Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 201 to 300 of 459
  1. #201
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BumpityBump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,023
    Quote Originally Posted by bakerjw View Post
    the problem is that a bureaucrat, in one fell swoop, will designate an area as wilderness even though there are roads or maintained trails through it. When that happens, bikepackers lose all access. It has happened and will continue to happen.

    I am not for unfettered access everywhere. There are a lot of places where bikes don't belong. Horses too for that matter. What most of this legislation does is put access decisions back into the hands of the land managers.

    They are expanding a wilderness area where I ride a lot. I can't get an explanation of the intended expansion but if it is to the South East, then one of the major USFS roads will be off limits to bikepackers.
    Yes, understood. Therefore my buffering in later posts on this thread regarding newly proposed vs historic Wilderness designations.

  2. #202
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BumpityBump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,023
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    Sorry but if you are accessing Wilderness Areas with a pack, you are almost assuredly doing so while wearing footwear, yes?

    If so you are breaking the law if read in the same light that it is read in to ban bicycles, ie transportation using a mechanical advantage. Shoes are ramps and the soles provide rebound, mechanical transportation.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk
    Is this your 2nd year of college?

  3. #203
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,022
    Quote Originally Posted by BumpityBump View Post
    Is this your 2nd year of college?
    Please explain how a shoe is not a mechanized form of transportation. I'll wait.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

  4. #204
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    10,383
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    Please explain how a shoe is not a mechanized form of transportation. I'll wait.
    Please explain how a shoe is mechanized without sounding silly.
    I brake for stinkbugs

  5. #205
    Nat
    Nat is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Nat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    12,852
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    Please explain how a shoe is not a mechanized form of transportation. I'll wait.
    I think you're reaching with that one.

  6. #206
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,022
    Quote Originally Posted by J.B. Weld View Post
    Please explain how a shoe is mechanized without sounding silly.
    Definition of mechanized: introduce machines or automatic processes into.

    Definition of a machine: A simple machine is a mechanical device that changes the direction or magnitude of a force.

    Normal shoes have several aspects of being a simple machine. They are simplistic inclined planes. They have controlled elasticity that recoups stored energy. Also, by definition, the laces or tightening mechanism is a pulley system.

    This requires reading the act in the same simplistic manner used to banish bicycles but when done so it still applies. Shoes are technically complex machines.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

  7. #207
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,859
    I think banning kites for skiing and boarding is a better comparison to shoes. The pulley on the kites rigging is considered mechanical advantage and the kites were banned.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  8. #208
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    10,383
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    Definition of mechanized: introduce machines or automatic processes into.

    Definition of a machine: A simple machine is a mechanical device that changes the direction or magnitude of a force.

    Normal shoes have several aspects of being a simple machine. They are simplistic inclined planes. They have controlled elasticity that recoups stored energy. Also, by definition, the laces or tightening mechanism is a pulley system.

    This requires reading the act in the same simplistic manner used to banish bicycles but when done so it still applies. Shoes are machines.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


    That still sounds silly and contrived to me, like those ads for sneakers with springs in them that are always in old people magazines.
    I brake for stinkbugs

  9. #209
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,022
    Quote Originally Posted by J.B. Weld View Post
    That still sounds silly and contrived to me, like those ads for sneakers with springs in them that are always in old people magazines.
    Do you argue that shoes are generally taller at the heel than toe?

    How about the fact that rubber, or even leather for that matter, compresses under load and then rebounds under release?

    What about the fact that tightening mechanisms allow for extra leverage making the shoe more comfortable to wear?

    All I'm doing is being a devil's advocate by reading the act in the same absurdly simplistic manner.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

  10. #210
    Nat
    Nat is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Nat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    12,852
    I don't know if the "shoes are machines" argument would help the cause. You probably don't want to put that up on the STC website.

  11. #211
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,859
    Quote Originally Posted by Nat View Post
    I don't know if the "shoes are machines" argument would help the cause. You probably don't want to put that up on the STC website.
    It's not. None of the people from STC are taking that tack. It is however an interesting point of discussion. Considering the mechanical advantage argument is extremely biased at best.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  12. #212
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    10,383
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    Do you argue that shoes are generally taller at the heel than toe?

    How about the fact that rubber, or even leather for that matter, compresses under load and then rebounds under release?

    What about the fact that tightening mechanisms allow for extra leverage making the shoe more comfortable to wear?

