Forest Service Issues ‘E-Bike’ Guidance

[mxracer317]

You don't get it.

There is nothing left for "compromise" when it comes to securing wildlife habitat.

Go look at a map sometime. We've "compromised" the living chit out of wildlife habitat, to the point that things like legalizing motorized ebikes will have huge and negative impacts.

Wildlife can't afford to be compromising anymore.

If you're "super pumped" about conservation, then understand sometimes you're just going to have to be happy with using your toys on the existing part of the NF system that allows it. Don't expect others to open it wide open just to make you happy.

It’s ok to leave some areas secured for wildlife so they have a sporting chance at just being viable on public lands.

Buzz, I’m past that. I’m now focusing on how you deal with other human-beings.

 

[BuzzH]

As the laws currently stand, I believe you are correct, but I think the law could use a little tweaking. I don’t agree that a pedal assisted e-bike should be in the same category as an internal combustion dirt bike.

Then we're not going to agree, because I agree with the FS that an e-bike should be restricted to areas where motorized travel is allowed.

 

[BuzzH]

Buzz, I’m past that. I’m now focusing on how you deal with other human-beings.

I'm not past caring about wildlife and that isn't going to change. Sorry, don't really care about your e-bike and I'm wayyyyyy past that.

 

[BearLakeHunter]

So are you saying get rid of horses? Or swap them for e-bikes?

No. I’m just attempting to get my brain thinking about the “why’s” behind what we do. I don’t have anything against horses, but I’d be lying if I didnt acknowledge they can have a negative impact on the forest landscape. There are a few places I frequent where horses and mules have created a damn bobsled run of a trail as it switch backs down the hillside.

 

[BuzzH]

No. I’m just attempting to get my brain thinking about the “why’s” behind what we do. I don’t have anything against horses, but I’d be lying if I didnt acknowledge they can have a negative impact on the forest landscape. There are a few places I frequent where horses and mules have created a damn bobsled run of a trail as it switch backs down the hillside.

Absolutely horses and hiking trails have an impact.

Can you show me something comparable where a horses or hiking have caused similar wildlife disturbance?

I usually spend a month or so a year looking at aerial imagery for work, roads capable of motor vehicle use are a much larger disturbance than hiking and horse trails, by a landslide, at a minimum.

Take a stroll through google earth...the amount of roads in the NF system is something else. I tend to think enough is enough.

 

[BearLakeHunter]

Then we're not going to agree, because I agree with the FS that an e-bike should be restricted to areas where motorized travel is allowed.

Fair enough. May I make a suggestion. If you have not already, rent/borrow/buy yourself a pedal assisted e-bike and ride it on a mountain trail and see what you think. Who knows, you might have a slightly different opinion about them after.

 

[BearLakeHunter]

Absolutely horses and hiking trails have an impact.

Can you show me something comparable where a horses or hiking have caused similar wildlife disturbance?

I usually spend a month or so a year looking at aerial imagery for work, roads capable of motor vehicle use are a much larger disturbance than hiking and horse trails, by a landslide, at a minimum.

Take a stroll through google earth...the amount of roads in the NF system is something else. I tend to think enough is enough.

Come on Buzz. What the hell does that picture have to do with a mountain bike on a single track trail? That’s disingenuous and you know it. We aren’t talking roads for 4 wheel drive vehicles. We are talking single track trails, the exact same trails you find a horse or llama using.

 

[BuzzH]

Fair enough. May I make a suggestion. If you have not already, rent/borrow/buy yourself a pedal assisted e-bike and ride it on a mountain trail and see what you think. Who knows, you might have a slightly different opinion about them after.

Nope, won't change my mind. There's more than enough places for motorized use and I use them.

There's a lack of places where motorized uses are prohibited and I don't want motorized use in what little is left.

I'm not willing to compromise a single mile more, given up too much as it is.

 

[BuzzH]

Come on Buzz. What the hell does that picture have to do with a mountain bike on a single track trail? That’s disingenuous and you know it. We aren’t talking roads for 4 wheel drive vehicles. We are talking single track trails, the exact same trails you find a horse or llama using.

It has to do with how much we've impacted wildlife...and the fact we don't need more impacts via additional motorized access.

 

[BearLakeHunter]

Nope, won't change my mind. There's more than enough places for motorized use and I use them.

There's a lack of places where motorized uses are prohibited and I don't want motorized use in what little is left.

I'm not willing to compromise a single mile more, given up too much as it is.

I can respect that.

To be clear, my argument is for pedal assisted e-bikes. It’s not for any of the other classes of e-bikes.

 

[NAHMINT]

Sometimes a man should keep his council to himself.

 

[BuzzH]

I can respect that.

