BAKPAKR
Well-known member
All is good then!You can't use a chainsaw, but you can use solar panel to run your cell phone connected to a bluetooth speaker blaring nickleback.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
All is good then!You can't use a chainsaw, but you can use solar panel to run your cell phone connected to a bluetooth speaker blaring nickleback.
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.Charles, you highlighted a small portion of that sentence, and left critical pieces out.
The binding doesn't move the person, the ski does. The oarlock does not move the person, the boat does.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.
Sounds like a plan. Look forward to it.Lunch on me next time we're together
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'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,they couldn't effect the change in removing bicycles from that because i'm sure someone slapped their wrists when they tried
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.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 is Probably one of the most involved, knowledgeable and dedicated individuals on conservation and wilderness on this forum, not that he needs any defense.I can't figure out if you're being PC, or if you really don't give a rats ass about Wilderness.
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.
"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."I do find it interesting the internal USFS conflict regarding mountain bikes and Wilderness Act. It exists today,as we know. edited... Still trying to track down the following comment:
Chairman Lee, Ranking Member Wyden, and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide the Department of the Interior’s views on S. 1695, a bill to amend the Wilderness Act to allow local Federal officials to determine the manner in which nonmotorized uses may be permitted in wilderness areas, and for other purposes.
As discussed below, the Department supports S. 1695, which aligns with important and longstanding Department and Administration priorities.
S. 1695 would provide greater access and recreational opportunities in wilderness areas managed on Department lands across the Nation. The USDA supports increased access to National Forest System lands, and thus supports the bill’s intent. We have concerns regarding implementation of the bill and would like to work with the Committee to address those concerns.
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)
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!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.
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.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.