    All I'm doing is being a devil's advocate by reading the act in the same absurdly simplistic manner.

    Honestly I'm not sure about the context of all of this but it seems cut and dry to me that bicycles are mechanized transport and shoes are not, even if the technical definition can be construed otherwise.

    I have several pairs of zero drop shoes, if I leave the laces loose would those be considered non-mechanized?
    I brake for stinkbugs

  13. #213
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,022
    Quote Originally Posted by J.B. Weld View Post
    Honestly I'm not sure about the context of all of this but it seems cut and dry to me that bicycles are mechanized transport and shoes are not, even if the technical definition can be construed otherwise.

    I have several pairs of zero drop shoes, if I leave the laces loose would those be considered non-mechanized?
    As long as they contain a compressible material they are machines. It's pretty cut and dry that anything that provides a redirection or enhancement of energy is by definition a machine.



    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

  14. #214
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,022
    Quote Originally Posted by Davey Simon View Post
    It's not. None of the people from STC are taking that tack. It is however an interesting point of discussion. Considering the mechanical advantage argument is extremely biased at best.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    That's my entire point. It won't go anywhere but let's call a spade a spade. Shoes and bikes are both forms of human powered mechanized transportation. One is more accepted, even thought of as a "necessity", so we had better not call it what it really is.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

  15. #215
    Bicycles aren't motorized
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,645
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    Do you argue that shoes are generally taller at the heel than toe?

    How about the fact that rubber, or even leather for that matter, compresses under load and then rebounds under release?

    What about the fact that tightening mechanisms allow for extra leverage making the shoe more comfortable to wear?

    All I'm doing is being a devil's advocate by reading the act in the same absurdly simplistic manner.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk



    You, are not helping. Thanks in advance for stowing this nonsense.
    You meet the craziest people riding e-bikes!

    Make
    America
    Gravel
    Again

  16. #216
    Nat
    Nat is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Nat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    12,852
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    It's pretty cut and dry that anything that provides a redirection or enhancement of energy is by definition a machine.
    Water?

  17. #217
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,022
    Quote Originally Posted by Nat View Post
    Water?
    Water without mechanical advantage, direction, constriction, etc., is just a force as there is no redirection or change in its applied energy.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

  18. #218
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by J.B. Weld View Post
    I have several pairs of zero drop shoes, if I leave the laces loose would those be considered non-mechanized?
    That sounds reckless to me. Better not call for search and rescue with that $hit!

    Seriously though, I thought the argument against bikes as mechanized was more about the grease, oil, and now-a-days suspension and brake fluid. I wouldn't want someone to blow a hydro line in a wilderness area and spew DOT-3 brake fluid all over the place. I once blew a seal on a RS Judy and was embarrassed by all the fluid I lost. Luckily I was right next to the highway because it left a bit of a puddle.

  19. #219
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    10,383
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    As long as they contain a compressible material they are machines. It's pretty cut and dry that anything that provides a redirection or enhancement of energy is by definition a machine.
    Are you the one selling those springy shoes in the old people magazines?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nat View Post
    Water?
    Damn straight, no water and only wooden zero drop shoes with no laces in wilderness areas!
    I brake for stinkbugs

  20. #220
    Nat
    Nat is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Nat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    12,852
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    Water without mechanical advantage, direction, constriction, etc., is just a force as there is no redirection or change in its applied energy.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk
    Oregon coast water spout machine?

    Name:  Yach_cookschasm.jpg
Views: 207
Size:  55.5 KB

    Name:  oceanside_shootup.jpg
Views: 203
Size:  40.1 KB


    Old Faithful geyser machine?

    Mountain Bikers Seek to Gut Wilderness Act-old_faithful.jpg

  21. #221
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,022
    Quote Originally Posted by Nat View Post
    Oregon coast water spout machine?

    Name:  Yach_cookschasm.jpg
Views: 207
Size:  55.5 KB

    Name:  oceanside_shootup.jpg
Views: 203
Size:  40.1 KB


    Old Faithful geyser machine?

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	old_faithful.jpg 
Views:	33 
Size:	78.0 KB 
ID:	1137935
    🔝🔝🔝Non sequitur machine.

    Your point? Those are naturally occurring machines. They are not relevant to a discussion around human created machines.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

  22. #222
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,859

    Mountain Bikers Seek to Gut Wilderness Act

    Quote Originally Posted by bakerjw View Post
    the problem is that a bureaucrat, in one fell swoop, will designate an area as wilderness even though there are roads or maintained trails through it. When that happens, bikepackers lose all access. It has happened and will continue to happen.

