Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 77
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    22

    Motos on forest service land closed to motorized travel

    There seem to be a lot of motos violating a certain trail closures on some Boulder County(?) forest service land (intentionally not specific about the location)... I saw at least 8 motos on Saturday and they were cutting the very narrow trail all over the place. The sign at the gate says closed to all motor vehicles as of Dec 1 and the trails are always closed to motos anyway. In the last three weeks some sections of trail have doubled in tread width...obviously a Forest Service issue but I wonder if it would be prudent to give the ranger a call before it gets out of hand. I understand that the legality of the trails is somewhat in question but I actually spoke with a ranger at the location earlier this summer and was told that mountain bikes were ok just no motorized travel.
    Last edited by unc-76; 12-03-2012 at 03:21 PM. Reason: deleted location because of possible legality issues

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    54
    Call.

    Those guys are pretty protective of their watershed, and if the motos are doing that kind of damage in just a day's time, it needs to be stopped.

  3. #3
    ride
    Reputation: ignazjr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    4,823
    I agree with Skimtb.
    Last edited by ignazjr; 12-02-2012 at 05:58 PM.
    Redstone Cyclery
    turner*intense*transition*REEB*Rocky Mt
    web - tweet - FB
    Lyons, CO

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sbsbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,480
    Take pictures, pass them along to the USFS Rangers. Ask them to Please do their job.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rogbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    964
    I bet there are a lot of hikers, equestrians, and mountain bikers violating trail closures, as well.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    244
    WHAAAAAAAA!!!!!!

    Don't be such a puzzy.

    Just rode one of my favorite moto trails on sat. it was a blast. Like double black diamond fun. Hardcore Bro.

    Mountain Bikers are starting to sound alot like card carrying Sierra Club members these days what gives?

  7. #7
    ride
    Reputation: ignazjr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    4,823
    The thread was started in reference to motos on pedestrian only singletrack that can't handle moto use.
    Redstone Cyclery
    turner*intense*transition*REEB*Rocky Mt
    web - tweet - FB
    Lyons, CO

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,126
    He's just stirring the pot as always, not worth responding to jibberish.

  9. #9
    post-ride specialist
    Reputation: icegeek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    4,012
    The post just says: "forest service land". I support moto access to our public lands. All of us, as an MTB community should defend their access as we would our own. If this thread is about a specific place where access is restricted for legitimate reasons then it should be more clear. Otherwise it just seems divisive.
    Since when did Need have anything to do with this?

  10. #10
    !Vamos, flaco!
    Reputation: Pabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,358
    Quote Originally Posted by icegeek View Post
    The post just says: "forest service land". I support moto access to our public lands. All of us, as an MTB community should defend their access as we would our own. If this thread is about a specific place where access is restricted for legitimate reasons then it should be more clear. Otherwise it just seems divisive.
    That's a very argumentative and, indeed, divisive statement in itself. For me, I will never defend the access of motorized users as I would defend the access of mountain bikers because they are simply apples and oranges with different impacts on the public resource. I will likewise never defend the access of mountain bikers as I would defend the access of hikers for the same reason.
    "Fact is only what you believe; fact and fiction work as a team." Jack Johnson

  11. #11
    The Notorious S.L.O
    Reputation: btadlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,002
    Quote Originally Posted by ripper roo View Post
    WHAAAAAAAA!!!!!!

    Don't be such a puzzy.

    Just rode one of my favorite moto trails on sat. it was a blast. Like double black diamond fun. Hardcore Bro.

    Mountain Bikers are starting to sound alot like card carrying Sierra Club members these days what gives?
    ??? You seemed to have missed the point; the issue was motos that were on trails that they are not allowed on, in violation of the trail rules and closures. No one was complaining about the conditions of multi-use trails, one where motos are legally permitted upon.
    All trail users, (MTB, hiker, horse and MTB), are required to follow the posted rules or run the risk of losing access to a particular trail system.
    BT
    11 Trek Hifi Delux 23in
    05 Giant NRS 22.5in
    Evergreen Co.
    "All I need is.......two wheels and the truth."

