House bill moving forward to allow bikes in Wilderness

[BluegrassBilly]

My only western experience, so far, is a summer spent with a crew building the CDT in Colorado and Wyoming - including 4 weeks straight in the Wind River wilderness. Trying to maintain trails for bikes in alpine terrain would be miserable with all the trail braids they would create. At the risk of sounding hyperbolic, those braids would take decades to heal.

And you know what grizzlies call mountain bikers? Fast food.

 

[Sytes]

Today:

Two weeks ago:

Liar.

Gianforte first announced his opposition to the bill a couple of weeks ago at the Montana Outfitters and Guides Association annual meeting. He says he heard from outfitters and other interest groups, which helped him crystalize his views.

https://www.google.com/amp/missouli...1e4083dd-33eb-5232-890f-5f0f8579ba93.amp.html

I'm no fan of Jersey Man though a little praise for his stated reversal would play better than kicking his publicly stated change of position on this matter.

Personally, I oppose anything beyond what we have now however, if we TRUELY held Faith to the intent of the Wilderness Act, there should NOT be any form of human built / maintained aspects within. No bridges, meat poles, trails, etc.

(c) A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his 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 Act 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

 

[Nameless Range]

https://www.google.com/amp/missouli...1e4083dd-33eb-5232-890f-5f0f8579ba93.amp.html

I'm no fan of Jersey Man though a little praise for his stated reversal would play better than kicking his publicly stated change of position on this matter.

.

I'm not kicking his publicly stated change. There's a world of difference between changing your mind on an issue, compared to publicly saying you were always against an issue when you flat ass weren't. Wouldn't you agree? I will not praise a bald faced lie, and think that doing so will allow for a further drop in the standards we hold our elected officials to.

 

[Schaaf]

https://www.google.com/amp/missouli...1e4083dd-33eb-5232-890f-5f0f8579ba93.amp.html

I'm no fan of Jersey Man though a little praise for his stated reversal would play better than kicking his publicly stated change of position on this matter.

Personally, I oppose anything beyond what we have now however, if we TRUELY held Faith to the intent of the Wilderness Act, there should NOT be any form of human built / maintained aspects within. No bridges, meat poles, trails, etc.

Bridges in wilderness have always confused me.

 

[bigsky2]

https://www.google.com/amp/missouli...1e4083dd-33eb-5232-890f-5f0f8579ba93.amp.html

I'm no fan of Jersey Man though a little praise for his stated reversal would play better than kicking his publicly stated change of position on this matter.

Personally, I oppose anything beyond what we have now however, if we TRUELY held Faith to the intent of the Wilderness Act, there should NOT be any form of human built / maintained aspects within. No bridges, meat poles, trails, etc.

His stated reversal doesn't do much good after he already voted in favor of it.

 

[Straight Arrow]

...if we TRUELY held Faith to the intent of the Wilderness Act, there should NOT be any form of human built / maintained aspects within. No bridges, meat poles, trails, etc.

Perhaps again a literal interpretation of some self-appointed Wilderness Act scholar. However, early on Congress established the National Wilderness Preservation System in part to be consistent with the intent for Wilderness to be set aside for the "use and enjoyment of the American people". Initially the Forest Service followed a standard of a pure, virgin, natural wilderness as their "purity" policy, but in the seventies Congress repudiated the "purity" standard and that is what likely was the basis for increased establishment and maintenance of bridges, trails and other such "improvements" for the "use and enjoyment" of the people.

 

[Sytes]

I'm not kicking his publicly stated change. There's a world of difference between changing your mind on an issue, compared to publicly saying you were always against an issue when you flat ass weren't. Wouldn't you agree? I will not praise a bald faced lie, and think that doing so will allow for a further drop in the standards we hold our elected officials to.

True. I'd agree with your thoughts.

Bigsky2, that bugs me as well. To help drive a bill then jump off after it began is a political move however, hopefully this is a noose that tightens if he wants the outdoor business voting block for the future if he does not do enough to undo his crappy initial position... However politically playing the game, I do believe there is slightly more to gain via praise than spite with my desires for the otdoors.

 

[Straight Arrow]

... intent of the Wilderness Act, there should NOT be any form of human built / maintained aspects within. No bridges, meat poles, trails, etc.

Some historical context: In 1941 when my mother-in-law traveled the trails of the "primitive" area which became the Bob Marshall Wilderness by the 1964 Wilderness Act, there were such "amenities" already in place for outfitters, hunters and other people to use. (However, she did not encounter a single bicycle rider.)

 

[BuzzH]

True. I'd agree with your thoughts.

Bigsky2, that bugs me as well. To help drive a bill then jump off after it began is a political move however, hopefully this is a noose that tightens if he wants the outdoor business voting block for the future if he does not do enough to undo his crappy initial position... However politically playing the game, I do believe there is slightly more to gain via praise than spite with my desires for the otdoors.