    I am not for unfettered access everywhere. There are a lot of places where bikes don't belong. Horses too for that matter. What most of this legislation does is put access decisions back into the hands of the land managers.

    They are expanding a wilderness area where I ride a lot. I can't get an explanation of the intended expansion but if it is to the South East, then one of the major USFS roads will be off limits to bikepackers.
    I think we all agree that including cycling as mechanized transport is largely BS. Also it's helpful to keep in mind that the Wilderness act originally forbade "mechanical transport from a non living power source." Until it was changed in 1984. So all these arguments about what is mechanical are largely irrelevant to me. Does it have a motor? Or not? That is the question.

    The above quote is why I joined STC and why I have been dedicating a lot of my free time to the effort. All of the narrow trails where I lived were lost to cyclists due to this arbitrary decision in 1985.

    The history is here. It is important to note that the impacts were not limited to Wilderness:

    http://www.georgewright.org/181rothman.pdf




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  23. #223
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    10,383
    Quote Originally Posted by Davey Simon View Post
    I think we all agree that including cycling as mechanized transport is largely BS. Also it's helpful to keep in mind that the Wilderness act originally forbade "mechanical transport from a non living power source." Until it was changed in 1984. So all these arguments about what is mechanical are largely irrelevant to me. Does it have a motor? Or not? That is the question.
    Motors are well on their way to becoming a non-living power source in the eyes of the law.
    I brake for stinkbugs

  24. #224
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,859
    Quote Originally Posted by J.B. Weld View Post
    Motors are well on their way to becoming a non-living power source in the eyes of the law.
    Yeah I'm pretty sure that was the intent of the Wilderness Act


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  25. #225
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    285
    What happens if the E-bike lobbyists successfully get those things classified as "just another bike"? Access for e-bikes too?

  26. #226
    Bicycles aren't motorized
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,645
    Quote Originally Posted by Surly29 View Post
    What happens if the E-bike lobbyists successfully get those things classified as "just another bike"? Access for e-bikes too?


    The motor is and will always be the line of demarcation.
    You meet the craziest people riding e-bikes!

    Make
    America
    Gravel
    Again

  27. #227
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    285
    Well, thanks to the lawyers in our country, common sense like this does not always prevail.

  28. #228
    Nat
    Nat is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Nat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    12,852
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    🔝🔝🔝Non sequitur machine.

    Your point? Those are naturally occurring machines. They are not relevant to a discussion around human created machines.
    I believe it was you who was trying to make a point. I just blew holes in your argument using my hole blowing machine.

  29. #229
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,022
    Quote Originally Posted by Nat View Post
    I believe it was you who was trying to make a point. I just blew holes in your argument using my hole blowing machine.
    Except your hole blowing machine is a non sequitur, ie a fallacy. Nice try, I guess?

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

  30. #230
    Nat
    Nat is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Nat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    12,852
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    Except your hole blowing machine is a non sequitur, ie a fallacy. Nice try, I guess?
    I do not think you are helping the cause.

  31. #231
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bakerjw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    534
    Quote Originally Posted by Surly29 View Post
    What happens if the E-bike lobbyists successfully get those things classified as "just another bike"? Access for e-bikes too?
    This is why I am generally opposed to e-MTBs.
    Help chart the mountains at www.appalachianbiketrails.org

  32. #232
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,022
    Quote Originally Posted by Nat View Post
    I do not think you are helping the cause.
    You, and a couple of others, are ignoring the fact that tone and content of message can vary based on the current audience.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

  33. #233
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    10,383
    Quote Originally Posted by life behind bars View Post
    The motor is and will always be the line of demarcation.

    I used to think the same thing and in the beginning mountain bike advocates like me used that as one of our main arguing points. Organizations like Sierra Club said it was a slippery slope, would be mountain bikers said it was cut and dry. Turns out the "enviro-nuts" were right and the same people who will argue that a shoe is a machine have successfully convoluted some laws into describing a motorbike as a bicycle. Unfortunately technicalities often carry more weight than common sense.
    I brake for stinkbugs

  34. #234
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by bakerjw View Post
    This is why I am generally opposed to e-MTBs.
    And way I am generally opposed to blanket bans. Or blanket lifting of bans, if that is a thing.

    e-MTBs can have a place. Mountain passes, MUTs that allow motorcycles. But just like e-MTBs don't belong everywhere, there should be a limit to mtn bikes as well.