  12. #12
    157
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    136
    Quote Originally Posted by icegeek View Post
    ... All of us, as an MTB community should defend their access as we would our own. ....
    Freaking bizarre idea. You go ahead and defend what you want to defend (motos illegally using restricted areas), and maybe the rest of us can form our own opinions.

  13. #13
    The Notorious S.L.O
    Reputation: btadlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,002
    Quote Originally Posted by icegeek View Post
    The post just says: "forest service land". I support moto access to our public lands. All of us, as an MTB community should defend their access as we would our own. If this thread is about a specific place where access is restricted for legitimate reasons then it should be more clear. Otherwise it just seems divisive.
    Perhaps you should read beyond the post title.....
    BT
    11 Trek Hifi Delux 23in
    05 Giant NRS 22.5in
    Evergreen Co.
    "All I need is.......two wheels and the truth."

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rogbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    964
    Two wheels, same team. Where motos. are removed a precedent is set to remove those perceived next in line: mountain bikes.

    Moto groups put in more trail maintenance time than any other group. For evidence, see Rampart Range OHV area. A system of moto trials in use for decades. While there is erosion and trail damage, through careful maintenance and periodic trail closures/reroutes the system remains active and useable.

    Just because it is not your preferred method does not mean it is wrong.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 69erEverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    407
    Mmm boulder county doesn't want moto singletrack, summit county doesn't want moto singletrack....

    You get rid of moto access that they had historically and you expect them to go somewhere else....

    It just isn't a sustainable management method. They do it to motos now and they will do it to mountain bikers in the future. That's what my crystal ball tells me...
    99% of the problems and questions posted here would be answered if people actually walked into a bicycle shop and asked

  16. #16
    ..ouch
    Reputation: thump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,960
    What general area is the OP referring to?

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    136
    moto's at least put money back into the system. (the ohv sticker/reg program.)

    I could see the usfs being ***** soon and starting to require mtb's to have a sticker every year to be on usfs land. So be careful who you cast stones at.

    Not that I would mind, I am just saying "pay to play" revenue, I can only imagine, could have big brother frothing at the mouth for more $$$...


    Poachers gonna poach.
    "Just moved to denver, any suggestions on what rubbers to use when i bang loose denver chicks ?"

  18. #18
    ..ouch
    Reputation: thump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,960
    Every user group has asshats. If guys are tearing shite up like you say then I would call. If not, and they're just riding, then it's up to your own moral code.

    Personally, my mountainbike sees plenty of "social" trails.. so I can't bring myself to the level of hypocrisy to get bent about other user groups doing the same.

  19. #19
    Team Velveeta™
    Reputation: TomP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,223
    Quote Originally Posted by meat-market View Post
    moto's at least put money back into the system. (the ohv sticker/reg program.)

    I could see the usfs being ***** soon and starting to require mtb's to have a sticker every year to be on usfs land. So be careful who you cast stones at...
    Not meaning to be argumentative, but I think the peeples is talking past each other a little in this thread.

    There's a difference between being anti-moto across the board and thinking that people who use public land should follow the rules about what sort of travel is allowed.

    The OP wasn't very clear about where this is, what the travel policy is there, etc.

    I personally have more riding friends who ride both mtb and moto than I do riding friends who exclusively pedal. I would probably get a moto if I had an extra several grand laying around.

    But I think motos should respect closures and ride only where they are allowed. I think mtbs should respect closures and ride only where allowed. I don't think anybody should be cutting new trails, not even foot travelers (the trail runners are actually big culprits around here, and the trails they cut are steep fall-line).

    So I think it's maybe worth stepping back a minute and not throwing rocks at people who don't necessarily disagree with you.
    Tom Purvis - Salida, CO - http://teamvelveeta.tom-purvis.com

    "I like my wimmen like I like my beer--cold and bitter!"

  20. #20
    The Notorious S.L.O
    Reputation: btadlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,002
    Quote Originally Posted by TomP View Post
    Not meaning to be argumentative, but I think the peeples is talking past each other a little in this thread.

    There's a difference between being anti-moto across the board and thinking that people who use public land should follow the rules about what sort of travel is allowed.

    The OP wasn't very clear about where this is, what the travel policy is there, etc.

    I personally have more riding friends who ride both mtb and moto than I do riding friends who exclusively pedal. I would probably get a moto if I had an extra several grand laying around.

