Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 401 to 441 of 441
  1. #401
    mtb'er
    Reputation: Empty_Beer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,624
    No words... a wildernut snowflake bullied a local magazine into pulling an article The ASS wrote about bikes and Wilderness, plus other demands

    Editor's Note: Human Powered | Adventure Sports Journal

  2. #402
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    9,132
    Quote Originally Posted by Empty_Beer View Post
    No words... a wildernut snowflake bullied a local magazine into pulling an article The ASS wrote about bikes and Wilderness, plus other demands

    Editor's Note: Human Powered | Adventure Sports Journal
    Fascists

    Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk
    Faster is not always better, but it's always more fun

  3. #403
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    70
    ^ A group of fascists. Wanna bet they're from Marin?

  4. #404
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,746
    Quote Originally Posted by Callender View Post
    ^ A group of fascists. Wanna bet they're from Marin?
    Yeah it doesn't surprise me at all.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  5. #405
    mtbr member
    Reputation: timetraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    314
    Wow. Guess he never learned about handling bullies when he grew up. Probably gave them his lunch money for years.
    Well he did ask for feedback so I wrote him.

    "Hi Matt,

    I strongly disagree with your stance on removing an article on Wilderness access for Mountain Bikers. Pandering to a few people with the time to write a few letters or emails to your sponsors is sending exactly the wrong message. Adventure Sports Journal should be about adventure sports and what is going on in those sports. Certainly detailing one group's views should not be censored. If others disagree you can print a rebuttal or response but to cave in to a threatened advertiser campaign to censor your magazine is really the opposite of adventure reporting. I understand you're running a business but this is a dangerous first step in acceding to the demands of a minority group and I believe this is just the beginning of the demands you will be receiving now that you have rewarded these extremists. When all you feel safe in featuring is road riders you will lose, and much more than if you had bravely taken a stance in the first place. How about, "Understand your concern and we can print a short response, thank you".
    I also believe your sponsors are bright enough to know that the threat of a boycott if they advertise in your magazine is hollow. I backpack, climb, and surf and I would go out of my way to support your advertisers who tell these people they support freedom of speech, not censorship. I bet most of the "Get off my lawn" people who complained aren't exactly buying much adventure gear."
    I never said most of the things I said - Yogi Berra

  6. #406
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    152
    Also, if they published the names of companies that would boycott the magazine, I'd be happy to shift my spending away from those companies.

  7. #407
    Axe
    Axe is online now
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,232
    Quote Originally Posted by Callender View Post
    ^ A group of fascists. Wanna bet they're from Marin?
    We are dealing with a group from Woodside that is no better. I guess that is a property of spoiled rich people with too much free time and deep hatred towards people that is being masked as care of nature.

  8. #408
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,746
    Quote Originally Posted by Axe View Post
    We are dealing with a group from Woodside that is no better. I guess that is a property of spoiled rich people with too much free time and deep hatred towards people that is being masked as care of nature.
    I think this is an effective summary


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  9. #409
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Silent_G's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    342
    Won't be paying any attention to ASJ anymore....cowards.

  10. #410
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sfgiantsfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,500
    I can't believe the caved like that. If it is the Marin group they would only lose about 6 readers.
    Last edited by sfgiantsfan; 4 Weeks Ago at 04:52 PM.
    I'm sick of all the Irish stereotypes, as soon as I finish this beer I"m punching someone

  11. #411
    Your Best Friend
    Reputation: Silentfoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,599
    Quote Originally Posted by sfgiantsfan View Post
    I can't believe the caved like that. If it is the Marin group they would only loose about 6 readers.
    Or lose them. Either way.

    Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
    I'm a mountain bike guide in southwest Utah

  12. #412
    mtbr member
    Reputation: evdog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    1,514
    So who was this group that bullied ASJ? Would be good to know...

  13. #413
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sfgiantsfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Silentfoe View Post
    Or lose them. Either way.

    Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
    ooops
    I'm sick of all the Irish stereotypes, as soon as I finish this beer I"m punching someone

  14. #414
    Now with flavor!!
    Reputation: kidwoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    5,605
    Never heard of the ASJ but in that move they're essentially taking the stance, or at the very least siding with the stance that mountainbikes are not part of whatever 'human powered' coverage they want to promote.

    So fvck'em.


    And on a side note, thanks to everyone who's stood up for e-bikes to make their decision less obvious.
    STRAVA: Enabling dorks everywhere to get trails shut down........ all for the sake of a race on the internet.

  15. #415
    mtbr member
    Reputation: b0bg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    185
    ASJ is a regular feature at MBoSC trailwork events, I'm sad they felt they had to cave to bullies, but they're generally on the side of good. I won't armchair quarterback their decision, they have a business to run, and won't do any good (or sponsor any bike friendly events) if they're out of business.

    That said, I've seen positive outcomes from bringing these sort of threats out into the daylight. Name these cowards who threaten privately but won't own up to their actions. Publish their demand letter and let ASJ readers know who they are. Even if they still felt the need to bow out of the discussion about bikes in wilderness, it would be empowering for ASJ to make clear who they were being blackmailed by. I hope they think about drafting a formal reply to the people who threatened them, and publish the whole transcript for their readership to see.

    If the people making these threats are so righteous they can defend their position in public with facts and research or show themselves to be the same class of elitist, nimby, entitled haters we all assume them to be.

  16. #416
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,746

    Sustainable Trail Coalition is still at it!

    Quote Originally Posted by b0bg View Post
    ASJ is a regular feature at MBoSC trailwork events, I'm sad they felt they had to cave to bullies, but they're generally on the side of good. I won't armchair quarterback their decision, they have a business to run, and won't do any good (or sponsor any bike friendly events) if they're out of business.

    That said, I've seen positive outcomes from bringing these sort of threats out into the daylight. Name these cowards who threaten privately but won't own up to their actions. Publish their demand letter and let ASJ readers know who they are. Even if they still felt the need to bow out of the discussion about bikes in wilderness, it would be empowering for ASJ to make clear who they were being blackmailed by. I hope they think about drafting a formal reply to the people who threatened them, and publish the whole transcript for their readership to see.

    If the people making these threats are so righteous they can defend their position in public with facts and research or show themselves to be the same class of elitist, nimby, entitled haters we all assume them to be.
    Post of the year here.

    I'm constantly baffled by the lack of support for STC. Doubly so when I hear "there could be a negative backlash from our partners for our support." I'd bet in every case the partners referenced would slit the throats of off road cyclists and their access if they could get away with it.

    That being said ASJ isn't an advocacy group and the margins on publishing are historically thin at the moment. I can't blame them for caving to a boycott. It would be great if they published the threatening letter and a response.

    Fingers crossed.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  17. #417
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    410
    this is only me personal opinion, not that of any organization that I'm a part of:

    support STC. Good people on a good mission and completely complementary to other advocacy approaches. We, as a mountain biking community, need to seriously up our game on advocacy and that's going to require everyone to give something...time, money, etc...
    Support local trail-building: www.mbosc.org
    Help our most vulnerable population: www.goodkarmabikes.org

  18. #418
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    32
    Can some of y'all STC-lovin folks school me on their goal(s)?

    I totally get wanting to preserve existing bike trails in newly designated wilderness, but have a hard time understanding why opening existing wilderness to bikes is a good idea.

    Can someone explain, or point me in the direction of a thorough policy statement? I'm well-schooled in the Wilderness Act and public land policy, and a (**gag**) lawyer, but hold my hand. I've also read Sen. Lee's bill from the 114th Congress. Persuade me.

    Going one step further, all else being equal, it seems a much better investment of time and money for MTBers would be expanding trail access in non-Wilderness portions of federal land dedicated to multiple use as well as expanding/retaining access on private land and state park land.

  19. #419
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    490
    Simple: Because Wilderness has been regularly expanded. If you define 'newly designated' as 'within the past decade', then your statement might make sense. But 'existing' wilderness includes places which were only designated such in the last year or two. (See: Boulder-White Clouds).