    Maybe I'm just one of those guys who is totally sickened by the changes I've seen in most trails over the past 5 or 10 years. Many have been widened and dumbed down and I think it is mostly mtn bikers that are responsible.

  35. #235
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,155
    It's hard to believe that any mountain biker, or normal person for that matter, would believe that riding a bicycle is inappropriate in Wilderness areas.

    I'm pretty Liberal generally, but issues like this make me want to vote Conservative.

  36. #236
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Curveball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    2,400
    I think that the really big kicker for me is that we now enjoy access to many very scenic high mountain trails. Awesome places to ride a bike.

    However, bike access to a good many of those places is threatened by possible Wilderness designations. Here in Washington State, there are some the best trails that you can imagine that are threatened by proposed Wilderness designation. If we don't support the efforts of the STC, then we stand to lose out on some of the very best trails in the country. This should be more than enough reason to support the access bill.

    On another tangent, to get a sense of the impacts of biking in wild areas, Canada allows biking in magnificent high mountain areas with little detriment.
    Riding Washington State singletrack since 1986

  37. #237
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Curveball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    2,400
    Quote Originally Posted by bakerjw View Post
    This is why I am generally opposed to e-MTBs.
    Yep. Me too.
    Riding Washington State singletrack since 1986

  38. #238
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    285
    Here's what I'd like to see. Just my 2 cents.

    How about a simple, straight forward bill, possibly an amendment/addendum to the current law, which states that all newly designated Wilderness Areas or Study Areas must have 50 ft easements for all existing trails and roads? Existing restrictions could remain in place in existing areas.

    In addition, any public or private entities that receive permission from the govt. to work or do research in a protected area have to collect data for a study into bike vs non-bike trails. Actual scientific evidence to support the extent to which mtn bike affect the environment.

  39. #239
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by Suns_PSD View Post
    It's hard to believe that any mountain biker, or normal person for that matter, would believe that riding a bicycle is inappropriate in Wilderness areas.
    I eluded to it in post #218, but have you ever ridden through a stream deeper than your chain? See the rainbow ribbon that floated down the water?

    The question is to what extent are you willing to pollute the environment.

  40. #240
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,859
    Quote Originally Posted by Surly29 View Post
    Here's what I'd like to see. Just my 2 cents.

    How about a simple, straight forward bill, possibly an amendment/addendum to the current law, which states that all newly designated Wilderness Areas or Study Areas must have 50 ft easements for all existing trails and roads? Existing restrictions could remain in place in existing areas.

    In addition, any public or private entities that receive permission from the govt. to work or do research in a protected area have to collect data for a study into bike vs non-bike trails. Actual scientific evidence to support the extent to which mtn bike affect the environment.
    You should get to work on that...


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  41. #241
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    285
    Not an issue in my area.

    Stay out of my Wilderness Areas!

  42. #242
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,859
    Quote Originally Posted by Surly29 View Post
    Not an issue in my area.

    Stay out of my Wilderness Areas!
    I think you're posting in the wrong sub forum. We need FC to create a Mountain Bikers Against Mountain Biking forum for you...


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  43. #243
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by Davey Simon View Post
    I think you're posting in the wrong sub forum. We need FC to create a Mountain Bikers Against Mountain Biking forum for you...


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Because I express a view different from your's? Wanna get your buddies a MTBR to intervene on your behalf.


    A threat of trail lose in Washington should not effect Wilderness Areas in Colorado. That's all I'm saying.

  44. #244
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    9,646
    Quote Originally Posted by Davey Simon View Post
    I think you're posting in the wrong sub forum. We need FC to create a Mountain Bikers Against Mountain Biking forum for you...


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    There it is. Later than expected, but there it is.

    Anyone with a different opinion than Davey Simon is a hater, an anti-, a HOH, against mountain biking, etc.

    Davey, you make some damn good points. You're quite pursuasive, very passionate and know a lot about the subject. But when you make the inevitable personal attack, you lose people.

    Stay on message, stay positive, and you'll attract more people to your cause.

    I expect Empty_beer and the rest of the gang to pile on shortly.





    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
    Death from Below.

  45. #245
    Bicycles aren't motorized
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,645
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post

    I expect Empty_beer and the rest of the gang to pile on shortly.





