Forest Service Issues ‘E-Bike’ Guidance

[Straight Arrow]

e-bikes being environmentally destructiv

That's not it either. You still don't get it.

 

[mxracer317]

Oh I understand motorized just fine. I just disagree with you on e-bikes being environmentally destructive. I assume you’ve never ridden on, but have an opinion on it with no factual basis.

What I still don’t understand is why you’re signing your name for a long time? A subliminal assertion of dominance perhaps?

Shit. You got me 12 years here and nobody else ever figured it out. Genius. mtmuley

12 years. Damn. Yet you’re still that insecure about signing your name like you’re the authoritative figure. Keep it up, guy.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Not to mention horses tearing up muddy terrain with their hooves in the “non-motorized” trails, but hey, that’s cool right?

Apparently you are not from the horse-west. History, tradition, and a ranching / traditional outfitting legacy are predominant ... not to mention the political power of ranching in Montana and other western states. I think there are more horses in the west now then there were in 1900. Likely the number of horses is exponentially more than the numbers of pedal bikes and E-bikes combined.

 

[mxracer317]

Apparently you are not from the horse-west. History, tradition, and a ranching / traditional outfitting legacy are predominant ... not to mention the political power of ranching in Montana and other western states. I think there are more horses in the west now then there were in 1900. Likely the number of horses is exponentially more than the numbers of pedal bikes and E-bikes combined.

From Southern Alberta, bud. I get it.

 

[ccc23454]

I love how the forest service has issued guidance and then everybody offers their opinion after the fact...

 

[Nameless Range]

I love how the forest service has issued guidance and then everybody offers their opinion after the fact...

For me, part of the issue is that though the forest service has offered guidance, they have seemed to set the stage for district or regional managers to make exemptions on a case by case basis within some guidelines.

I’m not even saying that’s a bad thing, but this will be put to the test and the discussions within this thread will be a part of that process in very specific places.

As others have said, these discussions are just getting started

 

[Dirthog67]

People seem to be confused by the classes of E-Bikes. Class 1 do NOT have throttles and DO have power/speed limitations; to me that's a clear differentiation between a Class 1 E-Bike and a motorcycle.

The false equivalency of saying it's motorized and is therefore a motorcycle is just that, a false equivalency. That argument would be akin to saying that my daughter's pink PowerWheel is the same as a Rzr or full-size pickup. Guess which one has more range, power, noise, and ability to damage resources? Hint: It ain't the PowerWheel.

E-Bikes are clearly an advantage over my mom's old Schwinn, but clearly not the same advantage as my dad's KTM; they're a new technology that didn't exist commonly a decade ago and regulations need to be updated accordingly.

One thing I'd caution against is managing based on the premise of accessibility, both psychical and quantitative, instead of focusing management on the impact to the resource.

The trail itself won't feel a difference between a bicycle tire and an E-Bike tire (they're literally the same tire), no additional ruts are formed and no additional erosion is caused. This varies dramatically from the effects of a dirt bike tire, especially when muddy.

If the discussion then becomes one of, "But more people will be able to access further down the trail," then we've ceased to manage our trail systems based on impact to the trail and are instead managing with the purpose of limiting use. Using that same logic, we'd try and avoid having foot bridges, switchbacks, horse trails, deadfall removal, and overall trail maintenance with the end goal of limiting access to public lands to only those in the peak of physical condition; I don't think that should be our goal. If it was, why not have a lottery to hike/bike down a trail so we don't get too many people in one area?

The goal of public land should be to balance use, accessibility, and enjoyment with protecting the resource.

Somebody riding an E-Bike on a 10 mile bicycle-only trail loop causes no more impact to the resource than somebody riding a traditional bicycle on the same loop. They're silent and cause no additional resources damage, to me the increased availability of public lands is something public land advocates should be promoting, not disparaging.

This is a pretty well articulated summary of the pro ebikes lumped with non motorized mountain bikes argument and it has merit. Especially with the current trend of inclusivity, removing barriers to the outdoors, etc.

I still think that a human presence is impact, and speed is impact. So a trail runner has a higher impact than a hiker. Passing other users is impact. Solitude should be respected.

That said, all bikes are banned from wilderness areas and that is unlikely to change. The areas we are talking about are not the most pristine.

The pro ebike push is going to be big and I think it makes sense to stand somewhere in the middle, allowing some access to closed roads and non motorized areas that are already heavily used by mountain bikers.

Make limited access provisional and help to develope an ethic of self policing among ebike riders because right now, ebikes are really common on mtn bike trails they aren't allowed on. Hardly anyone says anything because they don't want to be a Karen plus a lot of industry people are making a lot of money off ebikes. Ebikes use to be uncool but then the bike companies got some cool pros to make some videos and the local bike shops started cashing in on their sales.

