Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 227
  1. #101
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,681
    Quote Originally Posted by SS Hack View Post
    Maybe if mountain bikers as a group acted more like backpackers with bikes and no backpacks it would work - the problem is too often they act like motocrossers without engines. This is utterly incompatible with the idea of wilderness.
    Lie. Simple as that.

    What is your "idea of wilderness"? Stepping over horse feces on a trail? Pitching a bright colored tent in a middle of a meadow instead of just rolling by it and going back to your home?

    Here is the problem - one group of users of public lands tries to dictate what the "idea" is. But they are wrong. There is NOTHING wrong or incompatible with cycling. Nothing. The is no erosion, noise, pollution or any philosophical differences.

  2. #102
    fresh fish in stock...... SuperModerator
    Reputation: CHUM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    8,284
    Quote Originally Posted by SS Hack View Post
    ...This is utterly incompatible with the idea of wilderness.
    I believe the original intent of 'wilderness' was to be open to the public for recreation/enjoyment where industrialization would not exist....

    Bikes have proven to be more than manageable over the years, and the impact of riding is equal to that of hiking (according to recent reports).

    Conservation/environmentalism has taken an ugly turn into a nasty exclusionary practice where a minority of fundamentalist 'hikers' believe experiencing nature should be their way, or through a coffee table book if you disagree...

    The PCT currently is in need of trail work (40-50%)...and has been declining in popularity over the past decade....Disregarding what MTB'rs can do to be positive stewards will ultimately hurt the PCT...

    But, this initiative is only for regaining access outside of designated wilderness...
    Visit these 2 places to help advance trail access:
    http://www.sharingthepct.org/
    http://www.facebook.com/SharingThePct

  3. #103
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,223
    Quote Originally Posted by Axe View Post
    Lie. Simple as that.

    What is your "idea of wilderness"? Stepping over horse feces on a trail? Pitching a bright colored tent in a middle of a meadow instead of just rolling by it and going back to your home?

    Here is the problem - one group of users of public lands tries to dictate what the "idea" is. But they are wrong. There is NOTHING wrong or incompatible with cycling. Nothing. The is no erosion, noise, pollution or any philosophical differences.
    Only idiots camp in meadows. Maybe horses should wear diapers.

    Maybe you've never seen an idiot riding around with a boom box tied on his handlebars blasting music. I'm not saying it can't be done, just that there would need to be a more sensitive approach then what often occurs. Maybe we should allow bikes in high use wilderness that already are wrecked, like Tahoe or Yosemite valley - these places are already filled "once a year" stupid backpackers with chairs strapped to their backs anyway.

  4. #104
    mtbr member
    Reputation: imtnbke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    999
    Hi, SS Hack — I think a small percentage of mountain bikers can act in a rudely gonzo way in smaller parks close to cities or destination resorts. I've never found any of those people in anything resembling a Wilderness, though. I mean areas that, like Wilderness, have trail systems that go for tens of miles into remote country. It's just cross-country enthusiasts out there, and they seem to be polite and physically fit outdoor enthusiasts who are just as engaged in their surroundings as Ansel Adams and John Muir must have been.

    On your larger point, Wilderness is an odd construct, unique to the United States in its current form. On the one hand, it's one of the greatest conservation achievements ever: the idea of keeping places roadless and free of infrastructure. It's worked well in that regard. But on the other hand, it ran into a problem in the 1970s and 1980s, when the Forest Service started reversing its 1966 regulation that allowed human-powered mechanical devices, instead adopting an interpretation of the 1964 Wilderness Act that was so severe that key conservation lawmakers like Sen. Frank Church and Rep. Morris K. Udall warned the agency, in 1975 and 1977, that they were going way overboard.

    Church and Udall saw nothing wrong with keeping primitive cabins and similar things in Wilderness, but the Forest Service started taking on a Taliban-like approach, banning everything from footbridges to hitching posts and even much signage, letting trails fall into abandonment, and, incidentally, reinterpreting the Wilderness Act to forbid anything with a wheel—even wheelbarrows for maintenance, bicycles, and baby strollers.

    There is a theory that although this severe interpretation of the Wilderness Act got started under President Carter, it was the Reagan Administration that really liked it, because it had the potential of alienating so many people from Wilderness that little more of it would be created. It's also believed that that's the same reason conservationists like Church and Udall were alarmed. They saw a future of little or no more Wilderness, and regarded that as a threat.

