Forest Service Issues ‘E-Bike’ Guidance

[Dirthog67]

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.

Because the reason for drawing a distinction between motorized and non motorized was noise, pollution, resource destruction and speed.

Ebikes are silent, do minimal if any more damage than bikes, go just a little faster up and the same speed downhill than bikes and have no emissions.

So they fall in-between. A lot of people are and will be pushing for access.

They will likely win a lot of the fights, regardless.

I wish the only way people fished was with flies. I wish nobody sport or trophy hunted-only killing what they and their family would eat.

I wish people kept there voices low in the outdoors. I dont like hearing them.

I hate those $*)Q!#@$ speakers people have now, where they blast music over the sound of birds singing.

I dont like it when people pack in huge camps on horseback with those big canvas tents and stoves and coolers and chairs. Why can't they go ultralight and use 1 or 2 horses instead of 10?

I absolutely hate jetboats on rivers. Going upstream is karmically wrong!

I dont like sport climbing. Remove all hardware!

I dont like snowmobiles.

Guess what? I dont get to decide how other people use public land. I have to compromise. Sucks.

 

[mtmuley]

Because the reason for drawing a distinction between motorized and non motorized was noise, pollution, resource destruction and speed.

Ebikes are silent, do minimal if any more damage than bikes, go just a little faster up and the same speed downhill than bikes and have no emissions.

So they fall in-between. A lot of people are and will be pushing for access.

They will likely win a lot of the fights, regardless.

I wish the only way people fished was with flies. I wish nobody sport or trophy hunted-only killing what they and their family would eat.

I wish people kept there voices low in the outdoors. I dont like hearing them.

I hate those $*)Q!#@$ speakers people have now, where they blast music over the sound of birds singing.

I dont like it when people pack in huge camps on horseback with those big canvas tents and stoves and coolers and chairs. Why can't they go ultralight and use 1 or 2 horses instead of 10?

I absolutely hate jetboats on rivers. Going upstream is karmically wrong!

I dont like sport climbing. Remove all hardware!

I dont like snowmobiles.

Guess what? I dont get to decide how other people use public land. I have to compromise. Sucks.

And ebikes have motors. mtmuley

 

[kentuckybow]

glad they gave guidance. now if they will just write tickets to all the people who just go around the gate and ride on foot travel only roads and trails. its bad in colorado.

 

[BuzzH]

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.

What wilderness designations in the last few years might they be?

 

[RobertD]

One of the best conservation tools we have is limiting the use of new and even walking back the use of existing types of technology used to interact with nature.

There's no rulebook for determining where those limits are. In 2022 though I think we know enough to want to be conservative here. I support limiting ebikes to areas open to motorized vehicles, and nothing else.

 

[Chadwick91]

Its simple. Atvs and motorcycles aren't allowed on nonmotorized trails. Allowing motorized (faster travel over longer distance w less effort by more users, including ebikes) access to those trails is invasive. Take any formerly nonmotorized trail, change it to allow motorized travel such as ebikes, and a whole new user group shows up.

Allowing motorized ebike travel on nonmotorized trails is more invasive because it is a complete change of target user group, allowing a class of vehicle that was not previously permitted. Why do you think USFS distinguishes between motorized and nonmotorized trails? Could it be because the natures of those 2 types of use are so different? Americans are buying ebikes as fast as Chinese build them. Anything that allows people to do in an hour what takes others 2 days will greatly increase traffic and reduce the quality of the experience for hikers and equestrians. Even bicyclists will notice increased traffic from ebikes.

Consider a nonmotorized trail where most hikers travel @ a similar pace. Some may encounter each other, but all are traveling @ walking pace. Runners will encounter more hikers because they travel faster. Bicyclists travel faster than runners, so they increase the sense of traffic even more. Ebikes, which you wrote allow less fit users to go farther on harder terrain, will put even more users in the "fast lane" on that trail. Invasive. Bicyclists and moreso motorized users displace hikers and equestrians on crowded trails.

Okay I get that, but why are you sending these nonmotorized comments to me... literally, my first sentence of my second comment said I'm fine with keeping them off nonmotorized trails. I was just saying that they still provide a benefit to all those who don't want to hunt from a noisy ass dirt bike. I'm sorry if my thoughts were misconstrued but, when I bought mine I was fully aware it had to be a dirtbike trail to take it.

 

[DouglasR]

The dudes who run the local mtb club all hate e-bikes because they’re worried they’re gonna lose their kom’s on strava.

 

[PrairieHunter]

A E-bike with a crossbows holster may be one of the more controversial ways to hunt.

 

[grizzly_]

... 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.

And you've resorted to ad hominem personal attacks. So weak.

I always get a good laugh when people demand unanimity of thought on an open forum. What a way to live a life; constantly taking it personally when somebody has a different view. Good luck with that.

 

[PaulRevere]

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.

We have new Wilderness in MT?? Tell me about it.

 

[Straight Arrow]

And you've resorted to ad hominem personal attacks. So weak.

Your assertions, not you personally, have been challenged. It is weak to whine about "ad hominem personal attacks" when your position in a debate is refuted.
It is easy to feel overly sensitive and attacked when your assertions and opinions are strongly challenged.

I am sorry if you felt personally attacked. If I said anything to offend you ... believe me!

