S. 1695: Human Powered Travel in Wilderness Act

[Deleted member 28227]

I know at three dudes in my 15 person office that could. There are dudes that look at 20k vert on their bikes like I look at a 2 hr chukar hunt.

Yeah see @Nameless Range post, I wasn't being sarcastic. I know a couple people who could run the bob. I also have 2 college friends who have been trying to break the Colorado trail MTB record for the last couple of years... 540 miles, 70k vert in 3d 20hr is I believe the record.

We are going further, deeper, faster and I'm not sure that's entirely the best thing. I'm definitely guilty.

 

[44hunter45]

That's really no different than a well used horse trail or even some heavily used hiking trails.

I suppose. Lots of deferred maintenance out there too

 

[Straight Arrow]

We are going further, deeper, faster and I'm not sure that's entirely the best thing. I'm definitely guilty.

How the heck do you get to Manetheren? ... and where is it you reside?

 

[Deleted member 28227]

How the heck do you get to Manetheren? ... and where is it you reside?

ISBN. 0312850093

Splitting my time between CO and MA currently. Apparently the key to killing a pile of dall sheep is gutting it out in an Atlantic swamp for half a decade.

 

[BuzzH]

I have a few family and friends from Oregon and Washington that are huge advocates for gaining wilderness bike access. My argument is always the same, "Fairness and equality" of access has nothing to do with not allowing wheels in the wilderness. Our wilderness areas do not need the additional stress that would occur with the added biker crowd. No doubt, there are portions of any wilderness trail system that could accommodate bike travel, but why? Most, if not all these bikers could easily travel these same trails via hiking vs biking. But, some people or groups just want to push the envelope and advocate for change on the basis of "Fairness or Equality". I always ask my friends where this argument will end? If bikes are allowed in the wilderness areas, why not allow E-bikes? If E-bikes are allowed, why not motorcycles.....and the rabbit hole seems never ending!

The bottom line, if wheels are allowed in an area, that area no longer has the "Wilderness" designation....or the protections that are suppose to be adhered to with that designation.

Fairness and equity my ass...if it was "fair and equitable" half of the public estate would be designated wilderness.

This kind of crap annoys me to no end...a user group that already has a vast majority of the public estate open for their needs, wanting to take the rest too.

They can pound sand...go ride your bike in other than designated wilderness. Maybe its time to discuss limiting mountain bikes to where they can already ride.

 

[Dougfirtree]

Fairness and equity my ass...if it was "fair and equitable" half of the public estate would be designated wilderness.

This kind of crap annoys me to no end...a user group that already has a vast majority of the public estate open for their needs, wanting to take the rest too.

They can pound sand...go ride your bike in other than designated wilderness. Maybe its time to discuss limiting mountain bikes to where they can already ride.

I have to agree. I'm not against biking, far from it. But wilderness is supposed to be something special and there's precious little of it. Maybe find a place to bike on the other 97% of the country.

 

[Dougfirtree]

ISBN. 0312850093

Splitting my time between CO and MA currently. Apparently the key to killing a pile of dall sheep is gutting it out in an Atlantic swamp for half a decade.

Just watch out for Trollocs..

 

[Sytes]

So, Sytes, what the "wide spectrum of Americans" implies then is that if mountain bikes, other mechanization, or even motorized vehicles are not allowed in Wilderness, then that is discrimination such as is protected by the Bill of Rights? I'm not buying that.

Not sure where you're pulling Civil Rights, etc - discrimination or Bill of Rights from Senator Frank Church's comment. However, I suppose we each have our perspective for his comment.

Comment we're referencing is by Senator Frank Church, Sponsor of our Wilderness Act.

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.

IMO, one of the principle people and the Congressional Senator who sponsored our Wilderness Act, wanted to make sure it was clear our Wilderness Act was NOT "so pure a fashion as to needlessly restrict its customary public use and enjoyment" He emphasized, "Quite the contrary", The Wilderness Act should be managed to allow a wide spectrum of Americans.

You've shared your opinion, I've shared Frank Church's opinion. I am not one for motorized anything in our wilderness. I am for keeping it primitive, w/o "structures", etc... I am for human power and no, I've made it clear, I believe electric motors are still motors when it comes to electric assisted cycles and have no place on "non motorized" routes.