    Some people will say some of the existing 'old' wilderness also was supposed to have bikes included from long ago. (see: parts of Pt Reyes).

    There is also the precedent, others love to cite things like "well the feds say no so we say no locally, it's best practice".

  20. #420
    mtb'er
    Reputation: Empty_Beer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,624
    Quote Originally Posted by meter-man View Post
    Can some of y'all STC-lovin folks school me on their goal(s)?

    I totally get wanting to preserve existing bike trails in newly designated wilderness, but have a hard time understanding why opening existing wilderness to bikes is a good idea.

    Can someone explain, or point me in the direction of a thorough policy statement? I'm well-schooled in the Wilderness Act and public land policy, and a (**gag**) lawyer, but hold my hand. I've also read Sen. Lee's bill from the 114th Congress. Persuade me.

    Going one step further, all else being equal, it seems a much better investment of time and money for MTBers would be expanding trail access in non-Wilderness portions of federal land dedicated to multiple use as well as expanding/retaining access on private land and state park land.
    Goal: Reasonable human powered bicycle access in Wilderness, on a case-by-case basis, as it was during the first 20 years of the Act. STC decided to pursue this legislatively through congress as the best option.

    I'm pretty sure there's nothing I can say that will persuade you this is worth fighting for, unless you live in an area where trails you rode or maintained were taken away by designated Wilderness/Wilderness Study Area or recommended Wilderness.... or you are a bikepacker... or you are an adventure rider that knows how to share trails.

    Maybe this will help answer some of your quiestions though: FAQ/Resources - Sustainable Trails Coalition

    IMBA/IMBA chapters and other bike advocacy organizations are investing time and money into expanding access in non-Wilderness lands... STC is only seeking to end the the losses and re-gain some of what has been taken away in arguably some of our most scenic lands.

    How about you explain why it sounds like you think opening existing wilderness to bikes is not a good idea? If it involves quoting from the WA "....no other form of mechanical transport...", we'll be off on the wrong foot. :-)

  21. #421
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    9,132
    Don't forget the "but wilderness is only 3-4% of US land mass" excuse. That's always funny too.

    Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk
    Faster is not always better, but it's always more fun

  22. #422
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by Empty_Beer View Post
    Goal: Reasonable human powered bicycle access in Wilderness, on a case-by-case basis, as it was during the first 20 years of the Act. STC decided to pursue this legislatively through congress as the best option.

    I'm pretty sure there's nothing I can say that will persuade you this is worth fighting for, unless you live in an area where trails you rode or maintained were taken away by designated Wilderness/Wilderness Study Area or recommended Wilderness.... or you are a bikepacker... or you are an adventure rider that knows how to share trails.

    Maybe this will help answer some of your quiestions though: FAQ/Resources - Sustainable Trails Coalition

    IMBA/IMBA chapters and other bike advocacy organizations are investing time and money into expanding access in non-Wilderness lands... STC is only seeking to end the the losses and re-gain some of what has been taken away in arguably some of our most scenic lands.

    How about you explain why it sounds like you think opening existing wilderness to bikes is not a good idea? If it involves quoting from the WA "....no other form of mechanical transport...", we'll be off on the wrong foot. :-)
    Thanks for the context, solid response, and link.

    I completely understand why people would be very angry to have trails they worked on and maintained be taken away from them. There's a similar dynamic, but even stronger, for folks who have had their economic livelihood (e.g., cattle-grazing or oil exploration) taken away as a result of other public land management changes.

    To me, Sen. Lee's bill had the ratchet in the wrong direction (default to "open to bikes" rather than the opposite). That seems to lead directly to most Wilderness being open to bikes. And, of course, local land managers reasonably respond primarily to local pressure rather than "national" pressure, so that dynamic would be further accelerated.

    Ultimately, I think one's view of bikes in Wilderness come down to your basic philosophy of the purpose of Wilderness Areas. If you think Wilderness is about preventing mining and real estate development, bikes are a drop in the bucket, and certainly not relevant. If you think about Wilderness as a place reserved and removed from the incursions of modern life, leave your gawddamn iPhone/Gopro/etc at home.