    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk




    Probably not, it's been surprising civil for a hot topic on MTBR.
    You meet the craziest people riding e-bikes!

    Make
    America
    Gravel
    Again

  46. #246
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,859
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    There it is. Later than expected, but there it is.

    Anyone with a different opinion than Davey Simon is a hater, an anti-, a HOH, against mountain biking, etc.

    Davey, you make some damn good points. You're quite pursuasive, very passionate and know a lot about the subject. But when you make the inevitable personal attack, you lose people.

    Stay on message, stay positive, and you'll attract more people to your cause.

    I expect Empty_beer and the rest of the gang to pile on shortly.





    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
    Really? So a guy(?) starts claiming STAY OUT OF MY WILDERNESS AREAS!!! on a cycling forum, after claiming the oil from my chain will be damaging to wildlife after I've ridden it submerged and I'm supposed to keep it civil?

    Seriously how many trolls are you going to have to throw at me claiming that I'm part of some anti environment cabal, a lacky for the Oil and Gas industry, one of Trumps minions or that my bike is some kind of Exxon oil tanker just waiting to spring a leak and defile a Wilderness area before I call it like it is?

    Let's address the problem of underwater chain lube and the health of creeks. Tell us what you think of the validity of that concern LeDuke before you call me out as being intolerant. Because I've heard a metric ton of ******** already on this thread and I can't wait to hear about that.

    Im just filling up my camp stove with white gas as I await your reply...


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  47. #247
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by Davey Simon View Post
    Really? So a guy(?) starts claiming STAY OUT OF MY WILDERNESS AREAS!!! on a cycling forum, after claiming the oil from my chain will be damaging to wildlife after I've ridden it submerged and I'm supposed to keep it civil?
    You quoted my post first.

    I am concerned about further polluting our wilderness areas.

  48. #248
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,859
    Quote Originally Posted by Surly29 View Post
    You quoted my post first.

    I am concerned about further polluting our wilderness areas.
    The fact you think the issue of people riding with their drivechain submerged in a water body long enough for the chain lube to interact with the environment is a very clear indication you are not a cyclist.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  49. #249
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by Davey Simon View Post
    The fact you think the issue of people riding with their drivechain submerged in a water body long enough for the chain lube to interact with the environment is a very clear indication you are not a cyclist.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    Okay. More personal attacks?

    Care to explain how this has ZERO effect on the water quality again?

  50. #250
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,859
    Quote Originally Posted by Surly29 View Post
    Okay. More personal attacks?

    Care to explain how this has ZERO effect on the water quality again?
    I'm saying the scenario is so implausible that it could only be presented by someone who doesn't ride bikes.

    Generally it's made clear when someone claims they are a cyclist but says bikes cause v shaped ruts or bikes will be ridden with the drive chain submerged in a creek that they are an anti posing as a cyclist and trolling the forum.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  51. #251
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    285
    Seems implausible to me that someone could ride a bike for 30+ years and NOT notice trail damage. Minimal? Sure, but its still needs to addressed.

  52. #252
    Bicycles aren't motorized
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,645
    I generally portage my bike across creeks rather than risk damage to the environment or my bike. I also believe that you'd find than most if not all back country Cyclists have the same concerns. You have to take care of the ride or you're packing it out. We get it, not everyone want's bicycles to have access and I respect that but, throwing out highly improbable scenarios to try to support your position isn't the way to sway opinion imo.
    You meet the craziest people riding e-bikes!

    Make
    America
    Gravel
    Again

  53. #253
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    285
    Went hiking in Utah once where they asked us to pack out our TOILET PAPER. I complied.

  54. #254
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    285
    I get your point, but I also think it could be possible that someone blows a hydro line within a Wilderness Boundary.

  55. #255
    Bicycles aren't motorized
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,645
    Quote Originally Posted by Surly29 View Post
    I get your point, but I also think it could be possible that someone blows a hydro line within a Wilderness Boundary.


    Dude, I know people that claim to have seen Bigfoot in the wilderness. I know one infamous person that claimed to have been abducted by Aliens. Sounds improbable doesn't it? The simple fact is that before there were Wilderness areas there were much more severe spills than a few ounces of mineral oil. I'll use your toilet paper analogy, it could be cleaned up and packed out. Easy peezy. Solutions, not exclusions.
    You meet the craziest people riding e-bikes!

