Seriously? Let me see if I can simplify it for you. I like to ride my bike. I can't ride my bike in WMA. The more WMAs that are designated, the fewer places I can ride. I will choose to fight WMA designations instead of welcoming them because I will loose more places that I have been riding for years. That was kind of the original poster's whole point.
Wilderness: Mountain bicycle vs Boots. Interesting read.
- Thread starter Sytes
- Start date
- Status
Seriously? Let me see if I can simplify it for you. I like to ride my bike. I can't ride my bike in WMA. The more WMAs that are designated, the fewer places I can ride. I will choose to fight WMA designations instead of welcoming them because I will loose more places that I have been riding for years. That was kind of the original poster's whole point.
Funny, these same kind of studies have held up in court multiple times to keep trails open. And there have been many more studies done showing bicycles cause less trail erosion than horses. Even the Sierra Club doesn't use this argument in court anymore. And we all know how reasonable they are.
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.
Obviously, you have all presented such solid arguments backed by facts. I think the only guy so far to present an actual fact has been Sytes. Doesn't seem to phase the majority of you in the least. I would be just as successful trying to talk to Nanci Pelosi or Chucky S that we need a wall on the southern border. What was it she said to the DHS head honcho, "I reject your facts."
Yep, he's the problem. I would much rather deal with someone as reasonable as you. Really, you would be the gift that keeps on giving. I implore all of you to actually read what Buzzy here has said so far in this discussion and try to justify this opening statement. Classic. I think I get it now. Buzzy is some kind of higher up in a land access program or something? Then we have his cronies. Got it. Well, I had joined what I thought was a hunting forum because I am actually a hunter and a mountain biker. I think I see what this site really is about now though. I haven't been able to hunt in the last few years and thought I would join a hunting site. Not sure I want to be one of your groupies so I think I'm out. Don't worry, I won't let the door hit me on the way out. BTW, I live in MT and I think your signature quote is wrong. Most of the bastards in MT are IN Missoula, or at least that's how the rest of the state sees it.
You pretty much hit the nail on the head. A majority of what I have argued so far has been to point out the hypocrisy in the logic many have presented here. Most of us want the option of riding a few wilderness trails here and there to gain access to other non-wilderness areas. Also, to keep access to what we have, and ultimately restore access we have lost. Many of us will fight Wilderness desgination instead of welcoming it. Contrary to what some have said, I don't know of a single mountain biker who wants motorcycles or any other motorized vehicle in the wilderness and that is perhaps the most retarded argument yet (ppsst that's why we ride bicycles we have to pedal... because it's hard, good exercise, and quiet so we can enjoy nature the way we see fit). Sorry if my being on a bicycle instead of a horse or boots offends you. But then, what can we expect in a society that wants to ban crosses from public because their mere presence offends them and ruins their day? OK now I'm out. Good luck libs! Oh wait, one more thing. If they ever do open Wilderness to bikes I would hate to be the guy who gets caught riding off trail by other bikers... he would likely never be seen again. I won't deny it will happen on occasion, but after fighting tooth and nail to get access, a majority of us would tie him to a tree and leave him there with his mini pump shoved up his cavity and cover him in honey. And I'm done.
Like I said, the reason for no bikes is in the Act, but the social reasons for many is simply that they don’t want to put up with the self centered, entitled douchebaggery that comes with being a part of that clique.
I think Johnny come lately here, is a fair representation of that crowd. Not over the top, just your average dickhead biker. Probably the type that would scream ‘move motherfu**er!’ In front of a bunch of children as he barrels toward them.
He does remind me that we do have a say in how our non wilderness public lands are managed and that i have as much right to submit comment seeking to see them closed to mountain bikers for the sanity of the other people that use them, as he has a right to wish to see them stay open.
I think Johnny come lately here, is a fair representation of that crowd. Not over the top, just your average dickhead biker. Probably the type that would scream ‘move motherfu**er!’ In front of a bunch of children as he barrels toward them.
He does remind me that we do have a say in how our non wilderness public lands are managed and that i have as much right to submit comment seeking to see them closed to mountain bikers for the sanity of the other people that use them, as he has a right to wish to see them stay open.
Last edited:
Straight Arrow,
What I've shared are supported with documents, statistics, article perspectives. About the only area from this thread I've taken liberty to share an opinion would be the assessment the "Public Lands in Public Hands" is dividing the outdoor industry's economically supported public hands from what could be a unified source.
Outside that, the best you offer is rhetoric.
Edit> I should add I shared of my belief dialogue between the parties involved to find common ground is obviously not a supported fact.
Last edited:
1100RemingtonMan
Well-known member
Having backpacked into Wilderness areas to hunt I would say NO Bikes. I would also say Outfitters should be charged a Fee for Trail repair. The Wilderness area I hunted had areas that were all chewed up by Horses.