    Thx 4 the edumacation.

  23. #423
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    9,132
    Quote Originally Posted by meter-man View Post
    Thanks for the context, solid response, and link.

    I completely understand why people would be very angry to have trails they worked on and maintained be taken away from them. There's a similar dynamic, but even stronger, for folks who have had their economic livelihood (e.g., cattle-grazing or oil exploration) taken away as a result of other public land management changes.

    To me, Sen. Lee's bill had the ratchet in the wrong direction (default to "open to bikes" rather than the opposite). That seems to lead directly to most Wilderness being open to bikes. And, of course, local land managers reasonably respond primarily to local pressure rather than "national" pressure, so that dynamic would be further accelerated.

    Ultimately, I think one's view of bikes in Wilderness come down to your basic philosophy of the purpose of Wilderness Areas. If you think Wilderness is about preventing mining and real estate development, bikes are a drop in the bucket, and certainly not relevant. If you think about Wilderness as a place reserved and removed from the incursions of modern life, leave your gawddamn iPhone/Gopro/etc at home.

    Thx 4 the edumacation.
    Incursions from modern life excuse does not withstand scrutiny. Wilderness concept basically implies that it should look like the late 1800s (I.e. without native Americans but with non native horses). It is just a pretext for folks to rationalize the ban on human powered bikes.

    Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk
    Faster is not always better, but it's always more fun

  24. #424
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,746
    Quote Originally Posted by zorg View Post
    Incursions from modern life excuse does not withstand scrutiny. Wilderness concept basically implies that it should look like the late 1800s (I.e. without native Americans but with non native horses). It is just a pretext for folks to rationalize the ban on human powered bikes.

    Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk
    The current interpretation of Wilderness is a vehicle (boom) for holding on to the status quo.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  25. #425
    Axe
    Axe is online now
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,232
    Quote Originally Posted by meter-man View Post
    That seems to lead directly to most Wilderness being open to bikes. And, of course, local land managers reasonably respond primarily to local pressure rather than "national" pressure, so that dynamic would be further accelerated.
    That would make sense, and that would be great.

    There is no reason to exclude bicycles, but allow horses on any trail that can accommodate either.

    Important consideration is that discrimination against cycling that is enshrined in the current misguided interpretation of the Wilderness act serves as a blueprint for management of other public lands, on state and local level. Fighting to overturn the wilderness blanket ban may be the most effective way to improve access elsewhere.

  26. #426
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by Axe View Post
    There is no reason to exclude bicycles, but allow horses on any trail that can accommodate either.

    Important consideration is that discrimination against cycling that is enshrined in the current misguided interpretation of the Wilderness act serves as a blueprint for management of other public lands, on state and local level. Fighting to overturn the wilderness blanket ban may be the most effective way to improve access elsewhere.
    I am total agreement that horses cause 100x more impact than bikes. There's no impact-based argument that should lead to exclusion of bikes if horses are allowed.

    Unfortunately, the Wilderness Act does indeed enshrine a John Muir-esque view of wilderness - devoid of Native Americans but traversed by non-native horses. It's right in the damn law. "Wilderness" is defined as:

    DEFINITION OF WILDERNESS
    (c) A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value . . .

    That sure sounds like Muir's fantasy vision for wilderness.

    And there's also this:

    (c) Except as specifically provided for in this Act, and subject to existing private rights, there shall be no commercial enterprise and no permanent road within any wilderness area designated by this Act and except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of this Act (including measures required in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the area), there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any such area.

    USFS interpretation of WA in 1966 said this was limited to objects "propelled by a nonliving power source". . . and agency interpretations of laws they implement are entitled to deference. But then USFS changed its tune in the 80s and added bikes.

    Anyhoo, I better shut my trap since it's clear yall are way more invested in this than me. I'll keep working on opening up and maintaining access on trails, but in urban, suburban, and WUI areas. Good luck.