    Make
    America
    Gravel
    Again

  56. #256
    Big Mac
    Reputation: mbmb65's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,284
    Quote Originally Posted by Surly29 View Post
    I get your point, but I also think it could be possible that someone blows a hydro line within a Wilderness Boundary.
    How many times has that happened to you? How many times have you seen it happen to others? Heard of it happening? I'm sure it has happened, but in the nearly 20 years I've been riding hydraulic discs, I've never once seen it happen, or even heard of happening. Leaching of petroleum from your hiking boots likely probably causes more contamination. And you do realize that, whatever goes in water, moves down stream? Right?

  57. #257
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    285
    Do you really think someone would clean up their spill? With what, a cycling jersey?

  58. #258
    Bicycles aren't motorized
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,645
    Quote Originally Posted by Surly29 View Post
    Do you really think someone would clean up their spill? With what, a cycling jersey?



    The same way a hiker or backpacker would or are you inferring that people don't clean up after themselves in the back country? The only difference is the method of conveyance. We are all the same people, the same tribe in the back country
    You meet the craziest people riding e-bikes!

    Make
    America
    Gravel
    Again

  59. #259
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,859
    It's amazing how someone can get so worked up about a few ounces of mineral oil but completely ignore the aircraft that have crashed into fish lake. So many have done so on this approach it's lovingly called "Lake Cessna".

    Never mind that the double L in 100LL stands for lead.

    http://youtu.be/mUztLI-L9ts

    But hey this is allowed in a Wilderness area but cycling isn't.

    Seems legit.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  60. #260
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    285
    Twice. Once was a full blow-out where the line actually separated right at a fitting, the other was a crimp that leaked very slowly and could have easily been stopped in the field.

    Point is things happen.

  61. #261
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    285
    DOT-3 fliud. I wish it was only mineral oil.

  62. #262
    Big Mac
    Reputation: mbmb65's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,284
    Quote Originally Posted by Surly29 View Post
    Do you really think someone would clean up their spill? With what, a cycling jersey?
    What about back packer's and their cook fuel? Do they ever spill that shit?

  63. #263
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,859
    Quote Originally Posted by mbmb65 View Post
    What about back packer's and their cook fuel? Do they ever spill that shit?
    No it's whisked away by angels


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  64. #264
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    285
    Your ALLOWED to crash planes in your wilderness areas?

  65. #265
    Big Mac
    Reputation: mbmb65's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,284
    Quote Originally Posted by Davey Simon View Post
    No it's whisked away by angels


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    River angels?

  66. #266
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,859
    Quote Originally Posted by mbmb65 View Post
    River angels?
    Superiority Angels!


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  67. #267
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Curveball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    2,400
    Quote Originally Posted by Surly29 View Post
    I get your point, but I also think it could be possible that someone blows a hydro line within a Wilderness Boundary.
    And what about the backcountry areas that are not within designated Wilderness boundary?

    Shouldn't we be concerned about all wild areas regardless of drawn boundaries?
    Riding Washington State singletrack since 1986

  68. #268
    Big Mac
    Reputation: mbmb65's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,284
    Quote Originally Posted by Curveball View Post
    And what about the backcountry areas that are not within designated Wilderness boundary?

    Shouldn't we be concerned about all wild areas regardless of drawn boundaries?
    Apparently not. Just the aquatic environment's within the "wilderness".

  69. #269
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,022
    Quote Originally Posted by Surly29 View Post
    Your ALLOWED to crash planes in your wilderness areas?
    His making light of your well it might happen fallacy.
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    Your head

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

  70. #270
    Big Mac
    Reputation: mbmb65's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,284
    Quote Originally Posted by Davey Simon View Post
    Superiority Angels!


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Man, I need one of those on my shoulder!

  71. #271
    Bicycles aren't motorized
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,645
    Quote Originally Posted by Surly29 View Post
    DOT-3 fliud. I wish it was only mineral oil.


    It's not the S.S. Valdez FFS, it can be cleaned up if the very unlikely event ever happens. Hell, we could all just use mechanical brakes to ally any fears of contamination. You act like Cyclist are going to descend upon the Wilderness like locusts, you could not be further from the realities of it.

    Solutions, not exclusions.
    You meet the craziest people riding e-bikes!