You also paint a picture of deep rutted cycle trails... to falsely project to your cheering boots only pom pom crowd that this too would be every trail. Horse crap. Literally and figuratively. I've worked back country wilderness trail crew in my younger years and older years wilderness backcountry lead for trail crew turned griz compliance for outfitters and private parties. I'm well familiar with shitty horsemanship activity in our wilderness. Horse pack trains that run 15-20 trails, side by side through meadows that get... rutty, muddy, and fuggin' ugly.
I've also seen, enjoyed, and valued ethical outfitters and well regarded horse managed parties. Had many great breakfasts vs my horse packed... oatmeal, etc. I actually won a shotgun when I purchased raffle tickets from the Dubois Outfitter Association. Haha!

What I am saying is - there will always be evil in this world though to shun the good because of the evil - evil becomes you for the harm done upon the good... be it horse, cycle, boot, inflatable kayak, llama, etc.

 

[MTLabrador]

IMO, one of the principle people and the Congressional Senator who sponsored our Wilderness Act, wanted to make sure it was clear our Wilderness Act was NOT "so pure a fashion as to needlessly restrict its customary public use and enjoyment" He emphasized, "Quite the contrary", The Wilderness Act should be managed to allow a wide spectrum of Americans.

Wilderness areas are already managed to allow use by a wide spectrum of Americans. Anyone capable of riding a bike to access Wilderness is just as capable of walking or riding a horse.

 

[Straight Arrow]

The Wilderness Act should be managed to allow a wide spectrum of Americans.

You're riding that "wide spectrum" horse to exhaustion. I'm uncertain what Senator Church meant specifically by that phrase, nor is it appropriate for you to interpret it for him.
I think MTLabrador's post above has a better grasp of the meaning.

 

[Trial153]

The spectrum of americans that are ambulatory with two functional legs is pretty wide to me....

 

[Straight Arrow]

You also paint a picture of deep rutted cycle trails... to falsely project to your cheering boots only pom pom crowd that this too would be every trail ...

Again you have erroneously interpreted someone's words. The words describing the difficulty in hiking in such vee-rutted trails referred ONLY to such trails as shown in the photo of Post #30. Fortunately such trails are NOT "every trail".

 

[Sytes]

You're riding that "wide spectrum" horse to exhaustion. I'm uncertain what Senator Church meant specifically by that phrase, nor is it appropriate for you to interpret it for him.
I think MTLabrador's post above has a better grasp of the meaning.

Straight Arrow, IMO = In My Opinion.

Maybe you're not aware of this so I will not consider your opinion inappropriate with your attempt to interpret... my opinion.

What would this forum be without opinions?

 

[TOGIE]

the mtb community really chaps my ass with their trails everywhere at any cost and bikes in every wilderness, state wildlife area, and national park (at no cost to them) mentality

that said, it seems that in fairness, new wilderness designations may, could, and perhaps should, retain traditional use (duh right?) - BUT, meaning mtb use if it was a regular and significant use before designation

but yeah, pound sand is the nice way to put it when it comes to opening up every nook and cranny of the planet to fuggin mtb

 

[Straight Arrow]

"... but yeah, pound sand is the nice way to put it when it comes to opening up every nook and cranny of the planet to fuggin mtb", E bike, ATV, UTV, snowbuggy, snowcoach, motorcycle, scooter, go cart, and all and every sundry motorized contraption available for man's fat arse to straddle and throttle for ultimate convenience and self gratification!

 

[Straight Arrow]

Straight Arrow, IMO = In My Opinion.

Maybe you're not aware of this so I will not consider your opinion inappropriate with your attempt to interpret... my opinion.

What would this forum be without opinions?

Touché, Sytes. You make an excellent point.

 

[JLS]

There are lots of trails in the Frank that would be incredibly fun to mountain bike, but you'll never, ever see me advocate for such.

Respectfully,

Boots/horseshoes only pom pom crowd

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I have to agree. I'm not against biking, far from it. But wilderness is supposed to be something special and there's precious little of it. Maybe find a place to bike on the other 97% of the country.

I agree, but to think of the Bob as indicative of all wilderness is myopic.

Take the I-70 corridor, Denver has very limited req opportunities. Honestly one of the biggest plus of coming to Boston, tons of single track from the house... no crowds. Partially this is due to a fraction of the user group + and partially every single town has it's own green space, and a lot trail systems. Aurora, no dirt within 45 mins, (highline canal.. haha). Basically everyone is funned into evergreen/conifer for close access or up and down I-25 or I-70. Traffic is a mother all summer and winter.

