want to ride your bike all over Moab? You'll need a bike tag, 10 bucks. You want to take a mule train with you elk hunting? That's 3 dollars per animal. The greater the impact, the more it's going to cost.
Click to expand...
So does an elk tag for a 300 RUM then cost more than an elk tag for a 25-35? What if I have good mountaineering boots and you have shitty Wal Mart boots?

Yeesh.
 
Straight Arrow said:
It's just a matter of time, lobby money, and legislation and you will be able to climb the Bob's Chinese Wall with your electric Harley HOG!
Click to expand...
SA, you can be my wingman anytime.

Like the HD Company name? Cereal 1? I'll take a Wheaties Electra Power Performer, please.

Apologies @COEngineer . The comment period is wrapped and hopefully USFS received a good earful to prevent motorized cycles on non motorized routes.
Figured a little levity would be a par for the slight course derail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

COEngineer
Comment on Proposed BLM Rule to Allow E-bikes on Non-Motorized Trails
2 3
Replies
48
Views
7K
MThuntr
MThuntr
Sytes
"Cottonwood" USFWS & NMFS Proposal To Amend - Seeking Your Comments.
Replies
0
Views
877
Sytes
Sytes
Big Fin
MT Licensing System - Burn it down? How to Improve it?
5 6 7
Replies
138
Views
15K
Trap
T
CampRipleyLF
Superior National Forest Proposal For Protection
Replies
5
Views
2K
OhHeyThereBen
OhHeyThereBen
Sytes
Shockey: Grizzly attack/kill of young mother and her child
2 3
Replies
51
Views
11K
1100RemingtonMan
1100RemingtonMan
Leupold BX-4 Rangefinding Binoculars

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,675
Messages
2,029,366
Members
36,279
Latest member
TURKEY NUT

Share this page

Back
Top