    But I think motos should respect closures and ride only where they are allowed. I think mtbs should respect closures and ride only where allowed. I don't think anybody should be cutting new trails, not even foot travelers (the trail runners are actually big culprits around here, and the trails they cut are steep fall-line).

    So I think it's maybe worth stepping back a minute and not throwing rocks at people who don't necessarily disagree with you.
    Well said.
    BT
    11 Trek Hifi Delux 23in
    05 Giant NRS 22.5in
    Evergreen Co.
    "All I need is.......two wheels and the truth."

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    136
    Quote Originally Posted by TomP View Post
    Not meaning to be argumentative, but I think the peeples is talking past each other a little in this thread.

    There's a difference between being anti-moto across the board and thinking that people who use public land should follow the rules about what sort of travel is allowed.

    The OP wasn't very clear about where this is, what the travel policy is there, etc.

    I personally have more riding friends who ride both mtb and moto than I do riding friends who exclusively pedal. I would probably get a moto if I had an extra several grand laying around.

    But I think motos should respect closures and ride only where they are allowed. I think mtbs should respect closures and ride only where allowed. I don't think anybody should be cutting new trails, not even foot travelers (the trail runners are actually big culprits around here, and the trails they cut are steep fall-line).

    So I think it's maybe worth stepping back a minute and not throwing rocks at people who don't necessarily disagree with you.
    I ride both, and sadly I have more in my mtb than my kx125...
    "Just moved to denver, any suggestions on what rubbers to use when i bang loose denver chicks ?"

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sbsbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,480
    Quote Originally Posted by meat-market View Post
    moto's at least put money back into the system. (the ohv sticker/reg program.)

    I could see the usfs being ***** soon and starting to require mtb's to have a sticker every year to be on usfs land. So be careful who you cast stones at.

    Not that I would mind, I am just saying "pay to play" revenue, I can only imagine, could have big brother frothing at the mouth for more $$$...


    Poachers gonna poach.
    I for one would love to see a permit system in place that allowed revenue to be collected as long as the revenue went to trail improvement, and growth. Sadly most of the revenue from such a program would ultimately go toward paying a USFS ranger to enforce the system, and little or no trail maintenance or growth would occur. Same with road bike licenses, and plates.

  23. #23
    157
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    136
    Can someone give me an actual example or two of the slipper slope theory of trail access? When has a moto ban led to a ban on bikes?

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    244
    Here is a couple examples of trail access.

    At the top of vail pass van loads of people were dropped off by companies to ride mtbs and bike path cruisers down to vail and frisco. The forest service said no more and issued cease and desist orders on anyone doing so.

    Currently the town of breckenridge has shut down in the past couple years a huge amount of trails and trails that were once open to motos. They will continue to shut down trails to everyone as time continues on.

    The town of breckenridge and the forest service have shut down endless amounts of camping that used to exist around town.

    The area between the "dredge" on tiger rd and summit cove/keystone has lots of trails on it. Almost all of these trails were either old ranch roads or moto trails. They kicked the motos out 15 years ago. They have closed down trails and in the next few years they will start seasonal closures of those trails ordered by the forest service. Blair witch a favorite was a moto trail. It wasn't a built trail.

    The continued push of liberal haters will soon create public lands that only certain people will be able to enjoy. Unfortunately public lands are there for the public and for all uses. Hunting, hiking, biking, skiing, mining, camping, and the use of motorized equipment.

    If we are lucky, with enough people crying about one anothers uses of the public land we'll all soon just be looking at the land instead of using.

    So shut the hell up and mind your own business.

  25. #25
    157
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    136
    That's what I thought. No examples of a ban on motos leading to a ban on bikes. I can't think of any either.

    People here have it backward. If you want access for mtbs try convincing people that we have more in common with hikers than motos. If you lump yourself in with motorized users who obviously have much more impact than almost everybody else and are the most likely to be banned then you're just screwing yourself. Maybe ripper roo is really working for the horse people.

    But if you have some ideological thing that anybody should be able to trash the 'public' land however they like, then that is your prerogative I guess. Good luck with that. It's an extreme position with no sense of history or reality.

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 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
  •