Not really nonsense when talking about hunting the wilderness areas. You can only backpack an elk out so far. I understand everybody can stumble in and camp out.
New Wilderness Bill in the Senate.
- Thread starter MinnesotaHunter
- Start date
Not really nonsense when talking about hunting the wilderness areas. You can only backpack an elk out so far. I understand everybody can stumble in and camp out.
RobG
Well-known member
Horses were historically used from the time of statehood so they were "grandfathered" in. However in many sensitive places they aren't even allowed.
There is debate about the damage bikes do, but the fact is they can do damage over huge distances compared to horses or people on feet. Their technology and mechanical advantage is inconsistent with the reason wildernesses were formed.
Ben, we both seem to be lacking in productive work today. Are you going to the BHA campout?
There is debate about the damage bikes do, but the fact is they can do damage over huge distances compared to horses or people on feet. Their technology and mechanical advantage is inconsistent with the reason wildernesses were formed.
Ben, we both seem to be lacking in productive work today. Are you going to the BHA campout?
RobG
Well-known member
Grandfathered in, and many were not. Biking would be a new use and also open up a Pandora's box where people would say, if you can bike, why can't we do xxxx? The line has already been drawn - bikes were excluded from the start.
Nameless Range
Well-known member
No Thanks. Mountain bikes don't fit with the non-mechanized travel types typically allowed in wilderness. They are too fast and too intrusive. Some guy could ride 30 miles across the breadth of the Bob Marshall in a day. It would simply reduce solitude in Wilderness beyond an acceptable threshold.
It's also a slippery slope. If we start to change our management to "evolve with technology", what sort of future contraptions will we be letting in?
IMO
It's also a slippery slope. If we start to change our management to "evolve with technology", what sort of future contraptions will we be letting in?
IMO
Last edited:
+1 Flatland. I respect Bens opinion greatly but i guess we disagree about bikes. I do exactly ZERO hauling ass with 6 buddys. More like one, fat , sweaty, out of breath dude that gladly will yield to horses.
I might spook them once off my bike cuz i would truely enjoy watching a bunch of "clients" hit some dirt ��
Agreeded we dont want to change the wilderness rules
Nameless range. I could buy in to those map areas you posted. Makes sense to me for the elkhorns.
My opinion is we dont need more wilderness. We need protected areas that allow equal access to all tax paying users.
Nameless range. I could buy in to those map areas you posted. Makes sense to me for the elkhorns.
My opinion is we dont need more wilderness. We need protected areas that allow equal access to all tax paying users.
Flatland Crusoe
Member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2014
- Messages
- 572
Does that means canoes are too fast for wilderness areas because I can cover more than 30 miles in a day? I once cover 340 miles in canoe in 67 hours during the Missouri River 340. Mountain bikes have gotten a lot quieter with clutched rear derailleurs in recent years.
The thing is mountain bike along side hiking and horses are often treated the same way across the US in many parks and trail systems. Some are all user and some have segregated user groups, I don't see why wilderness should be any different.
The wilderness protections are turning into a sledge hammer to protect land at way too much a costs to many activities based on what we thought in 1964.
Nameless Range
Well-known member
Dudes can ride bicycles 150+ miles in a day. Ignore the specific miles. That's not the point. Bikes don't belong in big W. If that means no new big W and something different, that's fine.
I can't tell you the number of times I've almost been run over by guys hauling ass down a trail who won't yield to hikers. Or who ride 6 aqbreast down a dirt road and think it's a trail. Every user group has bad apples, but from someone who lives in a town that actively recruits mountain biking tourism, I can tell you that the vast majority of conflict on our trails is due to poor etiquette from the biking crowd.
Horse are required to have weed-free hay on public lands, so they are less of a vector than bikes. Is every biker going to wash their bike between drainages? That's a good analogy to compare the issue on.
While I support more wilderness, I do agree that there needs to be a better dialog between groups who want that, and the Mountain Biking Community. I worked on the RMF Heritage act for 5 years, and we were able to find that common ground through the Conservation Management Area, and including a provision forcing the FS to do an analysis of areas within the boundaries that make sense for increase mtn bike use. If that's the direction groups want to go, I think it's great, but it does not preclude the need for new wilderness, or even releasing WSA's based on current condition & uses.
It's another reason why I do not support NREPA. Those decisions are best made at the local level, and before anything becomes a bill.
Ha!
I'm the fat, sweaty, out of breath guy hiking that generally yields to bikes.
Nothing wrong with disagreeing on issues. It's what makes America great.
As useful as my bike is on gated old logging roads to access some elk hunting spots efficiently, the idea of mountain bikes being allowed into
wilderness is a real turn off.
Imagine the destruction to the 11k foot alpine plateaus in the Beartooth that would occur, or the idea of a bike ripping from Cooke to
Nye down the Stillwater in an afternoon. So much for those otherwise secluded, lonely corners of the WILDerness.
wilderness is a real turn off.
Imagine the destruction to the 11k foot alpine plateaus in the Beartooth that would occur, or the idea of a bike ripping from Cooke to
Nye down the Stillwater in an afternoon. So much for those otherwise secluded, lonely corners of the WILDerness.
