Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner

Dear Barbara Boxer, (Passion X post)

1K views 16 replies 14 participants last post by  1000-oaks 
#1 ·
July 5, 2007

Barbara Boxer
112 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

RE: California Wild Heritage Act of 2007

Dear Mrs. Boxer,

I am writing to express my concern that the Wilderness designation you propose for the vast tracts of land specified in the Wild Heritage Act will render them recreationally useless to me. You see, I ride a mountain bike, and if these areas are designated as wilderness I will no longer be allowed to enjoy them after my own fashion.

I live in Santa Monica, in Los Angeles County. Regularly, I ride trails in the Angeles, Sequoia, Los Padres, Cleveland, and San Bernardino National Forests. Some of my favorite trails would become off-limits to bicycles. Less often but with every bit as much enjoyment I ride in the Tahoe, Humbolt-Toyaibe, Shasta-Trinity, Eldorado, Inyo, and Stanislaus National Forests. And I'll be riding in more as my life permits.

Mountain biking is a peaceful, environmentally sane activity, and I do not think it fair or right to outlaw it from our public lands.

A mountain bike is not the same thing, and does not belong in the same classification, as an Off-Highway Vehicle, a 4x4, a motorcycle, or an ATV. A mountain bike is not powered by gasoline, and it weighs a fraction of the weight of the human controlling it. The bike and rider do not disturb others who are miles away.

The types of trails that would be closed by these new Wilderness designations are the kind of trails used by the most responsible of mountain bikers. For example, take the proposed Condor Peak Wilderness. I myself have ridden Condor Peak Trail numerous times. It is very narrow, with several sections that feature steep drop-offs, even cliffs. To get to the top of the mountain, one must climb either Condor Peak Trail, Trail Canyon Trail, or Mendenhall Ridge Fireroad. In no case will the rider ride less than 16 miles, and climb less than 3000 feet, give or take.

Years of effort are required to acquire the skill, endurance, and strength necessary to pedal a bicycle over such a trail. The person who has put in this effort has no less respect for the trail and its surroundings than the hiker, climber, equestrian, or fisherman who enjoys his or her day in the woods, and probably has more.

To take that experience away from me and my fellow bicyclists is simply not right. I'm sure you will want to tell me that many miles of roads and trails will remain open to bicyclists should this bill become law. Well, I and my fellow cyclists want the backwoods experiences we ALREADY HAVE AVAILABLE to REMAIN available to us and to future generations of bicyclists. Riding a dirt road at the edge of town is just not the same thing as riding a trail deep in the back of beyond.

I have voted for you in each election since you first ran for the Senate. However, if you continue to support designating these lands in a manner that will outlaw bicycles, I will not continue to vote for you. I'll vote for a candidate who will support my quiet enjoyment of the outdoors.

I say this knowing that one vote in 15 million isn't worth much. But it's the principal of the thing - I cannot support you if you don't support me.

Sincerely,

William O'Neil

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-493

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-493

Scroll to section 101, Designation of Wilderness. How many of your favorite trails would be rendered illegal?
 
See less See more
#4 ·
Mudd said:
I've always voted for whoever is running against her!
Too extreme to the left for me!
I'm pretty centrist, and try to pick the best candidate, or at least the lesser of 2 evils. In my opinion, the state Republicans have picked candidates as far to the right as many feel Boxer is to the left I don't like her stands on gun ownership or knee jerk bike bans in wilderness areas. But I do like clean air, clean water, safe workplaces, safe food and drugs, etc. So I have voted for her.
 
#5 ·
That's a well-written letter and I respect your position. But I also voted for Boxer and would again, considering her usual opponents. I would like to see more land protected from development and so-called "wise use", and a wilderness designation does this best. Some of the other less-protected areas are under assault by the Bush administration. We need both more bike trails on appropriate land, and more wilderness for our children's future. And less unconstrained development and extractive use. I don't want to lose any trails, and the one you describe sounds great. Ideally, I'd like to see some of those areas come out of the bill, or be modified. We can't have it all unfortunately.
 
G
#6 ·
sheeple...

if you think a friggin elected official is going to make your environment clean and safe you are the problem!

frickin viruses...

i love how you use the "for our children" thing. the problem is population. if you want to fix everything don't have kids!
 
#7 ·
Ray Dolor said:
...bicyclists are the group LEAST likely to leave the established trail surface....
That's an interesting statement I've never heard before. Don't know if some study backs it up, but I find it believable. Good point to make. On the other hand, we might be the most likely to head down an established trail with a "closed" sign ( I know I have a hard time resisting sometimes...). Most people probably know about the IMBA resources, but if not, here's a great link on the topic of wilderness...( http://www.imba.com/resources/wilderness/index.html )
 
#8 · (Edited)
mechmann_mtb said:
sheeple...

if you think a friggin elected official is going to make your environment clean and safe you are the problem!

frickin viruses...

i love how you use the "for our children" thing. the problem is population. if you want to fix everything don't have kids!
Spoken like a true non-parent. If you are so concerned about the children of others, take a look in the mirror. YOU are occuping space too. Did you scold your parents for creating you? While doctor assisted suicide is illegal, any number of sleep aids coupled with a nice glass of wine will alleviate the space YOU waste on this earth. Yep, you are part of the viruse too. Go figure.....
 
