MTLabrador
Well-known member
That is amazing, and great examples of why bikes have no place in Wilderness. It’s also pretty humbling, since my bike skills are more like...
S. 1695: Human Powered Travel in Wilderness Act
- Thread starter Nameless Range
- Start date
Looks like me checking my draw results every year.
Elkmagnet
Well-known member
Bike riding skills are better than his engineering skills.
Wildabeest
Well-known member
My backyard
Error
www.trailforks.com
Course Beta
Total Miles: A little over 75 Miles
90% Singletrack (Probably more, but we don’t want the other races to feel bad)
Around 12,000′ + Elevation Gain (give or take a 1,000′)
Average Finish Time: 9 hours (Fastest, just over 6 hrs, slowest is nearly 13 hours)
. I can see the finish line from my place in Park City. The Wasatch Crest portion of that course is a great ride or hike. Awesome views, open and fairly flat. I’ll leave all those steeps, switchbacks and technical terrain for the younger crowd!
Hem
Well-known member
Bad ass chit. Even in the day it wouldn't have been me....I never thought about glamor photos.
I also never broadcasted where I rode, ever. Not a whisper. All those primo single-track are gone now.
I just liked to ride.
My little saying now is live to ride again..HAHA
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
So just for the sake of discussion, what is the argument for not having mtbikers in the bob?
Sure some bike horse conflicts... I haven’t visited the bob, but the forum consensus seems to be its a huge area with few animals, despite limited human use? Correct? What would the negative impacts be?
Im not advocating for it I’m just kinda curious.
44hunter45
Well-known member
Not trying to blame this on Mountain Bikers. This is from dirt bikers in the Clearwater NF in Idaho. It rained the next day and this was a brown sluice. This trail skirts the Grandmother Mountain WSA.
sapperJ24
Well-known member
Personal opinion, bikers would dramatically increase use on areas that are already over used, the main river corridor. There's an existing issue with people not cleaning up after themselves. Already enough outfitter conflicts. Its not national park level trashed, but I wouldn't consider the Chinese wall or the south fork to be limited use.
You can find places where people and stock arent going, but your also not getting a bike there. There's also a whole bunch of fun and technical (for a novice) closed roads and trails outside of the bob that give you plenty of opportunity to not see people
enjoy or run into a bear.
I don't think there would be any additional damage to the trail system. But damage to campsites, 'wilderness experience', fishery. From a hunting perspective it would allow for someone to hunt early season back country rifle either solo or with a buddy and float out.
rideold
Well-known member
The biggest reason I don't want to see any mechanized mode of travel in wilderness areas is that it extends how far a user can get into the wilderness area in a day of travel. Even if I never get to most of the interior parts of wilderness areas I value them being there and those areas being as untouched as possible.
Nameless Range
Well-known member
I admit this take is oversimplified and at times subjective, but both the "Wilderness" environment and experience are generally enhanced with distance and space.
And to quote Ed Abbey, "Distance and space are functions of speed and time. "
The amount of distance covered per-unit-time when it comes to bikes is orders of magnitude more than what a guy on foot, or even on a horse can pull off. The arguments are far deeper and more varied than that, but this is the chief premise, that for me, arguments against bikes in Wilderness stem from.
RobG
Well-known member
William, I'd like to add a couple points to the other great replies.
First, most of my experience in the Bob was about 40 years ago and horse traffic was significant then. I can't imagine what it is now, and the pack raft craze has added an additional source of users.
The main trails have little gradient and would provide a high quality (and high speed) MB ride. You could literally peddle a bike over the pass on the south end and then barely peddle all the way to the north end at spotted bear (maybe 30 miles away at 5-10mph?). The east and west sides have similar potentials.
The main argument I've heard against MB is they have a mechanical advantage which allows them to cover more distance and cause more impact. They counter with oarlocks and walking sticks give a mechanical advantage so it is unfair to discriminate against MBs (I'm not making this up). If you can make that asinine leap you can see it isn't going to stop there. With that precedent it's far less of a leap to assert that E-bikes are human powered if you enter the wilderness with the battery discharged so if mountain bikes are allowed then E-bikes should be. Like oarlocks, that's technically true but violates the spirit of the restrictions.
There is also the fact a few bad folks do build illegal trails to get their red bull joy ride. They counter by saying "it's only a few bad apples," but it's already enough of a problem the FS can't keep up with it around here.
That's off the top of my head. I have to switch gears and work.
rg
First, most of my experience in the Bob was about 40 years ago and horse traffic was significant then. I can't imagine what it is now, and the pack raft craze has added an additional source of users.