The reason he changed his mind wasn't because people "praised him" into the new position, that he should have taken from the get-go...quite the opposite. He took a shellacking and now has to reverse course...that's how it works.

 

[Straight Arrow]

He took a shellacking and now has to reverse course...that's how it works.

Rep Gianforte attended a Montana Outfitters and Guides Association (MOGA) get together and they "schooled" him on the error of his ways in initially supporting the bicycle bill in committee.

 

[theat]

Rep Gianforte attended a Montana Outfitters and Guides Association (MOGA) get together and they "schooled" him on the error of his ways in initially supporting the bicycle bill in committee.

I almost can't believe that I am in agreement with MOGA about something, but in this case I have to admit I am glad for their stance on this topic.

 

[Sytes]

Rep Gianforte attended a Montana Outfitters and Guides Association (MOGA) get together and they "schooled" him on the error of his ways in initially supporting the bicycle bill in committee.

I know of one of the Outfitters that shared the err of his ways. Gianforte went into the meeting already with his position set to reverse. He shared that first off... Then took a shellacking from those that stated they voted for him and we're a bit peeved with his actions. He shared it was an entertaining event and appeared gianforte really absorbed the content not just hearing but according to the one I spoke with, he believes gianforte actually listened. Whether true or not... Time will tell.

 

[RobG]

Some historical context: In 1941 when my mother-in-law traveled the trails of the "primitive" area which became the Bob Marshall Wilderness by the 1964 Wilderness Act, there were such "amenities" already in place for outfitters, hunters and other people to use. (However, she did not encounter a single bicycle rider.)

I was going to suggest that the bridges were already in place at the time it was designated. That seems likely, although I don't know for certain. There were also airstrips Schafer's airstrip is still active. I have a vague memory of some telegraph wires around a ranger station a long time ago.

 

[BuzzH]

I was going to suggest that the bridges were already in place at the time it was designated. That seems likely, although I don't know for certain. There were also airstrips Schafer's airstrip is still active. I have a vague memory of some telegraph wires around a ranger station a long time ago.

Big Prairie I think still has an airstrip too I believe in the Bob. Lots of them in the Frank Church, I've landed on a lot of them for work.

Mahoney:

Soldier bar:

My chariot ride out of little creek:

 

[RobG]

It seemed like there was another one in the Bob, but not Big Prairie. I flew into one wilderness airstrip in Idaho and they actually had operating pickup trucks that would pick you up and drive you to a lodge with electricity, running water, etc. But no mountain bikes.

Big Prairie I think still has an airstrip too I believe in the Bob. Lots of them in the Frank Church, I've landed on a lot of them for work.

Mahoney:

Soldier bar:

My chariot ride out of little creek:

 

[Straight Arrow]

Spotted Bear airstrip.

 

[BuzzH]

It seemed like there was another one in the Bob, but not Big Prairie. I flew into one wilderness airstrip in Idaho and they actually had operating pickup trucks that would pick you up and drive you to a lodge with electricity, running water, etc. But no mountain bikes.

Yep, they were allowed to stay at the time the 1964 bill was passed, a huge concession by the pro-wilderness crowd. The bill was first introduced in 1956 and several more between then and 1964, lots of back and forth. There were concessions other than backcountry airstrips...

 

[SteveE]

How about a bill to only allow recurve bows and flintlocks for hunting in Wilderness area's? Or better yet, how about a bill to ban "ALL" modern hunting equipment to include clothing and optics. Get the wilderness area's back to really being wilderness area's!

Nothing better for a true wilderness hunt experience than a 60X spotting scope and a rifle capable of a 1000 yard shot!

+1. How about a bill to ban outfitters. Buy your way in to the remote country hiring people to pack that 60x and 12 lb rifle. Blow downs and forest fires is what we have. I watched a helicopter land in the middle of the sacred Bob Marshall last year. Funny who gets to do what.

 

[Sytes]

My trip this year, Outfitters had a chainsaw packed onside one horse... Abuse will be found everywhere. However if no human print to be present, we *should have abandoned and removed all trace of pre Wilderness Act human developments. If our intent is to fulfil our interest. Blowdown etc is the natural element...

 

[airlocksniffer]

I was going to suggest that the bridges were already in place at the time it was designated. That seems likely, although I don't know for certain. There were also airstrips Schafer's airstrip is still active. I have a vague memory of some telegraph wires around a ranger station a long time ago.

Yep this was taken around Danaher Meadows, pretty cool. IIRC the lines stretch for at least a few miles, nailed to the lodgepoles along the trail.


Not sure why it's rotated here vs on my computer.

Regarding trails and bridges, I haven't complained about either, it's still wild country. In the late spring those trails are heavily used by bears. And a bridge comes in handy that time of year, where the alternative is swimming.