MTLabrador
Well-known member
What I meant was that I don’t understand what trail erosion has to do with it. Trail erosion is not the reason wheels aren’t allowed in Wilderness.
S. 1695: Human Powered Travel in Wilderness Act
- Thread starter Nameless Range
- Start date
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Yes, and if you broaden your search and drill down you will find even less impact from unicycles, pogo sticks, wheel barrows, and stilts. Let em all in ... let's expand that "wide spectrum of users" until the bears, moose, and elk all head for Woodland Park in Kalispell to enjoy some social distancing.
Here is a copy of the Wilderness Act: https://wilderness.net/learn-about-wilderness/key-laws/wilderness-act/default.php
Two things stood out to me as I read it again:
1.) Definition of Wilderness: 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 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.
2.) Prohibition of Certain Uses: Except as specifically provided for in this Act, and subject to existing private rights, there shall be no commercial enterprise and no permanent road within any wilderness area designated by this Act and except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of this Act (including measures required in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the area), there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any such area.
In my reading of the act, bicycles squarely fall under mechanized use. Human Powered isn't the key - mechanized is from a legal standpoint.
Two things stood out to me as I read it again:
1.) Definition of Wilderness: 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 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.
2.) Prohibition of Certain Uses: Except as specifically provided for in this Act, and subject to existing private rights, there shall be no commercial enterprise and no permanent road within any wilderness area designated by this Act and except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of this Act (including measures required in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the area), there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any such area.
In my reading of the act, bicycles squarely fall under mechanized use. Human Powered isn't the key - mechanized is from a legal standpoint.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Why does this have to be explained ad nauseum?!
SA... if you don't like the thread title, don't open it.
This is not a Bill of Right (to borrow your earlier comment) this has the ability to be modified by congress. As you are fully aware.
Correct. And given where things are now, there is no appetite from the next congress to change the wilderness act.
Which means Mtn Biking enthusiasts would be better off trying to work out some compromise to their position, rather than tilt at windmills.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
No, but it is a Congressional Act ... not merely subject to policy change to revise the term "mechanized" to include bicycles or whatever. As you apparently are not fully aware.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
For clarification, the reason I referred to a "right" was that your rhetoric seems to imply that mountain bike riders are discriminated against (such as discrimination as described in the Bill of Rights) since they are not included in the "wide spectrum" of Wilderness users.
The Wilderness Act does discriminate against "mechanized" transport for reasons of preservation and protection.
Does not discriminate mechanical? Come on Straight Arrow... Those fancy snowshoes do not have a mechanical element to overcome challenges in snow? The cross country skis? oarlocks on rafts? paddles? All hold mechanical elements.
As you are apparently unaware, amendments are common for Acts created by Congress.
this the argument the mtb crowd uses, obviously i guess
it doesn't hold water to me, but it's hard to find a legit reason why it doesn't, especially when you think about cross country skis
Here's the definition of mechanized: transitive verb. 1 : to make mechanical especially : to make automatic or routine. 2a : to equip with machinery especially to replace human or animal labor. b : to equip with armed and armored motor vehicles.
In no way do skis or snowshoes, rafts or canoes fall within that definition. Mountain bikes & game carts clearly do.
In no way do skis or snowshoes, rafts or canoes fall within that definition. Mountain bikes & game carts clearly do.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
"Those fancy snowshoes do not have a mechanical element to overcome challenges in snow? The cross country skis? oarlocks on rafts? paddles? All hold mechanical elements."
Of course subject to each of our divergent layman definitions, nevertheless I respectfully disagree. My position is borne out by the very cases you cite as transport acceptable in the
Wilderness. (ie: snowshoes, rafts, paddles - you say "mechanized; I say nope.) Evidently USFS agrees with me.
Of course subject to each of our divergent layman definitions, nevertheless I respectfully disagree. My position is borne out by the very cases you cite as transport acceptable in the
Wilderness. (ie: snowshoes, rafts, paddles - you say "mechanized; I say nope.) Evidently USFS agrees with me.
i mean, just playing devils advocate, cause i sincerely want the sharpest argument i can have to go against my obnoxious mtb friends
mountain bikes and game carts do not replace human labor if we look at it from that angle. mountain bikes are human powered that can simply increase the efficiency of a human, cross country skis do nearly the exact same thing from a physics perspective. a freaking raft? that almost entirely eliminates all human labor.
You are only focusing on one segment of the definition. The gears, and the process of mechanization reduce the effort necessary to travel the same distance = mechanized.
Rafts are only human powered with no mechanical aides or implements (oarlocks are not mechanical). Horses, goats, llamas, etc all reduce human effort, but are not mechanized due to bein organic matter and actual animals.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
I think you could make the argument that backcountry skis and bindings almost certainly meet the definition of mechanized. They
1. Make going downhill automatic, same as a bike, all the user is doing is controlling a downward motion caused by gravity (also similar to rafting)
2a. That motion clearly is replacing human effort to walk down the same slope.
The use of climbing skins and heel lifts (also found on snowshoes) are clearly two forms of mechanized assist that decrease the level of human effort.
But when I make that comparison it does not lend me to support the use of mt bikes in the wilderness, but to prevent the use of skis.
Where does rock climbing fall into this category? Are not pullies and descenders, also forms of mechanical advantage meant to reduce human effort?
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
'Depends on what the definition of "is" is.
Mechanical advantage is what it always hinges on (awful pun), whenever i've debated this before elsewhere
why is it moving parts that ONLY give the mechanical advantage? probably by definition of mechanical advantage i guess. i fear there is ambiguity there that could give the mtb crowd some wiggle room though
but as usual it would be an act of congress, i agree that current wilderness act is unambiguous
"Some have argued that the words of this 1966 [USFS] regulation allow bicycles and that prohibition of bicycles in wilderness came only much later, after the Forest Service revised its definition. But it is the unambiguous words of the statute not the regulations that declare that there "shall be ... no other form of mechanical transport." Agency error in interpreting the plain meaning of the words in the statute does not change that. Supreme Court precedents set down the canons of statutory construction in such matters:
"If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress." Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842 -43 (1984), rehearing denied, 468 U.S. 1227 (1984)."
why is it moving parts that ONLY give the mechanical advantage? probably by definition of mechanical advantage i guess. i fear there is ambiguity there that could give the mtb crowd some wiggle room though
but as usual it would be an act of congress, i agree that current wilderness act is unambiguous
"Some have argued that the words of this 1966 [USFS] regulation allow bicycles and that prohibition of bicycles in wilderness came only much later, after the Forest Service revised its definition. But it is the unambiguous words of the statute not the regulations that declare that there "shall be ... no other form of mechanical transport." Agency error in interpreting the plain meaning of the words in the statute does not change that. Supreme Court precedents set down the canons of statutory construction in such matters:
"If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress." Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842 -43 (1984), rehearing denied, 468 U.S. 1227 (1984)."
Last edited:
R
rwc101
Guest
Similar threads