I guess I go by if you break It, you it fix it. I go by the Leave only your Foot Prints Behind.
I guess I go by if you break It, you it fix it. I go by the Leave only your Foot Prints Behind.
Depending where you’re at, it probably is the outfitter doing trail maintenance. FS crews are low on budget and manpower and only hit the main, well used trails these days. There’s a lot of trails on maps in unoutfitted areas that are no longer trails on the ground.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Sytes
Fact: Bicycles are not allowed in designated Wilderness Areas. It was incorrectly assumed you knew that with all the "research" you have been dumping, so voluminous linking, documenting, bolding and other such supportive evidence was not pasted. So to refute your assertion that all that has been offered is "rhetoric", here you go.
REGULATIONS FOR WILDERNESS ON THE NATIONAL FORESTS
[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 36, Volume 2]
[Revised as of July 1, 2002]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 36CFR261.16]
[Page 336]
TITLE 36--PARKS, FORESTS, AND PUBLIC PROPERTY
CHAPTER II--FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
PART 261--PROHIBITIONS--Table of Contents
Subpart A--General Prohibitions
Sec. 261.16 National Forest Wilderness.
The following are prohibited in a National Forest Wilderness:
(a) Possessing or using a motor vehicle, motorboat or motorized
equipment except as authorized by Federal Law or regulation.
(b) Possessing or using a hang glider or bicycle.
(c) Landing of aircraft, or dropping or picking up of any material,
supplies, or person by means of aircraft, including a helicopter.
[42 FR 2957, Jan. 14, 1977, as amended at 42 FR 35959, July 13, 1977;
50
T
tjones
Guest
BuzzH
Well-known member
...and the imaginary pretend conversation with Frank Church.
Straight arrow brought the most pertinent fact to the table: bikes aren't allowed in Wilderness and no amount of crying is going to change that.
Mike Lee and his useful idiots are going to have to continue to whimper...
Had to quote this for posterity purpose.
Straight Arrow,
Bicycles, under the 1984-6 CFR are not permitted - the flip flop of action by the Forest Service, backed by the likes of BHA, Earthjustice, Sierra Club to vehemently continue opposition for use in WSA's RWA's etc... continue to fuel the division between our "Public Land Owners".
You espouse this false mantra that the past 54+ years, its been no cycles and you are wrong. You portray as if cycles were excluded... etc - false.
Others, maybe you as well, portray mountain cycles were not introduced until recent.. BULL CRAP.
Mountain biking has existed in one form or another since the dawn of cycling. Few roads were paved in the 19th century, so most early cyclists rode on dirt roads or trails. Some examples of early off-road riding stand out. One is the 25th Infantry Bicycle Corps, a regiment of riders who customized bicycles to carry gear over rough terrain. In August 1896, the riders, black enlisted men and a white lieutenant, rode from Missoula, Montana, to Yellowstone National Park and back—an arduous trip to be sure! Their mission: to test the bicycle for military use in mountainous terrain. The following year they rode still farther, from Missoula to St Louis.
As shared an example of the Forest Service - definition of "mechanical transport" that has flip flopped...;
BuzzH
Well-known member
You were done before you started, and you still cant ride your bike in WA's. Thank you for solidifying my position regarding what kind of "compromise" I want to consider with mechanized travel in WSA's...
BuzzH
Well-known member
Top it:
The following are prohibited in a National Forest Wilderness:
(a) Possessing or using a motor vehicle, motorboat or motorized
equipment except as authorized by Federal Law or regulation.
(b) Possessing or using a hang glider or bicycle.
Amazing the flip flop action - certainly not a 54+ year ban on backcountry cycling. thanks.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
'Doubt if the 25th IBC cycled through the Bob to travel from Missoula to YNP or to St Louis. (Yes, I know the "Bob" didn't exist for another half century or so.)
Regardless of the early ambiguity documented ad nauseum, the "intent" of the 54+ year old Act was / is to exclude bicycles from Wilderness. That intent is borne out by the cited regulation prohibiting bicycles.
Furthermore, until somehow photos of the 25th IBC cycling over the Chinese Wall are produced, I would contend that there have never been significant numbers of bikers in Wilderness.
Regardless of the early ambiguity documented ad nauseum, the "intent" of the 54+ year old Act was / is to exclude bicycles from Wilderness. That intent is borne out by the cited regulation prohibiting bicycles.
Furthermore, until somehow photos of the 25th IBC cycling over the Chinese Wall are produced, I would contend that there have never been significant numbers of bikers in Wilderness.
Last edited:
Your rhetorical repetition is impressive, Straight Arrow.
BuzzH
Well-known member
But not nearly as impressive as the "point" atop the place you hang your hat....
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Thank-you. I could repeat it more slowly if you'd like.
- Status
