Wilderness: Mountain bicycle vs Boots. Interesting read.

[Sytes]

https://www.outsideonline.com/2270291/mountain-bikes-wilderness

As a hunt based forum, access is premium.

I would urge the extremes to find a mutual position before the "Public Hands" further the divide. Need public land user allies, not enemies.

 

[Straight Arrow]

But be careful how loudly you scream that all “mechanical transport” is prohibited in Wilderness areas. If you apply the rule too strictly to human-powered cyclists, someday a literalist from the conservation movement might do the same to backcountry skiers—employing the human powered mechanical transportation we call an alpine-touring binding. Ditto with those shock absorbing trekking poles. And how about the aging Sierra Clubbers with their knee replacements and mechanical hips?

Now those are red herrings really "grasping for straws"! IMO, mountain bikes in Wilderness Areas truly constitutes a slippery slope where eventually all users crash. However, I do agree there are more appropriate areas where mountain biking could be an appropriate use and should be opened.

It seems deja vu ... all over again, as wheels in Wilderness has been an energetic topic on this forum previously.

 

[COEngineer]

That article is just inflammatory BS. He makes an analogy of public land policy to abortion rights?! And says that banning mountain bikes could lead to banning trekking poles?!?! I have strong words for this guy that I won't write here. Do us all a favor and delete this thread.

 

[elkduds]

The 1st thing I saw upon opening the link is a photo of a mtn biker riding off trail, right next to an apparent existing trail (where the other rider was jumping). Which sucks, and is rampant among mtn bikers in CO Springs. Here we have trail systems with some open to bikes, and some open only to hikers. Not only do cyclists disregard those rules, they routinely point down any gully that looks like a more interesting route, including those w no trails. The more riders, the more violators. Not a camel's nose I want under the wilderness tent.

Technology has increased the variety of mechanized ways to use trails, in ways that weren't considered when wilderness laws were established. That increases our need for wilderness as a unique antithesis to technology. I am entirely opposed to wheels and motors in designated wilderness, except as an ADA legality.

 

[MTGomer]

Mechanized equipment has no place in capital ’W’ilderness.
I just have a real problem with the idea of eating breakfast in Cooke City and lunch in Roscoe 5 hours later via bicycle. Everything in between should be earned to be seen.
Also, anybody that’s spent much time around the mountain biking community knows that it’s not the bike itself that is insufferably intolerable.

Count me amongst the treehuggers on this one.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Bikes in Wilderness is a non starter for me, but this is fair: "they do want a seat at the table when future designations are discussed." There are probably a number of specific trails that could be granted easements and/ or trails cut out of future wilderness areas.

 

[----]

I just have a real problem with the idea of eating breakfast in Cooke City and lunch in Roscoe 5 hours later via bicycle. Everything in between should be earned to be seen.

I agree with this mentality a lot. I think a big part of what makes a wilderness a wilderness is that it forces you to commit some time in order to experience it.

A couple years ago some students at UM made a documentary in support of getting the Great Burn turned into a Wilderness. The premise of their film was that they would showcase the area by running the entire length of the divide (60-70 miles) in a single day. I never could wrap my head around what they were trying to say with that.

 

[Northwoods Labs]

Isn't the reason mountain bikes are not allowed in Wilderness is because they have wheels? The author talks about mechanical transport and the fact that soon skis, trekking poles, etc will be banned, but I always thought the big eliminator for bikes were wheels. Regardless, I do not see any reason to change the rules for mountain bikes. There are plenty of trails, but very limited areas of true wilderness.

 

[ARKANSASHUNTER]

The desire to travel fast through a wilderness means you aren't there to take in and appreciate the wilderness for what it is which means I absolutely don't want to let the bikes in. I own a dr650 and enjoy trail riding but there are many places I would rather hike because it's the best way to appreciate your surroundings. There are plenty of trails in place already for wheels.

 

[BuzzH]

I say the mountain bike crowd can use the vast majority of State, BLM, and FS lands that are already available to them.

Why is it that everyone wants to change the rules so they can more easily access, what ain't supposed to be easy to access?

The "compromise" already happened in 1964...walk, ride a horse, or stay out of the wilderness...period.

 

[Sytes]

The divide is growing. People on both sides can preach to their choir all they want however, all that does is grow the divide - between "Public Land Owners".

That divide will be exploited by the PLT / Reduce Wilderness political $ machine. And then the divide becomes more difficult to counter.

At some point, IF we want to unify the variety of outdoor economically supported public land owners, we'll need to kick the extremists in the nuts. Or...

Compromise. Conference with those capable of discussing the topics with a mind to find mutual agreements or divide public land owners further. I believe WSA's would be a great point to unify...

Food for thought for those interested.

Note: This is the Google link to one such study - Montana State University .PDF

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAAegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw2bdPlbn60_Id5z_GTs8uVp

 

[ARKANSASHUNTER]

Sytes, I get what you are saying. It's the same argument that the bump stock and fully auto gun guys use, the high fence/canned hunt proponents use. The Dems and Rep use the argument to keep people from voting for outsiders and 3rd parties "you are just throwing away your vote". If I don't speak and vote my conscience in America am I not just being a coward? Something else to think about.
I have been struggling to find how much of my soul to sell for the good of the group. I just don't know.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Sytes, I get what you are saying. It's the same argument that the bump stock and fully auto gun guys use, the high fence/canned hunt proponents use. The Dems and Rep use the argument to keep people from voting for outsiders and 3rd parties "you are just throwing away your vote". If I don't speak and vote my conscience in America am I not just being a coward? Something else to think about.
I have been struggling to find how much of my soul to sell for the good of the group. I just don't know.