Just ban them, they are motorized isn't going to work, and I think without conceding some access, they will fight harder and win more in the end.

 

[DFS]

It’s a motorized vehicle period end of story. They can stick to the roads that’s are open to motorized vehicles, it’s common sense.

 

[Jack Ryan]

If bikes with electric motors on them DIDN'T make any or not much difference, people wouldn't care if they could use them or not. That is just a fact. It is motorized.

 

[BuzzH]

People seem to be confused by the classes of E-Bikes. Class 1 do NOT have throttles and DO have power/speed limitations; to me that's a clear differentiation between a Class 1 E-Bike and a motorcycle.

The false equivalency of saying it's motorized and is therefore a motorcycle is just that, a false equivalency. That argument would be akin to saying that my daughter's pink PowerWheel is the same as a Rzr or full-size pickup. Guess which one has more range, power, noise, and ability to damage resources? Hint: It ain't the PowerWheel.

E-Bikes are clearly an advantage over my mom's old Schwinn, but clearly not the same advantage as my dad's KTM; they're a new technology that didn't exist commonly a decade ago and regulations need to be updated accordingly.

One thing I'd caution against is managing based on the premise of accessibility, both psychical and quantitative, instead of focusing management on the impact to the resource.

The trail itself won't feel a difference between a bicycle tire and an E-Bike tire (they're literally the same tire), no additional ruts are formed and no additional erosion is caused. This varies dramatically from the effects of a dirt bike tire, especially when muddy.

If the discussion then becomes one of, "But more people will be able to access further down the trail," then we've ceased to manage our trail systems based on impact to the trail and are instead managing with the purpose of limiting use. Using that same logic, we'd try and avoid having foot bridges, switchbacks, horse trails, deadfall removal, and overall trail maintenance with the end goal of limiting access to public lands to only those in the peak of physical condition; I don't think that should be our goal. If it was, why not have a lottery to hike/bike down a trail so we don't get too many people in one area?

The goal of public land should be to balance use, accessibility, and enjoyment with protecting the resource.

Somebody riding an E-Bike on a 10 mile bicycle-only trail loop causes no more impact to the resource than somebody riding a traditional bicycle on the same loop. They're silent and cause no additional resources damage, to me the increased availability of public lands is something public land advocates should be promoting, not disparaging.

Not true, the easier you make access the more people will use it and that definitely increases impact.

A current mountain bike trail, that doesn't allow ebikes and sees say 1000 use days a year may not be an impact to the trail or wildlife or recreation density.

Now with ebikes, you get 10,000 use days. Now the trails are rutted to hell and gone, wildlife start avoiding the area and conflicts between users increases.

Yes, technology and hitting the easy button create all kinds of problems, e bikes included.

Perfect example is what has happened with archery hunting. In 1960 when it was mostly long bows and recurves and a couple thousand bow hunters, impacts were negligable. Now? Technology has increased participation, hunter density has increased, and impacts to wildlife have sky rocketed.

 

[Perlodid]

This is a pretty well articulated summary of the pro ebikes lumped with non motorized mountain bikes argument and it has merit. Especially with the current trend of inclusivity, removing barriers to the outdoors, etc.

I still think that a human presence is impact, and speed is impact. So a trail runner has a higher impact than a hiker. Passing other users is impact. Solitude should be respected.

That said, all bikes are banned from wilderness areas and that is unlikely to change. The areas we are talking about are not the most pristine.

The pro ebike push is going to be big and I think it makes sense to stand somewhere in the middle, allowing some access to closed roads and non motorized areas that are already heavily used by mountain bikers.

Make limited access provisional and help to develope an ethic of self policing among ebike riders because right now, ebikes are really common on mtn bike trails they aren't allowed on. Hardly anyone says anything because they don't want to be a Karen plus a lot of industry people are making a lot of money off ebikes. Ebikes use to be uncool but then the bike companies got some cool pros to make some videos and the local bike shops started cashing in on their sales.

Just ban them, they are motorized isn't going to work, and I think without conceding some access, they will fight harder and win more in the end.

I know many areas around closed roads that see way less human traffic and impact than most wilderness areas - and I think this is a common trend people have observed in recent years. Might not have a 14er at the end of the trail or a pretty lake, but there's more to these areas than their designation (or lack thereof). I have no desire to "stand in the middle" when I don't agree with their presence at all on roads closed to motor vehicle use. No motorized vehicle access should be a firm designation.