  27. #427
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    9,132
    Quote Originally Posted by meter-man View Post
    I am total agreement that horses cause 100x more impact than bikes. There's no impact-based argument that should lead to exclusion of bikes if horses are allowed.

    Unfortunately, the Wilderness Act does indeed enshrine a John Muir-esque view of wilderness - devoid of Native Americans but traversed by non-native horses. It's right in the damn law. "Wilderness" is defined as:

    DEFINITION OF WILDERNESS
    (c) A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value . . .

    That sure sounds like Muir's fantasy vision for wilderness.

    And there's also this:

    (c) Except as specifically provided for in this Act, and subject to existing private rights, there shall be no commercial enterprise and no permanent road within any wilderness area designated by this Act and except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of this Act (including measures required in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the area), there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any such area.

    USFS interpretation of WA in 1966 said this was limited to objects "propelled by a nonliving power source". . . and agency interpretations of laws they implement are entitled to deference. But then USFS changed its tune in the 80s and added bikes.

    Anyhoo, I better shut my trap since it's clear yall are way more invested in this than me. I'll keep working on opening up and maintaining access on trails, but in urban, suburban, and WUI areas. Good luck.
    Looks like you drank the kool aid and made up your mind already. Thanks for working on opening new trails. Let's just hope they don't get shut down when they magically become part of Wilderness.

    Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk
    Faster is not always better, but it's always more fun

  28. #428
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    32
    Touche.

    For real though, that BWC deal is fuct. "Imba got rolled on this. Thank the motorized community and Idaho's GOP legislators. 600,000 monument with bikes allowed or 275,000 acre wilderness with no bikes allowed and gerrymandered around motorized playgrounds. Never seen a snowmobile club in favor of wilderness until this bill went through.

    http://woodriverbike.org/loss-in-the-boulder-white-clouds-by-tom-flynn/"

    Had no idea it was that bad.

  29. #429
    mtbr member
    Reputation: evdog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    1,514
    Quote Originally Posted by meter-man View Post
    For real though, that BWC deal is fuct. "Imba got rolled on this. Thank the motorized community and Idaho's GOP legislators. 600,000 monument with bikes allowed or 275,000 acre wilderness with no bikes allowed and gerrymandered around motorized playgrounds. Never seen a snowmobile club in favor of wilderness until this bill went through
    Don't forget business interests. Rules for national monuments can be more restrictive to mining than wilderness designation - since the mining act pre-dates the wilderness act existing claims are often grandfathered.

  30. #430
    beater
    Reputation: evasive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,013
    Quote Originally Posted by meter-man View Post
    I am total agreement that horses cause 100x more impact than bikes. There's no impact-based argument that should lead to exclusion of bikes if horses are allowed.

    Unfortunately, the Wilderness Act does indeed enshrine a John Muir-esque view of wilderness - devoid of Native Americans but traversed by non-native horses. It's right in the damn law. "Wilderness" is defined as:

    DEFINITION OF WILDERNESS
    (c) A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value . . .

    That sure sounds like Muir's fantasy vision for wilderness.
    http://helenair.com/news/natural-res...60da177dd.html

  31. #431
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CrozCountry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,363
    Quote Originally Posted by meter-man View Post
    Ultimately, I think one's view of bikes in Wilderness come down to your basic philosophy of the purpose of Wilderness Areas. If you think Wilderness is about preventing mining and real estate development, bikes are a drop in the bucket, and certainly not relevant. If you think about Wilderness as a place reserved and removed from the incursions of modern life, leave your gawddamn iPhone/Gopro/etc at home.
    Either way you look at it mining is still allowed in some wilderness areas, which makes the whole designation little bogus for whatever goal it tries to achieve.

    It would be nice to see banning non native animals and mining.

  32. #432
    mtb'er
    Reputation: Empty_Beer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,624

    Sustainable Trail Coalition is still at it!

    Never mind. Tomato... Tomahto... Pointless debate.
    Last edited by Empty_Beer; 3 Weeks Ago at 08:27 AM.

  33. #433
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by CrozCountry View Post
    Either way you look at it mining is still allowed in some wilderness areas, which makes the whole designation little bogus for whatever goal it tries to achieve.