So wilderness issue, you head up into the mts and you got the Mt.Evans, James Peak, Vasquez, Ptarmigan, Eagle's Nest, Lost creek, Indian peaks, RMNP, Comanche Peaks, and Rawah. A huge portion of CO's wilderness is essentially on the outskirts of the city, you want to bike without crowds you are driving a long ways. You aren't doing a there and back 5 hours 1 way, so more people camping, more people shitting in the woods, etc.

People move to CO specifically because of the rec opportunities, this problem is only going to get worse.

Perhaps opening up specific wilderness areas on the front range to a wider variety of uses would help alleviate pressure on the western slope. Folks aren't going to car camp to bike if they don't have to...

I mean bikes in Eagle's nest... there is a double track road that run's through a lot of it with big metal gates from before it was designated , portions of it are within a couple hundred feet of peoples houses. It's big 'W' wilderness but certainly not wilderness in the way the Bob is wilderness.

 

[Lasiocarpa]

I enjoy mountain biking, albeit at a much slower rate of descent than the adrenaline junkie/enduro crowd.

I am adamantly against allowing bikes in Wilderness areas. Also against allowing ebikes on non-motorized trails.

If you can't find a place to ride, you're not trying very hard.

 

[Dougfirtree]

I agree, but to think of the Bob as indicative of all wilderness is myopic.

Take the I-70 corridor, Denver has very limited req opportunities. Honestly one of the biggest plus of coming to Boston, tons of single track from the house... no crowds. Partially this is due to a fraction of the user group + and partially every single town has it's own green space, and a lot trail systems. Aurora, no dirt within 45 mins, (highline canal.. haha). Basically everyone is funned into evergreen/conifer for close access or up and down I-25 or I-70. Traffic is a mother all summer and winter.

So wilderness issue, you head up into the mts and you got the Mt.Evans, James Peak, Vasquez, Ptarmigan, Eagle's Nest, Lost creek, Indian peaks, RMNP, Comanche Peaks, and Rawah. A huge portion of CO's wilderness is essentially on the outskirts of the city, you want to bike without crowds you are driving a long ways. You aren't doing a there and back 5 hours 1 way, so more people camping, more people shitting in the woods, etc.

People move to CO specifically because of the rec opportunities, this problem is only going to get worse.

Perhaps opening up specific wilderness areas on the front range to a wider variety of uses would help alleviate pressure on the western slope. Folks aren't going to car camp to bike if they don't have to...

I mean bikes in Eagle's nest... there is a double track road that run's through a lot of it with big metal gates from before it was designated , portions of it are within a couple hundred feet of peoples houses. It's big 'W' wilderness but certainly not wilderness in the way the Bob is wilderness.

I totally get it and I can sympathize with that. I know that if I was a biker in Denveropolis, this would likely be even easier to sympathize with. I also fully recognize that the rules are not "fair." Bikers should be annoyed that they're not allowed in wilderness areas, while cows can run free there, crapping in the streams with impunity.

That said, when those wilderness areas along the front range were designated, mountain biking probably wasn't a big deal and folks weren't thinking about it. Now it's all the rage, so is it incumbent on the remaining wilderness areas to lessen their protections to accommodate it? Who knows what other activities may become popular in the future? Why the hell didn't the folks developing the Denver area, and the municipalities, set aside more land for folks to recreate on within the areas where the people live?! You and I both know the answer to that, but wilderness shouldn't pay the price for it. Wilderness is supposed to be the highest form of protection, keeping the landscape as free of human influence as we can while still allowing folks to recreate there. It is, by definition, restrictive and that is the point. And there's so little of it. With just 3% of the land area of our country designated as such, I'm comfortable being a hard ass about the rules there.

To get down off my hard-ass soap box, I've often thought that the federal agencies should have a designation that is something like "wilderness-lite" Because so much destructive activity is allowed on "normal" forest service, BLM land, there's a tendency to put the wilderness designation on lands that probably don't fit perfectly, in the interest of not having that land logged, mined, drilled, etc. We have a designation like that here in the Adirondacks. There is a designation called "wild forest" which is very common. No extractive activities like mining, logging, etc. It's very much like wilderness, but group size limits are larger, activities like mountain biking and horseback riding are allowed, snow mobile trails are built in some parts, trails can be cleared with chain saws, etc. The split between wilderness and wild forest is fairly even in the Adirondacks.