 

[radman]

As stated earlier. "Electric cars are still cars". E-bikes are motorized. At 62 I have to train year around to access the areas I like to access and an E-bike would make it lots easier but that doesn't make it right. In my mind it is OK to keep the best parts of nature open only to those who are willing to work for it.

 

[The Hedgehog]

I blew by some hikers on a borrowed ebike yesterday. At one point, I hit 43mph. Good times!

 

[Irrelevant]

As stated earlier. "Electric cars are still cars". E-bikes are motorized. At 62 I have to train year around to access the areas I like to access and an E-bike would make it lots easier but that doesn't make it right. In my mind it is OK to keep the best parts of nature open only to those who are willing to work for it.

Here here, why does everyone want to make things easier? Things should be hard, how else are you to live a "strenuous life"? I know my days of packing elk out of the wilderness are numbered, as are my days of tackling a couple K on a mountain bike and hucking very modest amounts of air. I will never advocate those to be easier when I can no longer do them.

There are existing mt bike trails that I'll never be able to tackle. they're simply too difficult. that doesn't mean I want someone to make them easier.

Now my dad has an e-bike and loves it, but he just like to tool around on fs roads and not make a ton of noise and get a little bit of exercise. It's a great use for them.

 

[Hammsolo]

It’s interesting. We have a clear boundary. Motors. It’s concrete, and a rare blessing in this world. Let’s keep it.

Or… we could install mag-lev conveyor belts to take us above the wilderness. Easier access for all! No erosion! Would we allow shooting from it?

 

[Chingon]

As stated earlier. "Electric cars are still cars". E-bikes are motorized. At 62 I have to train year around to access the areas I like to access and an E-bike would make it lots easier but that doesn't make it right. In my mind it is OK to keep the best parts of nature open only to those who are willing to work for it.

So how do you feel about horses, mules, llamas, etc.? Those can even go in Wilderness areas e-bikes can't.

If we want to even the playing field, let's outlaw every form of transportation and force all hunters to walk/hike everywhere.

 

[BenInMT]

I told the lady at the DMV that my Tesla isn’t a “car” because it‘s electric but I still had to pay registration on it.

 

[Wildabeest]

I told the lady at the DMV that my Tesla isn’t a “car” because it‘s electric but I still had to pay registration on it.

In many states they actually charge you more for EV. Both NC and UT have $100 surcharge per year to register an EV. Supposed to offset the lost tax revenue from gas tax which pays for road construction and maintenance. So it makes sense they do this.

 

[Sytes]

So how do you feel about horses, mules, llamas, etc.? Those can even go in Wilderness areas e-bikes can't.

If we want to even the playing field, let's outlaw every form of transportation and force all hunters to walk/hike everywhere.

With the intro statement for the Wilderness Act, one would have expected it to be left - as preserved natural wilderness, w/o ANY human development / trammeling. Unfortunately, Wilderness text inclusive added retaining and improving airstrips, meat poles installed, bridges, trails, and crew's constantly crosscutting fallen trees so the outfitter pack trains increase deeper rutted trails, open Meadows with grotesque 10-20 lane trails, side by side, because the mass repetitive 10 mule horse pack trains gutted the first couple trails through the muck, erosion control human enhancements due to pack trains... on and on. Bridges increased, enhanced for pack trains.

Somewhere along the line, terminology turned to facilitating permanent commercial enterprise, etc...

Hint: human permanent and maintained structures in...

(c) “Wilderness” defined
A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this chapter an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value."

But hey, if stock and the permanent structures and the maintenance of such is permissible... who's to say? Right! After the bs Congressional advertisement of "Wilderness defined", we have the additional print.

Then we have Frank Church, one of the main sponsors of the Wilderness Act later comment:

“It was not the intent of Congress that wilderness be administered in so pure a fashion as to needlessly restrict its customary public use and enjoyment. Quite the contrary, Congress fully intended that wilderness should be managed to allow its use by a wide spectrum of Americans.

Go figure...

edit: Phone's AI brain selective word swaps. Haha! Frank Church, phone converted to Frank "Chuck".

 

[Straight Arrow]

With the intro statement for the Wilderness Act, one would have expected it to be left - as preserved natural wilderness, w/o ANY human development / trammeling. Unfortunately, Wilderness text inclusive added retaining and improving airstrips, meat poles installed, bridges, trails, and crew's constantly crosscutting fallen trees so the outfitter pack trains increase deeper rutted trails, open Meadows with grotesque 10-20 lane trails, side by side, because the mass repetitive 10 mule horse pack trains gutted the first couple trails through the muck, erosion control human enhancements due to pack trains... on and on. Bridges increased, enhanced for pack trains.

Somewhere along the line, terminology turned to facilitating permanent commercial enterprise, etc...

Hint: human permanent and maintained structures in...

(c) “Wilderness” defined
A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this chapter an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value."

But hey, if stock and the permanent structures and the maintenance of such is permissible... who's to say? Right! After the bs Congressional advertisement of "Wilderness defined", we have the additional print.

Then we have Frank Church, one of the main sponsors of the Wilderness Act later comment:

“It was not the intent of Congress that wilderness be administered in so pure a fashion as to needlessly restrict its customary public use and enjoyment. Quite the contrary, Congress fully intended that wilderness should be managed to allow its use by a wide spectrum of Americans.

Go figure...

edit: Phone's AI brain selective word swaps. Haha! Frank Church, phone converted to Frank "Chuck".

Deja Vu, ad nauseum!