Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner

Expanding wilderness in Summit County = Less mountain biking?

2K views 45 replies 12 participants last post by  hardtail05 
#1 ·
#3 ·
Based on the individual proposed wilderness area maps, they have identified trails that are currently open to MTBing but would be closed under their proposal. I wonder if someone from COMBA could contact them and find out how many miles of trails will be lost to MTBing if this proposal goes through. It appears like they really want our support so they may be willing to modify the WA boundaries to accomodate our requests.
 
#4 ·
Wow, enough with the wilderness designations or should I say publicly funded exclusive country clubs for hikers and equestrians. Every year they just keep chipping off more and more land. Even if they accommodate existing MTB trails, that land is verboten to mountain biking for what is in effect eternity.

Why don't they just designate the entire national forest system a wilderness area and then we'll mountain bike as an act of civil disobedience.
 
#5 ·
The folks with the Hidden Gems Wilderness group have been working closely with the Summit Fat tire Society and other mountain bike groups. They've been very sensitive to not impacting MTB access as much as possible. In fact, some of them are serious mountain bikers. It's my understanding that there are some trails, mostly in the Roaring Fork and Eagle valley area that have proven contentious but I'm not familiar with the specific trails. The Summit County areas that are on the above map do not contain any significant mountain bike trails.

Top mounter: Wilderness advocates propose wilderness designation because they feel passionately about protecting intact lands that are relatively pristine in as close to that state as possible. It has nothing to do with creating "publicly funded exclusive country clubs for hikers and equestrians". That's an incredibly ignorant and immature statement. While I may not agree with some of the specifics of how the wilderness act has been interpreted, (I don't however, feel that I have some entitlement to ride my bike everywhere I want) I do understand and largely agree with the overall aims and I do respect those who devote their lives to the long time preservation of wildlands.
 
#13 · (Edited)
I consider a complete and total zero compromises ban on mountain biking now and forever rather ignorant and immature... granted the Wilderness Act and its language pre-dates the advent of mountain biking. However there are alternatives to Wilderness designation that do not blindly perma-ban any and all mountain biking on that land now and literally forever.

And I'm not saying I should be able to ride my mountain bike "anywhere", but what I am saying is that there should at least be an option for permitting back-country mountain bike access on specific trails now or at some point in the future as deemed appropriate and/or desirable. I'm also coming from the perspective and opinion that the trail impact of back-country mountain biking is something slightly greater than hiking and dramatically less than horseback riding.

Of course that is just my opinion as a tax paying mountain biker and if I was a hiker or an equestrian I'd think Wilderness designation was the greatest thing ever and would do everything in my power to expand Wilderness areas as much as possible.

That being said, I do appreciate the recent attempts to better accommodate existing mountain bike trails during the Wilderness designation process. I know the ship has already sailed on this topic and it is absolutely impossible, completely improbable and will never happen, but my pipe dream would be for an accommodation in the Wilderness act to be made to at least make it possible to allow mountain biking on specific trails so I could fully support Wilderness expansion... I just find it patently offensive that back-country mountain biking is lumped in with motorcycles and snow mobiles when it comes to trail use.
 
#16 ·
Myth: Recreation is restricted in wilderness.
Fact: Recreation is enhanced is wilderness. Hunting, fishing, horse riding, hiking, camping, canoeing, and many more activities are all allowed in wilderness and wilderness assures a high quality experience for these uses.

:confused:

I'm all for protecting land, but don't BS me like this....

Put us on the same level as horse riders (not motos), and I'll call it fair.
 
#22 ·
If they allow commercial for profit outfitters and pack trains on the trails in the wilderness areas, and they do, then MTB's should be allowed. IMBA's continued capitulation of legal MTB access to wilderness areas needs to end.
 
#24 ·
DWF said:
If they allow commercial for profit outfitters and pack trains on the trails in the wilderness areas, and they do, then MTB's should be allowed. IMBA's continued capitulation of legal MTB access to wilderness areas needs to end.
In a world of finite resources, what then do you suggest IMBA do? It is not like they operate with an endless budget and are opposed by well funded and well connected wilderness interests.

I'd hardly say it is capitulation moreso then well reasoned. Why chase good money after bad when the chances of getting Congress to amend the Wilderness Act is 0.0%?
 
#25 ·
Rontele said:
In a world of finite resources, what then do you suggest IMBA do? It is not like they operate with an endless budget and are opposed by well funded and well connected wilderness interests.

I'd hardly say it is capitulation moreso then well reasoned. Why chase good money after bad when the chances of getting Congress to amend the Wilderness Act is 0.0%?
It's capitulation. They can start by just changing the language they use. To whit:

*****
"Is IMBA Trying to Get Bicycles in Wilderness?

No, IMBA respects the federal land agencies' regulation that bicycles are not allowed in existing Wilderness. When proposed Wilderness legislation impacts significant mountain bicycling trails, IMBA suggests alternative designations, non-Wilderness corridors or cherry stems and boundary adjustments that will protect the land and allow our use to continue."
*****

The answer to that should, in my opinion, be:

Yes. IMBA believes that human powered bicycles should be allowed in any existing or future wilderness areas that are open to other commercial/for profit and high impact activities...especially those that pertain to trampling the hell out of the trails by disease vector shitbag horse trains.

Or some similarly weasel worded variation of same.
 
#26 ·
DWF said:
It's capitulation. They can start by just changing the language they use. To whit:

*****
"Is IMBA Trying to Get Bicycles in Wilderness?

No, IMBA respects the federal land agencies' regulation that bicycles are not allowed in existing Wilderness. When proposed Wilderness legislation impacts significant mountain bicycling trails, IMBA suggests alternative designations, non-Wilderness corridors or cherry stems and boundary adjustments that will protect the land and allow our use to continue."
*****

The answer to that should, in my opinion, be:

Yes. IMBA believes that human powered bicycles should be allowed in any existing or future wilderness areas that are open to other commercial/for profit and high impact activities...especially those that pertain to trampling the hell out of the trails by disease vector shitbag horse trains.

Or some similarly weasel worded variation of same.
I don't disagree per se, but the problem is that mountain bikers in many respects have to align their interests with the wilderness groups. Its kind of, you either support wilderness or you are categorized with the dirt bikers and the ATV'ers. With recent forest service rulings placing mountain bikers in the same user category as horses and hikers, the decision is somewhat predetermined. IMBA needs to balance these political considerations along with their need to represent their base. Thus, when applicable wilderness designations come into fruitition, they work on realigning the borders to keep historic use.

This has worked in the past and will continue to be a powerful negotiation tool moving forward.
 
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