    If that was the plan, it has succeeded brilliantly, and it duped the Sierra Club, Wilderness Society, etc., with a deftness worthy of James Bond. When you write that bicycling "is utterly incompatible with the idea of wilderness," please realize that in 1966 the Forest Service said human-powered mechanical transport was fine. It was only starting in 1977 that the agency started announcing what you're saying. (Even then it dithered, going back and forth on bicycles in Wilderness until 1984, when it finally said no. As a result, people were mountain biking in Wilderness legally in 1983.) Why it decided to do this remains a mystery, because it seemed to have acted on only one or two requests from members of the public. A mystery, that is, unless the conspiracy theory is correct.

    The outcome, whether intended or not, has been disastrous for Wilderness conservation. The conservation movement relies on an ever dwindling cohort of white people in their 60s, 70s, and 80s, many of them reactionary HOHAs, for its Wilderness stance, and that's a sure loser over time for the same demographic reason that the Republican Party can't elect a president. Meanwhile, extractive industries have been happy to watch the Wilderness backers shrink into their reactionary corner, saying no to bicycles, no to snow kites, no, no, no, like George Wallace standing at the schoolhouse door. It's been exceedingly difficult to create new Wilderness areas for many years now, although Obama did get one bill through early in his term.

  5. #105
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,681
    Quote Originally Posted by SS Hack View Post
    Only idiots camp in meadows. Maybe horses should wear diapers.
    Well, I see plenty of those "idiots". Certainly way more of them then those phantom "motocrosser" bicyclists you alluded - anywhere where you have to pedal a little to get to.

    In short, your argument does not hold water. There is nothing more unnatural to a bicycle then to any of the hiking and horse packing equipment, there is less impact - as bicycle, unlike hikers, always stick to established trails, and they do not wear trails any more than hikers.

    Yes, horses should wear diapers. Once they do, maybe we can revisit the argument about bicycle "impact".
    Last edited by Axe; 11-11-2012 at 09:31 PM.

  6. #106
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,681
    Quote Originally Posted by imtnbke View Post
    like George Wallace standing at the schoolhouse door.
    Quote Originally Posted by George Wallace
    I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.
    Apt comparison.

  7. #107
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    7,927
    Quote Originally Posted by SS Hack View Post
    Only idiots camp in meadows. Maybe horses should wear diapers.

    Maybe you've never seen an idiot riding around with a boom box tied on his handlebars blasting music. I'm not saying it can't be done, just that there would need to be a more sensitive approach then what often occurs. Maybe we should allow bikes in high use wilderness that already are wrecked, like Tahoe or Yosemite valley - these places are already filled "once a year" stupid backpackers with chairs strapped to their backs anyway.
    I'm not following your reasoning.
    Faster is not always better, but it's always more fun

  8. #108
    mtb'er
    Reputation: Empty_Beer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,910
    Quote Originally Posted by Axe View Post
    Bollocks. I assume you hike naked on the trail? Do you take your gas stove with you? Backpack? GPS? Tent?

    Ban on bike travel in Wilderness is utterly idiotic. There is NO justification, but the exclusionary ideas of misguided people like you.
    Axe- if you are following the heated debate on Facebook, you'll see that Jfloren is absolutely "for" mtb access on the non-wilderness portions of the PCT (1,600 miles). While I agree with your sentiments about access to the Wilderness, that is unfortunately a completely different battle and not the focus of the PCT initiative.

    www.facebook.com/SharingThePct ... Oct. 28th under "Recent posts by others..."

  9. #109
    J-Flo
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    588
    Quote Originally Posted by Axe View Post
    Bollocks. I assume you hike naked on the trail? Do you take your gas stove with you? Backpack? GPS? Tent?

    Ban on bike travel in Wilderness is utterly idiotic. There is NO justification, but the exclusionary ideas of misguided people like you.
    Whoa there, buddy. Your attack is misdirected, so I won't take it personally. I am strongly in favor of mountain bike access to the PCT, in areas outside Wilderness.

    Bike access to the Wilderness is a completely separate issue, and we need to address the issues one at a time. This discussion is about the PCT. A large number of the people who want to keep bikes off the PCT are focused on the Wilderness areas, and it is perfectly appropriate to point out to them that we aren't talking here about opening bike access to those portions of the PCT.