Flatland Crusoe
Member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2014
- Messages
- 572
The argument that mountain bikes travel faster than horses as a means to not allow them, is solely about protecting the horseback riders interest rather than adding compatible uses and user groups. In one thread we are talking about wild horses devastating an ecosystem while saying they belong in the wilderness seems backwards to me. As an honest assumption, mountain bikes and horses have pretty similar capabilities for ecosystem destruction in their trail use sense when used incorrectly. I've seen trails in national forest that demonstrate both user groups can be very destructive. The argument that more or less keeps coming up is, mountain bikes weren't grandfathered like XYZ use so therefore they have no consideration in the wilderness. In my mind rules are meant to be adapted over time.
I think a lot of it comes down to perception, mountain biking is viewed as the redbull rampage which is only as fair as viewing trail horseback riding as the same as a professional rodeo series. Its the activity of the wild young kids according to most people which isn't necessarily an accurate description anymore. Being that mountain biking on started over the last 25 years it generally lacks the advocacy of an established activity like horse back riding and generally gets treated as such.
I don't think mountain bikes should be banned from wilderness areas, but I also don't think they should be on every trail. To be honest mountain bike only trails are the most fun to ride and typically have enough banking slope they aren't really prime for hiking. A mix of single and mixed user group trails as is common elsewhere seems logical to me.
I definitely can agree to disagree, but I don't think bikes get a fair shake when its the old guys hand ringing at "those darned kids'" which is what it usually turns into.
I think a lot of it comes down to perception, mountain biking is viewed as the redbull rampage which is only as fair as viewing trail horseback riding as the same as a professional rodeo series. Its the activity of the wild young kids according to most people which isn't necessarily an accurate description anymore. Being that mountain biking on started over the last 25 years it generally lacks the advocacy of an established activity like horse back riding and generally gets treated as such.
I don't think mountain bikes should be banned from wilderness areas, but I also don't think they should be on every trail. To be honest mountain bike only trails are the most fun to ride and typically have enough banking slope they aren't really prime for hiking. A mix of single and mixed user group trails as is common elsewhere seems logical to me.
I definitely can agree to disagree, but I don't think bikes get a fair shake when its the old guys hand ringing at "those darned kids'" which is what it usually turns into.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
Ben, though I've found that I typically support your points I have to disagree on your point that bikes impact trails more than horses. Horses are so hard on trails around here they're being banded are our local trails, and private landowners who we (local land conservancy) work with fear the potential liability risk associated with trails across their property if horses are allowed.
https://www.imba.com/resources/rese...tain-biking-science-review-and-best-practices
Yes, I know it's not written by an unbiased source, but it provides a great list of references at the end for further reading.
And the weed issue is absurd, mt bikes don't $hit seeds, which is the first thing every horse does. Weed free hay is not garuenteed to be weed free. A portion of the field in merely inspected to ensure there aren't noxious weeds actively growing in the field. Any gardener can tell you, you don't need to have weeds actively growing in your garden in order to have weeds.
Through I love to bike I would still support wide sweeping additional wilderness as I fear too much the swing of the political pendulum, that with the casting of a few votes some could decide to cut road all through it.
https://www.imba.com/resources/rese...tain-biking-science-review-and-best-practices
Yes, I know it's not written by an unbiased source, but it provides a great list of references at the end for further reading.
And the weed issue is absurd, mt bikes don't $hit seeds, which is the first thing every horse does. Weed free hay is not garuenteed to be weed free. A portion of the field in merely inspected to ensure there aren't noxious weeds actively growing in the field. Any gardener can tell you, you don't need to have weeds actively growing in your garden in order to have weeds.
Through I love to bike I would still support wide sweeping additional wilderness as I fear too much the swing of the political pendulum, that with the casting of a few votes some could decide to cut road all through it.
James Riley
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2015
- Messages
- 1,821
What is their reasoning? Just curious. Thanks.
Most of those groups do not support the broad based concept that rolls in all IRA's into Wilderness. They've been working for the better part of 20 years on local, place-based efforts that have the buy-in from locals and people in the state. Most of those proposals are a mix of conservation, stewardship, saw logs, grazing and other uses rather than a straight wilderness bill. Those groups are also often involved in local collaborative groups that will eventually lead to community-based proposals that put Wilderness where it really belongs, and keeps multiple use lands where they belong.
Furthermore, with politics in the country the way they are, it's pretty clear a straight wilderness bill will have little to no hope in congress.
James Riley
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2015
- Messages
- 1,821
Who is supporting it? Sorry, I've been out of the loop for quite a while.
https://allianceforthewildrockies.org/nrepa-endorsements/
There are a few of these that are no longer in existance, or no longer support NREPA as far as I know. But it's a hodge-podge of serial litigants and some local clubs.
James Riley
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2015
- Messages
- 1,821
I gave as much consideration to this as most Americans give to such things. I support it. Hell, I'd throw everyone out of Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and Montana, lock them up and throw away the key, if I could. Well, maybe you could go in buck naked. Bears gotta eat too, right?
If I delved deeper I might find a reason to oppose it but as a general principle, the more the merrier as far as I'm concerned. I saw a couple of names in there I used to represent and I trust their judgement and respect their sand.
P.S. Thank you for the links and info.
If I delved deeper I might find a reason to oppose it but as a general principle, the more the merrier as far as I'm concerned. I saw a couple of names in there I used to represent and I trust their judgement and respect their sand.
P.S. Thank you for the links and info.