To be clear, my argument is for pedal assisted e-bikes. It’s not for any of the other classes of e-bikes.

Copy that.

Good discussion.

 

[JM77]

The last time I busted my ass walking in several miles to hunt the Forest "non-motorized trail", we were greeted two days in a row in there by one of @BuzzH compadres in his full size truck.

So much for wildlife disturbance.

 

[rtraverdavis]

No. I’m just attempting to get my brain thinking about the “why’s” behind what we do. I don’t have anything against horses, but I’d be lying if I didnt acknowledge they can have a negative impact on the forest landscape. There are a few places I frequent where horses and mules have created a damn bobsled run of a trail as it switch backs down the hillside.

There is an interesting parallel between this discussion and discussions about gun rights. In both issues, there are contingencies who form the camp of “never give an inch,” while others are more willing to explore compromise. The primary difference between the two, at least in my mind, is that the e-bike issue is about wildlife and wild places—two things which cannot advocate for themselves. This is about trying to plug an already spilling-over dike.

Watching habitat being swallowed up and hordes of folks swarming the mountains and forests every summer now, I am reluctant (if not downright oppositional) to easing access to the backcountry in any way, shape, or form. This position is underscored by the studies coming out recently showing the gigantic effect increased human traffic (particularly bike traffic) has on wildlife in the backcountry.

So while I struggle with the “never give an inch” mentality, I’ve got to take that position here. Wildlife are getting kicked hard enough in the teeth as it is, I don’t think we should make that any easier.

 

[mtmuley]

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?

No. mtmuley

 

[Huntin' Fool]

In Idaho - Still haven't found a non motorized trail without atv tracks.

Idahoans don't like rules.

 

[Irishman]

There is an interesting parallel between this discussion and discussions about gun rights. In both issues, there are contingencies who form the camp of “never give an inch,” while others are more willing to explore compromise. The primary difference between the two, at least in my mind, is that the e-bike issue is about wildlife and wild places—two things which cannot advocate for themselves. This is about trying to plug an already spilling-over dike.

Watching habitat being swallowed up and hordes of folks swarming the mountains and forests every summer now, I am reluctant (if not downright oppositional) to easing access to the backcountry in any way, shape, or form. This position is underscored by the studies coming out recently showing the gigantic effect increased human traffic (particularly bike traffic) has on wildlife in the backcountry.

So while I struggle with the “never give an inch” mentality, I’ve got to take that position here. Wildlife are getting kicked hard enough in the teeth as it is, I don’t think we should make that any easier.

So, your real argument against e.bikes is that it would increase access. So I guess that the only reason horses are okay, is because few people use them. So, if you're wealthy enough to own horses, or hire outfitters, you can have access, but others can't?
The forest service basically allows horses as they know most people don't have them. If we all had horses, then rules would change and they would force everyone to walk. They already do have wilderness areas where horses aren't allowed, as they actually do recognize the detrimental effect that horses have.
If people are truly bothered that e.bikes (which honestly aren't much good on anything but a good road) will increase access, then why are you okay with horses, which increase access and make a mess?
I'm for limiting access, but I'm for limiting it for everyone. I think we should all hike.

 

[SAJ-99]

The "real" issue is an E-bike has a motor. Pretty easy to understand. Nothing to do with $20 elk tags. mtmuley

Agree. It would be illegal in Wilderness regardless. But like crossbows, e-bikes aren’t the problem.

 

[jmcd]

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.

My take is this: if e-bikes become ok, you’ll quickly see an explosion of use in areas that are currently somewhat remote. That’s their impact. Not necessarily the “rut in the trail” but the increase in traffic.

 

[SAJ-99]

So, your real argument against e.bikes is that it would increase access. So I guess that the only reason horses are okay, is because few people use them. So, if you're wealthy enough to own horses, or hire outfitters, you can have access, but others can't?
The forest service basically allows horses as they know most people don't have them. If we all had horses, then rules would change and they would force everyone to walk. They already do have wilderness areas where horses aren't allowed, as they actually do recognize the detrimental effect that horses have.
If people are truly bothered that e.bikes (which honestly aren't much good on anything but a good road) will increase access, then why are you okay with horses, which increase access and make a mess?
I'm for limiting access, but I'm for limiting it for everyone. I think we should all hike.

Basically that seems to be the goal - limiting access. They have a motor and should not be allowed on motorized trails. I have never used one and don’t know how much of an advantage they give (or don’t). But I’m also not sure why people don’t want to walk anymore. Bottom line, animal need places to be secure. Even if only a few access an area and you double the number with e-bikes, it changes the area. Also agree I would prefer limiting in other ways, like tags.