The main trails have little gradient and would provide a high quality (and high speed) MB ride. You could literally peddle a bike over the pass on the south end and then barely peddle all the way to the north end at spotted bear (maybe 30 miles away at 5-10mph?). The east and west sides have similar potentials.
The main argument I've heard against MB is they have a mechanical advantage which allows them to cover more distance and cause more impact. They counter with oarlocks and walking sticks give a mechanical advantage so it is unfair to discriminate against MBs (I'm not making this up). If you can make that asinine leap you can see it isn't going to stop there. With that precedent it's far less of a leap to assert that E-bikes are human powered if you enter the wilderness with the battery discharged so if mountain bikes are allowed then E-bikes should be. Like oarlocks, that's technically true but violates the spirit of the restrictions.
There is also the fact a few bad folks do build illegal trails to get their red bull joy ride. They counter by saying "it's only a few bad apples," but it's already enough of a problem the FS can't keep up with it around here.
That's off the top of my head. I have to switch gears and work.
rg
Irrelevant
Well-known member
I have never been there. I may never go there. It is a very hard place to get to. And that is the point.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
It is really difficult having a rationale debate over that question, aside from the meaning of wilderness language.
The difficulty lies within the mindset of those, such as myself, who adamantly advocate for wild pristine places, of which there are actually very few relative to the expanse of the continental USA, and who see no need to continue to extend man's contraptions into every possible place merely for convenience and/or self gratification.
Convenience and self gratification are available in an overabundance of places now, IMHO.
SaskHunter
Well-known member
Here's my outsider's opinion on this; what is the difference between using a bike or a bunch of horses?
I've seen comments about how other more open areas are "dirtier", that's an uneducated public issue, not a horse rider Vs biker Vs Hiker. Would allowing mountain bikes actually do any damages far in the wilderness areas? The farther you go into any public area, the "cleaner" it gets, sure you still find trash deep in the bush, but that's the result of assholes who could ride a horse as much as a bike.
Why can't people with limited budgets use tools to go farther? Why is it limited to people who own horses and all the equipment that goes with it or those who can afford it?
Biker Vs Horse rider issues; one example of an inconsiderate rider ramming into horses shouldn't be used to ban all bikes. I mean, by that logic we should ban ALL firearms due to criminals. I'm sure there are tons of inconsiderate horse riders around (see the many threads about outfitters rounding up elk, etc).
Anyway, I have no say in this as I'm from the Great White North, but I think this is a valid debate.
So moving a massive camp with a dozen horses is fine but one guy on a mountain bike isn't? I get what you are saying but this rule also prohibits the average dude from going into the wilderness without pack animals.
... or a chopper if you are willing to pay a small fine.
I've seen comments about how other more open areas are "dirtier", that's an uneducated public issue, not a horse rider Vs biker Vs Hiker. Would allowing mountain bikes actually do any damages far in the wilderness areas? The farther you go into any public area, the "cleaner" it gets, sure you still find trash deep in the bush, but that's the result of assholes who could ride a horse as much as a bike.
Why can't people with limited budgets use tools to go farther? Why is it limited to people who own horses and all the equipment that goes with it or those who can afford it?
Biker Vs Horse rider issues; one example of an inconsiderate rider ramming into horses shouldn't be used to ban all bikes. I mean, by that logic we should ban ALL firearms due to criminals. I'm sure there are tons of inconsiderate horse riders around (see the many threads about outfitters rounding up elk, etc).
Anyway, I have no say in this as I'm from the Great White North, but I think this is a valid debate.
So moving a massive camp with a dozen horses is fine but one guy on a mountain bike isn't? I get what you are saying but this rule also prohibits the average dude from going into the wilderness without pack animals.
... or a chopper if you are willing to pay a small fine.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
The effort and monetary entry level for pack horses is orders of magnitude higher than a mountain bike. This by there nature they limit the number of users.
The whole point of wilderness is to limit the use, not so much that you can't enjoy it, but enough so that it is hard to enjoy it.
SaskHunter
Well-known member
And I 100% get that, but having zero take in this debate I like being the devil's advocate. This isn't really my opinion, just throwing diverging ideas in the mix; but why is it limited mostly to those "wealthy" enough to own pack horses?
I'm not saying which way this debate should end, BUT I think there is room for a healthy debate here. I am 100% for keeping some areas pristine, we do the same here in Canada, but this greatly limits access to those who can afford it.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
That is the erroneous perception. Couple years ago, my wife and I backpacked for a week in the Bob Marshall WA, hiking seventy miles. We saw as many or more visitors hiking than
riding horses. ... and we are only "wealthy" in that we share ownership of these magnificent public pristine lands!
(We got little money and absolutely no bitcoins.)
Similar threads