    Contrary to your mistaken assumption, I also oppose an outright ban on bikes in Wilderness, but that is not relevant to this discussion. Trying to modify/allow exceptions to the federal ban on mountain bikes in Wilderness is a much larger issue that will involve a much larger group of interested people and will obviously take years of effort. I believe it will happen within the next 4-10 years though.

    I also think there are many Wilderness areas, including certain high Sierra stretches of the PCT, that are so obviously pristine and fragile, and with such sketchy or nonexistent trails that allowing cyclists would be a bad idea. I have indeed taken my tent and backback and trekking poles to such places. I'm pretty sure I left no trace. My favorite Wilderness spots are not on the PCT, but are accessible only via cross-country trekking with no trails at all. I've been to wonderful places in the Wilderness that were extremely difficult to reach on foot, I'm darn sure that no horse could get there, and feel it wouldn't be right to see day-trippers on their bikes there if they were crazy enough to try it. That's my opinion, and I am entitled to it.

    And no, I've never hiked naked on the PCT (it would probably be too chilly). There's nothing like a swim in a high Sierra lake after a long hike (or bike ride) though. Cheers.

  10. #110
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,223
    Quote Originally Posted by Axe View Post
    Well, I see plenty of those "idiots". Certainly way more of them then those phantom "motocrosser" bicyclists you alluded - anywhere where you have to pedal a little to get to.

    In short, your argument does not hold water. There is nothing more unnatural to a bicycle then to any of the hiking and horse packing equipment, there is less impact - as bicycle, unlike hikers, always stick to established trails, and they do not wear trails any more than hikers.

    Yes, horses should wear diapers. Once they do, maybe we can revisit the argument about bicycle "impact".
    Many of my favorite Sierra trails involve so much elevation gain (5,000 feet over 5-6 miles) that it weeds out "meadow campers" and other idiots and maybe it would weed out their biking counterparts. I would hate to be struggling up one of these climbs with a pack and have hoards of biking coming down the switch backs at high rates of speed. Now, if they acted like me and slowed down for safety and a little conversion ...

  11. #111
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,223
    Quote Originally Posted by Jfloren View Post
    Whoa there, buddy. Your attack is misdirected, so I won't take it personally. I am strongly in favor of mountain bike access to the PCT, in areas outside Wilderness.

    Bike access to the Wilderness is a completely separate issue, and we need to address the issues one at a time. This discussion is about the PCT. A large number of the people who want to keep bikes off the PCT are focused on the Wilderness areas, and it is perfectly appropriate to point out to them that we aren't talking here about opening bike access to those portions of the PCT.

    Contrary to your mistaken assumption, I also oppose an outright ban on bikes in Wilderness, but that is not relevant to this discussion. Trying to modify/allow exceptions to the federal ban on mountain bikes in Wilderness is a much larger issue that will involve a much larger group of interested people and will obviously take years of effort. I believe it will happen within the next 4-10 years though.

    I also think there are many Wilderness areas, including certain high Sierra stretches of the PCT, that are so obviously pristine and fragile, and with such sketchy or nonexistent trails that allowing cyclists would be a bad idea. I have indeed taken my tent and backback and trekking poles to such places. I'm pretty sure I left no trace. My favorite Wilderness spots are not on the PCT, but are accessible only via cross-country trekking with no trails at all. I've been to wonderful places in the Wilderness that were extremely difficult to reach on foot, I'm darn sure that no horse could get there, and feel it wouldn't be right to see day-trippers on their bikes there if they were crazy enough to try it. That's my opinion, and I am entitled to it.

    And no, I've never hiked naked on the PCT (it would probably be too chilly). There's nothing like a swim in a high Sierra lake after a long hike (or bike ride) though. Cheers.
    Most of my favorite spots are also off trail or reached via old brutal "routes" with lot of scrambling. I never see horses or even other hikers. I only wear trail runners and carry minimal gear to minimize impact. Bikes would be a bad idea in these areas; but frankly, not many bikers could ride this stuff anyway. I also know one trail up a 14er not in wilderness that we could ride right now ... of course it would be the most vicious ride of your life. It's up an old mining "road" and would offer a 6k decent with zero hikers - I know lots of places like this, all bike legal in the eastern Sierra.

    I read somewhere that fat bikes have way less impact than regular bikes; if true, this could offer a case for increased access.