 

[Nameless Range]

One thing I'd caution against is managing based on the premise of accessibility, both psychical and quantitative, instead of focusing management on the impact to the resource.

These are inseparable IMO

 

[NoWiser]

I just don’t understand why this is so difficult of a concept for people to get through their thick skulls. If something has a motor, it is motorized and should be regulated as such. It really is that simple.

 

[grizzly_]

You missed the point. Simply read MTMULEY's post #72.

It's not about ranges or distinctions of power or even ease of travel. It's all about preserving and protecting some areas as NONMOTORIZED!
If you cannot understand the rationale for restrictions in wilderness and in other nonmotorized wild lands, then you will just have to continue to be frustrated.

Don't try and divert from the discussion with a red herring. Nobody here has advocated for mechanized or motorized in Wilderness Areas.

 

[grizzly_]

These are inseparable IMO

Taken to it's logical conclusion, we should eliminate all human access to certain areas to provide the most protection for the resource.

The other extreme alternative is unlimited access, which would decimate the resource.

Reasonable people know we're trying to provide different gradients of each to best meet the objectives of various users and land requirements.

None of us gets to hold the key to everybody else's land to impose our views. We must respect and compromise with each other to the best benefit of all people and resources.

There are areas that will remain Wilderness, there are others that will have ATVs. IMO, there's a middle ground for bicycles and Class 1 E-Bikes as their impact on the resource is virtually identical.

 

[Nameless Range]

Taken to it's logical conclusion, we should eliminate all human access to certain areas to provide the most protection for the resource.

Only if you don’t believe in things like thresholds, compromise, acceptable impacts, etc, and only believe in absolutes.

So no, that is not the logical conclusion.

As I wrote earlier, I believe we have crossed the threshold in so many places, that the last thing we need is to inject additional pressure on the resource through some sort of special pleading for E bikes.

It will be a can of worms and complicate access when we don’t need it. When the resource doesn’t need it. The whole acronym of K.I.S.S comes to mind.

It’s got a motor. It’s motorized.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Don't try and divert from the discussion with a red herring. Nobody here has advocated for mechanized or motorized in Wilderness Areas.

... and other nonmotorized wild lands, It is clearly related. Not a red herring.

"Nobody here has advocated for mechanized or motorized in Wilderness Areas." That's not a red herring, but is not accurate, just not in this thread. Quit knit picking about motorcycles and understand E-bikes impacts are different even from unmotorized mountain bikes. Your arguments are illogically hollow and seem to ignore historical phases of outdoors management and how we got to where we are today with respect to mixed uses and different access designations.

Try to be a reasonable person and try to understand opposition to motors in "nonmotorized" designated areas.

 

[BuzzH]

Taken to it's logical conclusion, we should eliminate all human access to certain areas to provide the most protection for the resource.

The other extreme alternative is unlimited access, which would decimate the resource.

Reasonable people know we're trying to provide different gradients of each to best meet the objectives of various users and land requirements.

None of us gets to hold the key to everybody else's land to impose our views. We must respect and compromise with each other to the best benefit of all people and resources.

There are areas that will remain Wilderness, there are others that will have ATVs. IMO, there's a middle ground for bicycles and Class 1 E-Bikes as their impact on the resource is virtually identical.

Only so many ways to split a baby before it dies....

This BS of every user needing their own designations for their subset of recreation is not sustainable, practical, or even necessary.

If it has a motor...stay in motorized areas...lots of room for that already.

Oh, and I'm sick of being the guy that has to give something up in every compromise.

The problem with compromise is, do it 4 times and you're left with 6 1/4% of what you started with.

How about we push for taking back some of the areas currently open for motorized use?

Let's see how much compromise the motorized crowd is ready to talk about.

 

[Sytes]

Interesting observation:

Opinions about current laws vocal hunt talk members find ridiculous and vocalize w/o issue sometimes opposed by Albus and others (as an example).

Eric Albus does not go towards personal attacks because vocal people share opposition towards outfitter regulations. No "thick skull", arrogant, condescending comments about other posters...

I'm for keeping non motorized as just that though some of you need to step back, take a break from this thread or avoid it entirely...

Personal childish bully bullshit is just that, childish.

 

[Dirthog67]

I know many areas around closed roads that see way less human traffic and impact than most wilderness areas - and I think this is a common trend people have observed in recent years. Might not have a 14er at the end of the trail or a pretty lake, but there's more to these areas than their designation (or lack thereof). I have no desire to "stand in the middle" when I don't agree with their presence at all on roads closed to motor vehicle use. No motorized vehicle access should be a firm designation.

With the new wilderness designations in Montana in the last few years mountain bikers have lost access to a lot of classic trails.

It does happen.