    It would be nice to see banning non native animals and mining.
    Agree. Some of the post-96 NMs allow mining to occur under pre-existing rights; same with WAs.

    Completely agree - that's why I noted "Muir's fantasy vision for wilderness". Muir and a lot of the preservationists wanted preservation without Native Americans, or at least a landscape they pretended had never been traversed, used, or occupied by humans. The article you link to is right on. (I'll also note that Muir the sheepherder had no problem with grazing in delicate alpine environments, which have caused far more destruction than a million MTBers ever would.)

    I don't agree with that part of Muir's vision, but I do think that vision motivated and informed a lot of the drive towards establishing the Wilderness Act. Even if it wasn't based in history or science. Or correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by Empty_Beer View Post
    Wait.... you went there.. but then you edited/neutered it? Tough to say in these retarded MTBR forums.
    Edited it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Empty_Beer View Post
    Anyway, you summoned the "...has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation..."

    You're visualizing indigenous people smoking peace pipes in their tee-pees prior to going on a "walkabout" or riding bareback on their appaloosa's... and hi-tech hiking, backpacking, rock climbing, rafting, kayaking, skiing and modern horseback riding aren't registering with your personal preference for "Wilderness". Cool. But "primitive and unconfined recreation" has nothing to do with indigenous people or Lewis & Clark. It defines recreation without borders, snack bars, kiosks, ranger stations, bathrooms, roads, wi-fi, etc. Riding/pushing/carrying a bicycle in the rugged backcountry on one's own terms doesn't require non-primitive amenities.
    Good point - I like your read.

    Quote Originally Posted by Empty_Beer View Post
    You can put your stake in the ground on a semantic basis, but you will likely be surprised to learn that semantics are the weakest argument for the bicycle prohibition.... thus I won't waste my time with "...no other form of mechanical transport..." You suck for invoking that phrase because it shows you don't know jack sheet about stuff that lead up to the passing of the Wilderness Act of 1964. If you backcountry ski in Wilderness areas, you are likely violating the words you promote for your personal vision for Wilderness.
    I suck? I'm just reading the law and regs that govern WAs. If you (or STC) want to change the status quo, you have to change the law or regs. I know you know that, and that's the whole point of Lee's bill.

    Interpreting that phrase is a big battle ground. Does drilling bolts and aid climbing on alpine walls count as a "form of mechanical transport"? Does backcountry skiing that relies on mechanical bindings? How about snowshoeing? What about helicopters for SAR? With such a malleable phrase, there is a lot of disagreement about what this includes -- that's why I said it comes down to your vision of the purpose of Wilderness.

    So, as much as the law or regs need to change to accommodate bikes, you also need people to change their vision of Wilderness in order to get the change you want. Telling me I (or others) suck for citing the words in the statute won't get you there. Giving concrete reasons like the ones above will.

    I thought about this a lot last night, and Zorg's comment about magically disappearing trails. I am from the Midwest, so the kool-aid is all we are fed as kiddos but my mind is open.

  34. #434
    middle ring single track
    Reputation: Moe Ped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,832
    I'm pretty sure when Muir discovered Yosemite he did it on horseback. He suggested his friends travel to Yosemite as close as they could via stage coach. This whole thing about Muir walking everywhere is sheep crap. When he changed from being a part-time sheep herder/sawmill operator to full time scientist/journalist he began to romanticize his travels. In real life he traveled in the best way practical. I suspect that if he were alive today he'd be riding a bicycle as far as he could and then hike from there.
    Content here does not officially represent the CA DPR.

    Windows 10, destroying humanity one upgrade at a time.

  35. #435
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    9,132
    Quote Originally Posted by meter-man View Post
    Agree. Some of the post-96 NMs allow mining to occur under pre-existing rights; same with WAs.



    Completely agree - that's why I noted "Muir's fantasy vision for wilderness". Muir and a lot of the preservationists wanted preservation without Native Americans, or at least a landscape they pretended had never been traversed, used, or occupied by humans. The article you link to is right on. (I'll also note that Muir the sheepherder had no problem with grazing in delicate alpine environments, which have caused far more destruction than a million MTBers ever would.)