  12. #112
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    7,927
    You sound like an elitist. I'm not sure I would want to stop and chat with you.
    Faster is not always better, but it's always more fun

  13. #113
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,223
    Quote Originally Posted by zorg View Post
    You sound like an elitist. I'm not sure I would want to stop and chat with you.
    Why because I think some places aren't well suited to bikes?

    If you're having trouble convincing mountain bikers on a mountain bike site that mountain bikes should be allowed in wilderness, you might want to fine tune your arguments before going to the Forest Service and other non mountain bikers.

  14. #114
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    7,927
    Quote Originally Posted by SS Hack View Post
    Why because I think some places aren't well suited to bikes?

    If you're having trouble convincing mountain bikers on a mountain bike site that mountain bikes should be allowed in wilderness, you might want to fine tune your arguments before going to the Forest Service and other non mountain bikers.
    Clearly, you've made your mind up and I'm not here to convince you of anything. If I read your argument properly, you like wilderness that's so hard that only a few can use it, and you would be bummed to meet cyclists on the trail.

    Frankly, when it comes to wilderness, I don't think that cyclists are interested in long hike a bike anyway.
    Faster is not always better, but it's always more fun

  15. #115
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,223
    Quote Originally Posted by zorg View Post
    Clearly, you've made your mind up and I'm not here to convince you of anything. If I read your argument properly, you like wilderness that's so hard that only a few can use it, and you would be bummed to meet cyclists on the trail.

    Frankly, when it comes to wilderness, I don't think that cyclists are interested in long hike a bike anyway.
    I'm concerned with safety issues on tight dangerous trails to be honest. I don't want to fall 1,000 feet after a low-skill biker hits me.

    Sounds like this is all a mute point anyway as most aren't up to the physical challenge as you point out. Meanwhile that bike legal 14er is waiting for you right now.

  16. #116
    mtbr member
    Reputation: imtnbke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    999
    Quote Originally Posted by SS Hack View Post
    I also know one trail up a 14er not in wilderness that we could ride right now ... of course it would be the most vicious ride of your life. It's up an old mining "road" and would offer a 6k decent with zero hikers - I know lots of places like this, all bike legal in the eastern Sierra.
    I assume you're referring to the ride up Black Canyon or Silver Canyon or some similar name (I can't remember it) that gets you on the jeep road to Barcroft Observatory and White Mountain Peak (14,246' elev.). Is that right?

    I've ridden to the top of White Mountain Peak. It was an incredible ride, difficult because of the rough surface in the final two miles and the lack of oxygen. But I did it from the locked gate at the ~11,000-foot level and not from all the way down near the hamlet of Laws.

    If it isn't White Mountain Peak, what route are you mentioning? I'd like to try it.

  17. #117
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by SS Hack View Post
    I'm concerned with safety issues on tight dangerous trails to be honest. I don't want to fall 1,000 feet after a low-skill biker hits me.
    I'm kinda on your side when it comes to having bikers whizzing by you when you're climbing up some steep remote trail. But when you think about it, how likely is that chance?

    If it would be legal, how many people would come down the Mountaineer's route on Whitney on their bike? And do we need a law to prevent the one guy a year, who is crazy and skilled enough to do it, from attempting it?

    The back-country makes its own laws wrt "allowing" people on bikes. Some places are just not suitable for riding and so bikers won't go there no matter what. And as I pointed out above, for the few that will try anyway you don't need a law.

    The problem is most likely on the parts of the trail system which is close to "civilization" because this is where most people will go for hiking and biking. And while it might be an inconvenience for hikers having to share the trail with bikes 5 miles from the parking lot it's gonna be complete non-issue 50 miles from the trail head. Not only will you weed out 99% of the yahoos so far out, people who ride there also know that they are far away from help and will ride accordingly.

  18. #118
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,223
    Quote Originally Posted by imtnbke View Post
    I assume you're referring to the ride up Black Canyon or Silver Canyon or some similar name (I can't remember it) that gets you on the jeep road to Barcroft Observatory and White Mountain Peak (14,246' elev.). Is that right?

    I've ridden to the top of White Mountain Peak. It was an incredible ride, difficult because of the rough surface in the final two miles and the lack of oxygen. But I did it from the locked gate at the ~11,000-foot level and not from all the way down near the hamlet of Laws.

