There are middle-paths to take on this issue, but it requires some flexibility on both sides to get beyond the immediate draw of the shiny object in front of you, and look for solutions that advance everyone's interests.
Here is how the issue was approached on the Rocky Mtn Front, prescribed under the Heritage Act: https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd526830.pdf
Increasing access to state trust lands in places like NM, CO, etc, where the lands are viable spots for mechanized use as well as hiking, etc (like the Helena South Hills - close proximity to urban areas, and not significant wildlife values) would make a lot of sense, as would issuing access fees specific for trail maintenance & upkeep of trust lands in order to fullfill the constitutional obligations.
Employing LWCF to help increase access to public lands in the same vein that RMEF & others do also helps create new opportunities on public lands, rather than fighting over the same slice of pie.
It comes down to increased population and decreased meaningful access. Wilderness should not have mechanized or motorized, except in case of extreme emergencies, as allowed by the law. I can point to some wilderness areas in the west and the east where allowing mountain bikes would essentially eliminate the habitat security provided by the respite from wheeled recreation that many species desire. But at the same level, we have ignored the maintenance needs for trails Nationally, and we ignore the trails out our own back doors. Some states are reinvesting in this arena (MT for example). Making trail maintenance & equitable access top priorities in recreational budgets at the local, state and federal levels is how you achieve your goals here. Not forcing conflict between groups where you really don't need it.
The biggest impediment to getting into hunting is access to lands close to where you live. That same thing is in play with every type of recreation, and we see that in the massive influx of people to more and more limited trail heads, etc.
If we really want to have it all, and we can, we need to stop arguing over who gets the slice of pie, and bake some more pies.
Now I really want pie. Way to go, HT.
Here is how the issue was approached on the Rocky Mtn Front, prescribed under the Heritage Act: https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd526830.pdf
Increasing access to state trust lands in places like NM, CO, etc, where the lands are viable spots for mechanized use as well as hiking, etc (like the Helena South Hills - close proximity to urban areas, and not significant wildlife values) would make a lot of sense, as would issuing access fees specific for trail maintenance & upkeep of trust lands in order to fullfill the constitutional obligations.
Employing LWCF to help increase access to public lands in the same vein that RMEF & others do also helps create new opportunities on public lands, rather than fighting over the same slice of pie.
It comes down to increased population and decreased meaningful access. Wilderness should not have mechanized or motorized, except in case of extreme emergencies, as allowed by the law. I can point to some wilderness areas in the west and the east where allowing mountain bikes would essentially eliminate the habitat security provided by the respite from wheeled recreation that many species desire. But at the same level, we have ignored the maintenance needs for trails Nationally, and we ignore the trails out our own back doors. Some states are reinvesting in this arena (MT for example). Making trail maintenance & equitable access top priorities in recreational budgets at the local, state and federal levels is how you achieve your goals here. Not forcing conflict between groups where you really don't need it.
The biggest impediment to getting into hunting is access to lands close to where you live. That same thing is in play with every type of recreation, and we see that in the massive influx of people to more and more limited trail heads, etc.
If we really want to have it all, and we can, we need to stop arguing over who gets the slice of pie, and bake some more pies.
Now I really want pie. Way to go, HT.
) I believe the wilderness act was never designed to exempt personal powered access. I believe the "purity test" plays a factor... Especially considering the mass exodus of urbanites to suburbia and it's outskirts, the eventual influx of mountain cyclists will become an even louder voice. I believe now is the time to evaluate in a meaningful manner to moderate all human powered means of access for our amazing wilderness. Select trails, times for use (as is already a pattern for in/outbound horse pack trains at certain trailheads, maximum speed... who knows. One can knit-pick as if I've laid out an entire plan for the access opportunities however, all we are is, Dust in the wind"... haha! We all know hoards of details involved.