    I don't agree with that part of Muir's vision, but I do think that vision motivated and informed a lot of the drive towards establishing the Wilderness Act. Even if it wasn't based in history or science. Or correct.



    Edited it?



    Good point - I like your read.



    I suck? I'm just reading the law and regs that govern WAs. If you (or STC) want to change the status quo, you have to change the law or regs. I know you know that, and that's the whole point of Lee's bill.

    Interpreting that phrase is a big battle ground. Does drilling bolts and aid climbing on alpine walls count as a "form of mechanical transport"? Does backcountry skiing that relies on mechanical bindings? How about snowshoeing? What about helicopters for SAR? With such a malleable phrase, there is a lot of disagreement about what this includes -- that's why I said it comes down to your vision of the purpose of Wilderness.

    So, as much as the law or regs need to change to accommodate bikes, you also need people to change their vision of Wilderness in order to get the change you want. Telling me I (or others) suck for citing the words in the statute won't get you there. Giving concrete reasons like the ones above will.

    I thought about this a lot last night, and Zorg's comment about magically disappearing trails. I am from the Midwest, so the kool-aid is all we are fed as kiddos but my mind is open.
    It's mostly a western states issue where trails keep disappearing because of new or proposed wilderness. That won't stop until we fix the incorrect interpretation.

    Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk
    Faster is not always better, but it's always more fun

  36. #436
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,746
    Quote Originally Posted by meter-man View Post
    Agree. Some of the post-96 NMs allow mining to occur under pre-existing rights; same with WAs.



    Completely agree - that's why I noted "Muir's fantasy vision for wilderness". Muir and a lot of the preservationists wanted preservation without Native Americans, or at least a landscape they pretended had never been traversed, used, or occupied by humans. The article you link to is right on. (I'll also note that Muir the sheepherder had no problem with grazing in delicate alpine environments, which have caused far more destruction than a million MTBers ever would.)

    I don't agree with that part of Muir's vision, but I do think that vision motivated and informed a lot of the drive towards establishing the Wilderness Act. Even if it wasn't based in history or science. Or correct.



    Edited it?



    Good point - I like your read.



    I suck? I'm just reading the law and regs that govern WAs. If you (or STC) want to change the status quo, you have to change the law or regs. I know you know that, and that's the whole point of Lee's bill.

    Interpreting that phrase is a big battle ground. Does drilling bolts and aid climbing on alpine walls count as a "form of mechanical transport"? Does backcountry skiing that relies on mechanical bindings? How about snowshoeing? What about helicopters for SAR? With such a malleable phrase, there is a lot of disagreement about what this includes -- that's why I said it comes down to your vision of the purpose of Wilderness.

    So, as much as the law or regs need to change to accommodate bikes, you also need people to change their vision of Wilderness in order to get the change you want. Telling me I (or others) suck for citing the words in the statute won't get you there. Giving concrete reasons like the ones above will.

    I thought about this a lot last night, and Zorg's comment about magically disappearing trails. I am from the Midwest, so the kool-aid is all we are fed as kiddos but my mind is open.
    If your mind is truly open and you want to learn what we mean about disappearing trails please watch this video:



    Keep in mind this movie was made the first season bikes and motos were banned from this area of the BWC in Idaho. I asked a friend who lived in Hailey ID to check it out. He made this video and you can see numerous problems emerging on what was once an impeccably maintained backcountry trail. A few more years of this and the trail will be unusable and the tread will be a huge undertaking to repair.

    The GAO reports that the USFS can only maintain 25% of its trail inventory. I've already posted the link here and it is easy to find online. Restrictions on bicycles, wheelbarrows and (gasp) chainsaws, makes it nearly impossible to maintain the backcountry trail system.