    If it isn't White Mountain Peak, what route are you mentioning? I'd like to try it.
    No the one I'm thinking of is in the high Sierra across 395. I'll look up the name when I find my climbing guidebook. Lots of legal stuff right now in the Whites as you mention.

  19. #119
    mtbr member
    Reputation: imtnbke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    999
    Thanks!

  20. #120
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,223
    Quote Originally Posted by erisch View Post
    I'm kinda on your side when it comes to having bikers whizzing by you when you're climbing up some steep remote trail. But when you think about it, how likely is that chance?

    If it would be legal, how many people would come down the Mountaineer's route on Whitney on their bike? And do we need a law to prevent the one guy a year, who is crazy and skilled enough to do it, from attempting it?

    The back-country makes its own laws wrt "allowing" people on bikes. Some places are just not suitable for riding and so bikers won't go there no matter what. And as I pointed out above, for the few that will try anyway you don't need a law.

    The problem is most likely on the parts of the trail system which is close to "civilization" because this is where most people will go for hiking and biking. And while it might be an inconvenience for hikers having to share the trail with bikes 5 miles from the parking lot it's gonna be complete non-issue 50 miles from the trail head. Not only will you weed out 99% of the yahoos so far out, people who ride there also know that they are far away from help and will ride accordingly.
    You make a good point. The real problem is usage. I know many places I can drive to and collect endless firewood and/or giant chucks of obsidian and never harm the environment because nobody goes there.

  21. #121
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,681
    Quote Originally Posted by erisch View Post
    If it would be legal, how many people would come down the Mountaineer's route on Whitney on their bike?
    I will certainly try biking across Sierra in a few places. I doubt I will meet many people, hikers included.

    Heck, I often ride in a local open space, twenty minutes from a major urban area, and do not see people for hours.

    Perceived possibility of "trail conflicts" is way, way, way over blown. It does not really happen, especially with hikers (since they are usually well trained, and do not get spooked). The only conflict is in some militant anti-human eco-terrorists minds.

    And certainly, there are trails not suitable to bikes. So nobody will ride them. Plenty of legal trails nobody rides. People are generally not idiots. No need for an overbearing bureaucracy to review every little trail. Simplest rule is that if a trail is suitable to horses, it is certainly more then suitable for cycling.

  22. #122
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    7,927
    Quote Originally Posted by Axe View Post
    I will certainly try biking across Sierra in a few places. I doubt I will meet many people, hikers included.

    Heck, I often ride in a local open space, twenty minutes from a major urban area, and do not see people for hours.

    Perceived possibility of "trail conflicts" is way, way, way over blown. It does not really happen, especially with hikers (since they are usually well trained, and do not get spooked). The only conflict is in some militant anti-human eco-terrorists minds.

    And certainly, there are trails not suitable to bikes. So nobody will ride them. Plenty of legal trails nobody rides. People are generally not idiots. No need for an overbearing bureaucracy to review every little trail. Simplest rule is that if a trail is suitable to horses, it is certainly more then suitable for cycling.
    2 miles seems to be the cut off. Most of the backcountry is empty and has plenty of space for everybody.
    Faster is not always better, but it's always more fun

  23. #123
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,223
    Quote Originally Posted by zorg View Post
    2 miles seems to be the cut off. Most of the backcountry is empty and has plenty of space for everybody.
    People are very lazy.

  24. #124
    fresh fish in stock...... SuperModerator
    Reputation: CHUM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    8,284
    Quote Originally Posted by SS Hack View Post
    People are very lazy.



    when you're right you're right
    Visit these 2 places to help advance trail access:
    http://www.sharingthepct.org/
    http://www.facebook.com/SharingThePct

  25. #125
    It's about showing up.
    Reputation: Berkeley Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,340
    "Conflict" is, rather, a device utilized to exclude us. "Environmental impact" is utilized as a device as well. The idea of conflict and threat resonate with a remarkable number of people regardless of the facts.

    In working with the State and IMBA the idea of real threat and perceived thread is clearly delineated in discussions which detoxifies things quite a bit. Further, efforts by EBRPD and the State to change current tactical impact of EIRs and the consideration of impact in a different fashion is key for opening up our access. The hikers and equestrians are not happy about these efforts as they make it "too easy" for mtb to get access.
    Last edited by Berkeley Mike; 11-12-2012 at 07:11 PM.
    I don't rattle.

Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •