Forest Service Issues ‘E-Bike’ Guidance
- Thread starter sapperJ24
- Start date
DouglasR
Well-known member
Nameless Range
Well-known member
HB-261 - which is a bill that will deem all 3 classes of ebike as nonmotorized in Montana, will be up for third reading in the house soon.
Nevermind the fact that ebikes do in fact have motors in a literal sense, but both the USFS and BLM have deemed ebikes as motorized, and this sort of ununified governance would be inefficient and confusing.
I recently received a note from a representative who voted Y on 2nd reading, that they will be voting N on the 3rd. That's a meaningful change, and a sign that others might be open to influence when hearing from their constituents. Contact your rep if you are so inclined.
Nevermind the fact that ebikes do in fact have motors in a literal sense, but both the USFS and BLM have deemed ebikes as motorized, and this sort of ununified governance would be inefficient and confusing.
I recently received a note from a representative who voted Y on 2nd reading, that they will be voting N on the 3rd. That's a meaningful change, and a sign that others might be open to influence when hearing from their constituents. Contact your rep if you are so inclined.
Irishman
Well-known member
Are e.bikes motorized? Yep, definitely. However, would an e.bike gain you as much access over walking as a horse would? Nope, not even close. E.bikes also pretty much leave no trace that they were on a road or trail, horses leave a mess.
Is the real issue with e.bikes that they are affordable to most, whereas most cannot afford to own horses? And therefore many would have access to some of the areas that previously only those with horses had.
Personally, I have no issue with everyone walking for access, but don't understand why so many are anti e.bike, but find access on horses to be okay.
Is the real issue with e.bikes that they are affordable to most, whereas most cannot afford to own horses? And therefore many would have access to some of the areas that previously only those with horses had.
Personally, I have no issue with everyone walking for access, but don't understand why so many are anti e.bike, but find access on horses to be okay.
grainhog
Member
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2023
- Messages
- 9
Rep contacted. HB-216 and any other MT legislation that attempts to recognize ebikes as anything other than the motorized vehicles that they are must be defeated.
grainhog
Member
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2023
- Messages
- 9
The news I heard was that ahead of second reading, there were only 11 comments in favor and 87 comments opposing HB-261. Keep it up! Keep motorized vehicles out of non-motorized areas.
If the barrier to entry between the two was equal you might have a point.
It's not an e-bike versus horse issue. mtmuley
PrairieHunter
Well-known member
Just imagine someone riding an e-bike and hunting with a crossbow at the same time in Montana.
Talk about dregs of society.
Talk about dregs of society.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
The “real” issue in Montana is your claim of “affordable to most” has to sit alongside a general unwillingness by residents to pay more than $20 for an elk tag or accept reduced opportunity. I have little problem with crossbows or e-bikes in principle, but consistency is important.
The "real" issue is an E-bike has a motor. Pretty easy to understand. Nothing to do with $20 elk tags. mtmuley
BearLakeHunter
New member
So motors are bad, but a 900lb animal that craps all over the place and ruts up a trail more than most anything is good? Not sure I’m following the logic there and I think the comparison above to horses is pretty valid. A pedal assisted e-bike will leave little more trace than a human on foot.
What’s the purpose of the regulation then? To protect the land? Limit access by some means? Protect the wildlife? I’m genuinely curious what the purpose is.
MTLabrador
Well-known member
I’ve never understood the horse vs e-bike argument. A horse doesn’t have a motor and is about 100 times more work than using a motorized bike. The issue isn’t horse crap or trail erosion, the issue is keeping the backcountry difficult to access.
For the anti horse people, how do you propose to hunt elk in places like the Bob or the Thorofare?
For the anti horse people, how do you propose to hunt elk in places like the Bob or the Thorofare?
MTLabrador
Well-known member
Limiting motorized access does all three of those.
mxracer317
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2020
- Messages
- 1,204
Respectfully, it takes a hell lot of work to pedal still with an e-bike. So it’s not like you’re being dropped off by a helicopter easy.
Wouldn’t it be fair to define the size of the motor allowed to be used then?
Wouldn’t it be fair to define the size of the motor allowed to be used then?
MTLabrador
Well-known member
I think the current method of drawing the line at a motor (or drawing the line at wheels in wilderness) makes more sense. Just my opinion.
BuzzH
Well-known member
In motorized use areas with motorized routes, use whatever size motor you want.
In those areas where they aren't allowed, walk or take a horse.
Easy, simple, and nothing to argue about.
BearLakeHunter
New member
I appreciate the response. To play devils advocate with your opinion. Why do horses get the pass vs a pedal assisted e-bike. Why not give the e-bike the pass vs the horse? Both would accomplish your goal of limiting access. Do you use horses to access the back country? I get to use my two feet for most of my back country trecking. I just have a hard time understanding how we delineate which tools we use for access are okay.
mxracer317
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2020
- Messages
- 1,204
Not arguing Buzz. Having a discussion… I purposely left the other thread once you entered. You are incapable of having a conversation like a civilized adult. I don’t know if you strive for admin status on this site or what your issue in life is, but you got issues man.
This site isn’t all about you. God help us all if you had any real authority in life.
Similar threads