Agreed. Also it's important to note, and it was brought up in the article, that this point of view is not shared by the mountain biking community as a whole. The other outside mag article, https://www.outsideonline.com/2165406/five-lies-being-used-get-mountain-bikes-wilderness This article represents a small portion of one user group, not mountain bike users as a whole. I have mountain biked longer than I have hunted and while I definitely acknowledge that there have been some trails that were used by mountain bikers that got shut down by wilderness designations and that there are likely a few areas were an easement/ biking corridor could be considered the idea that wheeled vehicles should be allowed in wilderness for recreation is ridiculous.

There are so many mt biking tails, many of them with very little use all over the west and there isn't that much designated Wilderness. Compared to the number of hunters that you see on opening day, or the ridiculous crowds you see heading up to some of Colorado's popular 14ers even the most popular bike trails around the west aren't particularly crowded. I've ridden a ton in Moab, Bozeman, Helena, Crested Butte, Fruita, and never felt like there were some many people that it was making it impossible for me to enjoy my time on the trail.

I honestly feel like Peruzzi has an ax to grind about his favorite trails and that's the main issue.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Sytes, although your linked individual masters degree thesis shows that horse traffic moves more sediment and especially when trails are wet (duh, who woulda thought), it does not really differentiate among effects of the other user groups. A previous thread about this issue pointed out that in Missoula and other areas there are mountain biking groups who do maintain trails, but I assert that there are significantly far more horseback groups and hiking groups who volunteer to work on trails.

My anecdotal experience with such trails used by all has resulted in a decision not to hike the Bridger Foothills Trail again. In a grueling backpack trip on that trail, the hiking was extremely difficult on stretches of trail which were trenched by bikes, motorized and non motorized. The ruts were deep with narrow flat bottoms impossible to hike, especially with a backpack, forcing one to try to hike on the shoulders or slopes above or below the trail. Horse and foot traffic does not produce those type of narrow ruts.

Admittedly now holding a bias, yet still pointing out the "wild" in what Wilderness does presently exist, I am adamantly opposed to wheels in the Wilderness!

 

[Sytes]

IMBA is far... from a few and growing rapidly. Not a few public land owners to dismiss. This is a growing force to ally with... or oppose. *Strictly used as comparison purpose to gauge the size, approximately 15,000 members more than Backcountry Hunters and Anglers.

Straight Arrow, I believe there are ways to mitigate non motorized use of our Wilderness areas. Studies show damage / erosion is not the issue. To me, it's about the increased human access. However, I believe non motorized use has a valid position in this fight for our public land.

[video=youtube_share;COnR_MGZbB0]https://youtu.be/COnR_MGZbB0[/video]

 

[BuzzH]

Sytes, you talk a big game of "compromise" that many aren't going to buy. Its BS.

There are about 109 million acres of designated wilderness in the United States...about 640 million acres of federal public lands. Less than 1 out of 6 acres is wilderness. You can cry all day long about the need for wilderness advocates to "compromise" on the 109 million, but I think giving mountain bikers etc. 531 million acres of public lands to ride their bikes on is more than enough. If its not...well too friggin' bad, buy your own place to ride. If anyone should be asking for more compromise, its wilderness advocates, they should be demanding that more of the 531 million acres that is not wilderness should be designated. The case is much stronger that we haven't done a good job at all of designating lower elevation lands and there is a real lack of habitat diversity within the Wilderness Act. Again, a massive compromise that the wilderness advocates in 1964 conceded...a vast majority of the designated wilderness in 1964 had very little resource extraction value and a lot of it is higher elevation type habitat. Exactly why the Wilderness Act is often said to have a done a great job of "protecting rock and ice"...which isn't far from the truth.

As far as simply compromising away 54 years of having places where mechanized travel is prohibited to make a few johnie-come-lately mountain bikers happy...not one bit interested. Go ride your bike in the 531 million acres you have and leave the 109 million as they are.

I'm done compromising.

As far as Eric Melson...where was he and his mountain bike in 1964? He makes the claim he doesn't want to "swoop in at the last minute"...well, buddy, your 54 years late to the party. Take your mountain bike and your own advice and tell it to someone that cares.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Go ride your bike in the 531 million acres you have and leave the 109 million as they are.

Given that you can't physically ride a bike, unless you are Danny Macaskill, on rock or ice it's probably like 8 million acres. The whole issues is centered around a few specific trails and/or a few places on the border of Wilderness.

 

[BuzzH]

Given that you can't physically ride a bike, unless you are Danny Macaskill, on rock or ice it's probably like 8 million acres. The whole issues is centered around a few specific trails and/or a few places on the border of Wilderness.

Bingo...and another solid reason to tell the mountain bike crowd to go pound rock and ice...or sand, whichever they prefer.

 

[Schaaf]

Why stop at mountain bikes? Let's get a few Polaris RZR's perched on the Chinese Wall for a Facebook cover photo.

It's for the compromise.

 

[Sytes]

Why stop at mountain bikes? Let's get a few Polaris RZR's perched on the Chinese Wall for a Facebook cover photo.

It's for the compromise.

Schaaf, I fully respect your dedication towards keeping our lands in public hands. Heck, we need bulldogs such as Buzz... We also need people able to negotiate - able to identify the future allies in protecting our public lands.

An area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.

Sure, why boots, horses, mules, lamas - why goats? Why planes and airstrips? Why commercial business? Why bridges and maintained trails? Why game poles installed? As shown, if it causes less erosion than current modes of "visiting"... Why not cycles? Oh wait - no compromise from those already visiting.(?)