Wilderness: Mountain bicycle vs Boots. Interesting read.

[rtraverdavis]

Holy smokes Sytes, do you honestly think that mountain bikers will advocate for public land transfer if they can’t ride in Wilderness areas? I’m really having a hard time understanding what this is really about.

I like to pick my nose. I really enjoy it. And I've got places for doing it. I have my bathroom to pick my nose in. I have my truck. I have the myriad places around my neighborhood that I can slip into for a quick pick. But there are places where I know I just can't. I accept that. I don't force the issue and demand my nose picking be cool anywhere and everywhere as long as it's public space.

 

[JLS]

Thus, back to my main opinion: compromise with regards to WSA's & RWA's.

You have a funny way of getting to your main point.

1) reference a ridiculously premised article
2) try to show ambiguity in the wilderness act
3) repeats #2
4) claim it’s all about compromise for WSA

Got it.

 

[Sytes]

...do you honestly think that mountain bikers will advocate for public land transfer if they can’t ride in Wilderness areas?

Rtraverdavis, in my opinion... As shared earlier.

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

JLS, the US Forest Service has flip flopped various times... It's left the cycle community wondering, "WTF?" Compounded by the environmentalist type organizations attack on the areas that were, were not, were... available for backcountry cycling and it presents a better understanding, for those not picking sand from their nose.

 

[Straight Arrow]

You have a funny way of getting to your main point.

1) reference a ridiculously premised article
2) try to show ambiguity in the wilderness act
3) repeats #2
4) claim it’s all about compromise for WSA

Repeats #2 ad nauseum.

Fact: Mountain bikes are considered "mechanical transport" and are not allowed in designated Wilderness Areas, regardless of ambiguous flip-flops. No amount of documenting, linking, bolding, misinterpreting, faulty logic, or surmising about compromise regarding Wilderness Study areas will change that. Differences in opinion between user groups (ie; mountain bike organizations and BHR) do not constitute an unsurmountable divide which promotes the Public Land Transfer agenda. Again such assertion reflects skewed logic.

 

[MinnesotaHunter]

I am not sure I buy that this is a point causing great division in public land users. I think it was some guy looking to write an article to stir the pot, cause a bit of recreational outrage, and gain some notoriety for himself.

This feels likely the debate the Nuge was trying to stir up a few years ago when Boone and Crockett decided to exclude high fence killed deer from their books. "hey everyone, you better not exclude me or hunting will end forever."

I just don't know what there is to really gain, and if compromise does happen, what will be the next compromise demanded? It was pointed out that division amongst public land advocates might be desired by those who wish to see transfer, but so are reduced protections to wilderness, so wouldn't this be just one step closer to another objective of of those who seek to exploit these pristine places?

 

[Schaaf]

I like to pick my nose. I really enjoy it.

Signature worthy.

 

[rtraverdavis]

Signature worthy.

I'll consider it.

 

[Heckler]

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.

Well said. Maybe we should try to reduce the number of hunters in WMAs too. After all, some of them might shoot a deer 5 minutes before legal hunting ours. Like you said, more hunters more violators.

 

[Heckler]

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.

Another fine point. Just like the founding fathers could have never foreseen what those horrid semi-auto rifles would be like. Let's ban them. Makes for a good argument right?

 

[Heckler]

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.

Here here. Mechanized transport should be banned. Those evil cross-country skis, snow shoes, oars on drift boats, paddles, and yes trekking poles. All offering an unfair mechanical advantage over walking barefoot like Frank Church, Bob Marshall, and Howard Zahniser REALLY intended. Don't get me started on stirrups and horse reigns. OBVIOUSLY WMA founders intended us to all ride barebacked and use our feet to steer our horses.

 

[Heckler]

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.

Man, I am so impressed with the view points on this thread. I had no idea the thousands of miles I've spent grinding up hills on my bike required so little effort. Guess all that fluid running from my body was just water leaking from my Camel back. And let's face it, why shouldn't all of you determine how I choose to spend my time in the woods. Let's face it, you should probably be telling me what I can do for work and how much money I should be making too.

 

[JLS]

Welcome Heckler.

 

[Heckler]

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.

No, they were never intended to be kept out of the wilderness. Half the reason WMAs ever actually got traction at all was because the government realized how lazy people were getting. The mechanized transport side of it was actually in fear of rails being laid into these areas and hand carts being used to transport people and resources. I wouldn't want to bore you all with any facts or history though, it obviously doesn't feed your opinions.

 

[Heckler]

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.

Fantastic. So because I don't appreciate the wilderness in the same way you do, I shouldn't be allowed to enter it with a bike? I suppose I shouldn't be there if I want to jog on a trail too? I'll make sure I bring a gun to shoot my horse in the head in case he bolts on me. I might miss some scenery.

 

[MTGomer]

Heckler, you are supposed to introduce yourself and tell a couple hunting stories before being a #@**@%

 

[rtraverdavis]

You are supposed to introduce yourself and tell a couple hunting stories before being a #@**@%

Now that’s signature worthy.

 

[Heckler]

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.

Oh man, I don't even know where to begin with you. I've been thoroughly impressed with how someone can speak with such authority about a topic and have absolutely no idea what he's talking about. Seriously, you complete me. I've only been researching this topic since I started riding bikes in 1996, to think all of this time I could have come to you and you could have declared, "I said it, therefore it is so..." I could have been riding my bike through the Bob decades ago. Don't worry, I'll touch on a few your "points(?)" but I apologize, if I responded to even 5% of the BS logic you have used I'd be up all night...

 

[JLS]

So tell us your research. We like facts.

 

[JLS]

Here here. Mechanized transport should be banned. Those evil cross-country skis, snow shoes, oars on drift boats, paddles, and yes trekking poles. All offering an unfair mechanical advantage over walking barefoot like Frank Church, Bob Marshall, and Howard Zahniser REALLY intended. Don't get me started on stirrups and horse reigns. OBVIOUSLY WMA founders intended us to all ride barebacked and use our feet to steer our horses.

This is nonsensical even for satire.

 

[Heckler]

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.

I did buy my own land, with tax dollars. I call it public land. The advocates didn't have much of a choice in conceding the lower elevations because the lower elevations around most of the higher elevations are/were surrounded by private ranch land and indian reservations.

"Take your mountain bike and your own advice and tell it to someone that cares." Good point. While were at it let's tell all of those outfitters to go screw themselves too. You know, since the act clearly states there shall be no commercial enterprise.