#9 ·
Well, I'm a crusty old conservative but...

I will get off my duff and write a polite, factual letter to my congress critters as Bill has done here. I still have some resentment towards Boxer and Feinstein from my dirt biking days when their Desert Protection act closed thousands of square miles to off roaders and made those areas unaccessible, underfunded preserves and wilderness area (yes - giving an area a wilderness designation does cost more money over time due to enforcement cost and lack of commercial use for all that land). But you catch a lot more flies with molasses than you do with vinegar and I think we should follow Bill's lead.

Ron in SD
 
#10 ·
Funny that the bill is open to hunting. That's the way to protect the wilderness! (I'm not against hunting at all, I just find it funny in a bill about wilderness protection.)

I didn't see anything in that bill banning bikes, though it doesn't expressly permit them either. It doesn't really say anything about bikes that I could find.
 
#11 ·
bankerboy said:
Spoken like a true non-parent. If you are so concerned about the children of others, take a look in the mirror. YOU are occuping space too. Did you scold your parents for creating you? While doctor assisted suicide is illegal, any number of sleep aids coupled with a nice glass of wine will alleviate the space YOU waste on this earth. Yep, you are part of the viruse too. Go figure.....
That's a good one :thumbsup:
 
#12 ·
typical

I find it interesting that these politicians want to limit use on these protected lands to hikers and equestrians. As we all know horses do more destruction to trails than bikes. I wonder when the last time Boxer was out hiking these trails to take a look for herself....typical politics. It is really a sad state we live in.

What blows me away even more is that these politicians are so worried about a small ribbon of trail that winds through the wilderness. Most of the time these areas are used by folks that respect and take care of the land. While they are worried about stopping cyclist from riding these trail, they have no worries about developers laying down another strip mall, or developing another track of 500 homes. I have been living in So Orange county for the last three years and it is amazing how the developers are raping this area....Dana Headlands, Avenida de Pico, Camino Cap.....it is really sad.

By the way, where is all the support from the bike companies that reside in SOCAL...MARZ, 661, Answer, Manitou, Intense, Giant and many more. How come we never see them leading the way, organizing trail days, petitioning for land rights, starting a bike park......with out trails there will be no mountainbikers, without mountainbikers they will fail. These companies could learn alot from the companies like Transition Bikes. While I don't own one they definitely have their $h@t together.

Just a few thoughts.
TG
 
#13 ·
"STFU Boxer, you're out of your element!!!!"

It's just another feel good legislation. What are we protecting the wilderness, government owned land, from? The boogey man? Truth is, there isn't any encroachment aside from suburban sprawl into the foothills. Logging and mining are already regulated. Things are good as is, but politicians like to add hollow "accomplishments" to their political career.

There's already marijuana farms and a bunch of undiscovered corpses in the Angeles National Forest. If they can't fix problems already present, a bill won't stop people from mountain biking or off roading there.

Politicians don't want to allow logging, yet spend millions supressing naturally occuring fires. Don't get me started on the nonsensical gun laws in California. I can picture Walter from "The Big Lebowski" yelling, "STFU Boxer, you're out of your element!!!!" :D
 
#16 ·
rider400 said:
This is what I'm not getting. How could SHE be a representative of US when the people I talk to don't like anything she is doing?

Her and Feinstine need to get moved out of office.
I agree! Where do I sign the recall petition?
 
#17 ·
BrewMaster said:
Funny that the bill is open to hunting. That's the way to protect the wilderness! (I'm not against hunting at all, I just find it funny in a bill about wilderness protection.)
Actually hunting is vital to wildlife conservation, and has been ever since early settlers wiped out the top-level predators. Without regulated hunting there's no healthy population control, unless one considers mass starvation and rampant disease "population control". The Department of Fish and Game carefully controls the number of licenses to match wildlife populations to available natural resources.

Boxer and Feinswine gotta go...why did they waste our tax dollars outlawing the BMG .50 rifle when there has not been a SINGLE instance of one being used in a crime, ever? They cost $5,000 per rifle, are stupid heavy and big, and bullets cost about $5 each. And there are several almost identical calibers there are still perfectly legal, so what have they accomplished? Nada. Same goes for CA's assault weapon ban, which bans weapons based on color and cosmetic features - talk about stupid. At least the Federal Government had the sense to let Cllinton's national ban expire, with no increase in crime.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top