BAKPAKR
Well-known member
All is good then!
S. 1695: Human Powered Travel in Wilderness Act
- Thread starter Nameless Range
- Start date
Ben, we disagree. I shared the entire definition via link. I shared the portion I feel is applicable that furthers the arbitrary selective decision between no mechanical transport for enhancing human travel... and the decisions to exempt select types that counter the intent.
I appreciate your means of debate. Debate the topic, not the person. Others could find value with such.
@Sytes we are friends. Of course we debate ideas. I'm not friends with jackwagons. 
I appreciate that you feel your take is valid, but without including everyword in that sentence, you are denying basic facts from being introduced.
Mechanical transport means any vehicle, device, or contrivance for moving people or material in or over land, water, snow, or air that has moving parts
You cannot exclude those two sections without fundamentally changing the meaning of Mechanical transport.
I appreciate that you feel your take is valid, but without including everyword in that sentence, you are denying basic facts from being introduced.
Mechanical transport means any vehicle, device, or contrivance for moving people or material in or over land, water, snow, or air that has moving parts
You cannot exclude those two sections without fundamentally changing the meaning of Mechanical transport.
Are there moving parts in a snowshoe? ski bindings? oarlock? Yes.
I included the portion that you state was omitted... review my message. I highlighted the prima facie - the core that does not discriminate between the varied level of "moving parts".
The mechanical craftsmanship that is built to enable a person to propel beyond his own two feet in snow (example) have moving parts involved. To what extent - again that is the arbitrary decision.
I included the portion that you state was omitted... review my message. I highlighted the prima facie - the core that does not discriminate between the varied level of "moving parts".
The mechanical craftsmanship that is built to enable a person to propel beyond his own two feet in snow (example) have moving parts involved. To what extent - again that is the arbitrary decision.
The binding doesn't move the person, the ski does. The oarlock does not move the person, the boat does.
It is not an arbitrary decision. With the logic you are employing, all aspects of a firearm should be required to have an ffl to transfer them. Stocks, barrels, scopes, etc.
Ben, we disagree. It's the basis of action that the bindings enable a person's skiis to propel as a cog enables a bicycle to turn the wheels.
To present revisions and the considerations... and how it can be revised... example below. The .jpg loaded on my response before I added my words. heh!
To present revisions and the considerations... and how it can be revised... example below. The .jpg loaded on my response before I added my words. heh!
Sounds like a plan.
Look forward to it.
Ben, we disagree. It's the basis of action that the bindings enable a person's skiis to propel as a cog enables a bicycle to turn the wheels.
To present revisions and the considerations... and how it can be revised... example below. The .jpg loaded on my response before I added my words. heh!
i just posted about this, the forest service cannot interpret the defnition of mechanical, as it is defined and set in the statute that is the wilderness act. i'm guessing there is legal agreement on mechanical in this context otherwise bikes might already be traipsing around the wilderness. if ben is right, which i'm believing he is more and more, the forest service cannot, and is not, arbitrarily interpreting
in your post, they couldn't effect the change in removing bicycles from that because i'm sure someone slapped their wrists when they tried
again, but with a little more for context:
"It is important to under stand that the Wilderness Act itself specifies that no other form of mechanical transport is permitted in any wilderness area, not simply some agency interpretation of the Act. But initially the Forest Service (uniquely among the wilderness administering agencies) misinterpreted this provision of the law. In May 1966, the Secretary of Agriculture finalized regulations drafted by the Forest Service for implementing the Wilderness Act on the national forests. As interpreted in those 1966 regulations: "Mechanical transport, as herein used, shall include any contrivance which travels over ground, snow, or water on wheels, tracks, skids, or by flotation and is propelled by a nonliving power source contained or carried on or within the device."21 The Wilderness Act itself made no distinction between living or nonliving power sources, not mentioning these words at all. Beyond that, this 1966 Forest Service interpretation ignored a cardinal rule of statutory interpretation. The error was immediately spotlighted in the first authoritative legal analysis of the new Act and the regulations, published in the June 1966 Oregon Law Review. Commenting on the identical wording as it appeared in the draft form of the regulations published the previous year, Michael McCloskey noted:
In its regulations to implement the act, the Forest Service has defined mechanical transport as any contrivance ... propelled by a nonliving power source. As a nonliving power source is the same as a motor, mechanical transport is thus defined as being the same as motorized transport, and there is no exclusion [in the agency regulations] of horse-drawn vehicles, bicycles, or cargo carriers. The wording of section 4(c) is that there shall be no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport . In an effort to give meaning to each item enumerated, the rules of statutory construction would suggest that duplicate definitions should be avoided. For this reason, the Forest Service would appear to be in error in saying that the phrase mechanical transport means no more than the preceding phrase motor vehicles.The meaning of the sentence would appear to be that the final phrase refers to modes of mechanical transport that are not motor vehicles, motorboats, or motor-driven aircraft. By a process of elimination, this would seem to leave only items such as bicycles, wagons, and cargo carriers as the referent for the phrase.22 (that's my emphasis)
.....