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  37. #437
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by Davey Simon View Post
    If your mind is truly open and you want to learn what we mean about disappearing trails please watch this video:



    Keep in mind this movie was made the first season bikes and motos were banned from this area of the BWC in Idaho. I asked a friend who lived in Hailey ID to check it out. He made this video and you can see numerous problems emerging on what was once an impeccably maintained backcountry trail. A few more years of this and the trail will be unusable and the tread will be a huge undertaking to repair.

    The GAO reports that the USFS can only maintain 25% of its trail inventory. I've already posted the link here and it is easy to find online. Restrictions on bicycles, wheelbarrows and (gasp) chainsaws, makes it nearly impossible to maintain the backcountry trail system.
    I'll watch it - thanks for sharing.

    This GAO report? http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/655555.pdf I'll read up.

    One more Q: what are some other prominent examples of MTB trails/access being lost to WAs?
    Last edited by meter-man; 3 Weeks Ago at 10:36 AM. Reason: Deleted extraneous quotes

  38. #438
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,746
    Quote Originally Posted by meter-man View Post
    I'll watch it - thanks for sharing.

    This GAO report? http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/655555.pdf I'll read up.

    One more Q: what are some other prominent examples of MTB trails/access being lost to WAs?
    Yes. That GAO report.

    Over 1000 miles of Backcountry trail lost to the cycling community this year:

    http://www.savemontanatrails.com/trails.html


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  39. #439
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by Davey Simon View Post
    Yes. That GAO report.

    Over 1000 miles of Backcountry trail lost to the cycling community this year:

    Trails - Save montana trails​
    Thanks - appreciate the info. Got to get educated.

  40. #440
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,746
    Quote Originally Posted by meter-man View Post
    Thanks - appreciate the info. Got to get educated.
    Keep in mind 1000 miles of trail lost to cycling forever, just this year, in just one state. To a Wilderness Study Area. Not actual Wilderness but managed as such.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  41. #441
    Axe
    Axe is online now
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,232
    Quote Originally Posted by meter-man View Post
    I am total agreement that horses cause 100x more impact than bikes. There's no impact-based argument that should lead to exclusion of bikes if horses are allowed.

    Unfortunately, the Wilderness Act does indeed enshrine a John Muir-esque view of wilderness - devoid of Native Americans but traversed by non-native horses. It's right in the damn law. "Wilderness" is defined as:

    DEFINITION OF WILDERNESS
    (c) A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value . . .

    That sure sounds like Muir's fantasy vision for wilderness.

    And there's also this:

    (c) Except as specifically provided for in this Act, and subject to existing private rights, there shall be no commercial enterprise and no permanent road within any wilderness area designated by this Act and except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of this Act (including measures required in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the area), there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any such area.

    USFS interpretation of WA in 1966 said this was limited to objects "propelled by a nonliving power source". . . and agency interpretations of laws they implement are entitled to deference. But then USFS changed its tune in the 80s and added bikes.

    Anyhoo, I better shut my trap since it's clear yall are way more invested in this than me. I'll keep working on opening up and maintaining access on trails, but in urban, suburban, and WUI areas. Good luck.
    You read there what you want to read. To me, solitude and recreation is riding a bicycle on a remote trail. That is the core purpose of the wilderness. Any interpretation or language that does not serve that core purpose should be corrected.

    No rational argument can be made for a blanket exclusion of cycling as a recreational activity. None.

    But apparently you made up your mind. Sad.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 207
    Last Post: 03-30-2017, 06:32 AM
  2. Sustainable Trails Coalition.ORG - Care to join the cause?
    By DaGoat in forum Trail Building and Advocacy
    Replies: 235
    Last Post: 05-02-2016, 07:23 AM
  3. PTBA Sustainable Trail Conference -- are you going?
    By HypNoTic in forum Trail Building and Advocacy
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-08-2014, 08:22 AM
  4. FASTA - Freeride and Sustainable Trail Association
    By Ride-Aid in forum Trail Building and Advocacy
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-12-2013, 04:45 PM
  5. Jim Thorpe Trail Coalition
    By topoftheworldma in forum Pennsylvania
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 06-12-2012, 10:38 AM

Members who have read this thread: 151

Posting Permissions

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