Some have argued that the words of this 1966 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 matter:
"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)."
- https://winapps.umt.edu/winapps/media2/wilderness/toolboxes/documents/tools/Mechanization in Wilderness.pdf
Last edited:
Good detail Togie. Thanks for your post. I know Ben is sharp on conservation... and protective to specific interests ( ) along with your comment;
as we know. edited... Still trying to track down the following comment:
"Bicycle access to federally designated Wilderness areas received a boost recently when the U.S. Forest Service and the Department of Interior supported the bill in the Senate."
www.bicycleretailer.com
) along with your comment;I'd imagine you're on the money - as well. If that is the case, Congress is capable of amending the Wilderness Act. I do find it interesting the internal USFS conflict regarding mountain bikes and Wilderness Act. It exists today,
"Bicycle access to federally designated Wilderness areas received a boost recently when the U.S. Forest Service and the Department of Interior supported the bill in the Senate."
Support growing for restoring bicycle access to Wilderness areas
WASHINGTON (BRAIN) — Bicycle access to federally designated Wilderness areas received a boost recently when the U.S. Forest Service and the Department of Interior supported the bill in the Senate.Agency staff testified before a Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources subcommittee on...
www.bicycleretailer.com
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Aha! The case of the suppressed missing government document allowing mechanization in the Wilderness ... velly interresssting! Avid bikers, I think we're on the verge of another explosive conspiracy theory. It's time to storm the Dept of Agriculture and take back the forests! Grab your bike banner, comrade Sytes ... and lead the charge!Ben, we disagree. It's the basis of action that the bindings enable a person's skiis to propel as a cog enables a bicycle to turn the wheels.
To present revisions and the considerations... and how it can be revised... example below. The .jpg loaded on my response before I added my words. heh!
You're manipulating the content yet again... Straight Arrow.
Durango Mike
Well-known member
Ben is Probably one of the most involved, knowledgeable and dedicated individuals on conservation and wilderness on this forum, not that he needs any defense.
Prettiest too. Everybody says so.
"Bicycle access to federally designated Wilderness areas received a boost recently when the U.S. Forest Service and the Department of Interior supported the bill in the Senate."
Well it's true;
DOI:
S. 1695 | U.S. Department of the Interior
S. 1695 - Human-Powered Travel in Wilderness Areas Act
USFS (With reservations)
Political appointees via the people such as Frank Church... who brought the Wilderness Act to be...
For chits n grins. To place again for those reading.
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.
We, the people, love our voted Congressional Representatives, right? (Humor)
For chits n grins. To place again for those reading.
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.
We, the people, love our voted Congressional Representatives, right? (Humor)
Were mountain bikes customary public uses?
There's nothing in that statement to provide the context you seek.relative to mechanized use in a bill that expressly forbids mechanized use.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Sytes, like they say "When you're in a hole, quit ... " But especially when you look up and see B Lamb with a shovelful ... you know you're in trouble!
Ben, currently, as it's written, mountain bikes are not permitted. No one disputes that... no one I know at least. What is sought and endorsed by DOI and USFS is S. Bill 1695 to amend.
Hense the entire topic of this thread.
You claim Frank Church's comment does not apply, I claim it does.
You claim appointees are... well, appointees.
I claim they hold authority for purposes such as this.
You would cheer if they did not endorse. We have different viewpoints.
I believe my points have been made and so have yours. I'm good with that. You?
Last edited:
Similar threads