    Make
    America
    Gravel
    Again

  72. #272
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Curveball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    2,400
    Quote Originally Posted by Surly29 View Post
    Point is things happen.
    Following this reasoning, bikes should be banned from all trails based upon risk to the environment. You don't think that all environmentally sensitive areas are limited to within Wilderness boundaries do you?
    Riding Washington State singletrack since 1986

  73. #273
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,022
    Quote Originally Posted by Curveball View Post
    Following this reasoning, bikes should be banned from all trails based upon risk to the environment. You don't think that all environmentally sensitive areas are limited to within Wilderness boundaries do you?
    Following that reasoning humans should be banned from everywhere. A person could die, never be recovered and the environmental impact of their possessions leaching into the environment could be much worse than any brake line rupture.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

  74. #274
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by Curveball View Post
    And what about the backcountry areas that are not within designated Wilderness boundary?

    Shouldn't we be concerned about all wild areas regardless of drawn boundaries?
    Isn't that the idea behind wilderness areas? Someplace that is preserved a little more.

  75. #275
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    285
    For future generations? What is so wrong with putting aside a little piece of nature and saying "no, we want to try our hardest to keep this area pristine..."

    EDIT: wishing I hadn't responded to name calling. Sorry to those who read it.

  76. #276
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Curveball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    2,400
    Quote Originally Posted by Surly29 View Post
    Isn't that the idea behind wilderness areas? Someplace that is preserved a little more.
    Can you go to a high backcountry trail that used by bikes and a Wilderness trail used by hikers and actually tell any difference whatsoever?
    Riding Washington State singletrack since 1986

  77. #277
    Bicycles aren't motorized
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,645
    Quote Originally Posted by Surly29 View Post
    For future generations? What is so wrong with putting aside a little piece of nature and saying "no, we want to try our hardest to keep this area pristine..."




    Cyclists have no more impact that hikers so that's a Red Herring.

    I would also posit that because Cyclists travel with more efficiency that they actually have less of an impact in the back country because their camps tend to be further apart than other users.
    You meet the craziest people riding e-bikes!

    Make
    America
    Gravel
    Again

  78. #278
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Curveball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    2,400

    Mountain Bikers Seek to Gut Wilderness Act

    Quote Originally Posted by Surly29 View Post
    For future generations? What is so wrong with putting aside a little piece of nature and saying "no, we want to try our hardest to keep this area pristine..."
    I think it depends upon what you consider pristine. I'd think that pristine would mean no trails or human presence whatsoever.

    If you consider an area laced with hiking trails pristine, then you'd have to demonstrate that bikes on those trails degrade them more than the hikers and horsies do. That may be a tough case to make.
    Last edited by AshevilleMTB; 05-19-2017 at 08:07 PM.
    Riding Washington State singletrack since 1986

  79. #279
    Nat
    Nat is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Nat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    12,852
    Quote Originally Posted by Curveball View Post
    Can you go to a high backcountry trail that used by bikes and a Wilderness trail used by hikers and actually tell any difference whatsoever?
    Well, actually yes. I go to both a lot and there is a distinct difference (at least around here).

  80. #280
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Curveball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    2,400
    Quote Originally Posted by Nat View Post
    Well, actually yes. I go to both a lot and there is a distinct difference (at least around here).
    Interesting. What sort of differences do you notice?

    I'm curious about this.
    Riding Washington State singletrack since 1986

  81. #281
    Bicycles aren't motorized
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,645
    Here's a couple of trails in a local to me Wilderness area. As you can see, Wilderness areas aren't all the same and would not be impacted in the same ways. Access should be handled on a case by case basis by local Land Managers.


    Mountain Bikers Seek to Gut Wilderness Act-5929-888888_1205298844-02.jpg

    Mountain Bikers Seek to Gut Wilderness Act-hiking-trail-superstition-mountains-arizona-landscaping-view-near-phoenix-sun-going-down-just-co.jpg
    You meet the craziest people riding e-bikes!

    Make
    America
    Gravel
    Again

  82. #282
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    285
    All depends on how much traffic the trails see. I gave an example in the other thread of a backcountry trail along a wilderness boundary that has seen an impact from bikers.

    I'm not trying to be an a absolutist here, but many people are concerned about impacts from allowing bicycles in wilderness areas. Maybe it's a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" attitude. Maybe its that most of these concerns are met with a "you're being completely ridiculous and we don't even want to respond to your concerns" attitude.

  83. #283
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    285
    And this is where I agree with everyone. Case-by-case.

    Please don't come to my Wilderness Areas in Colorado and tell me you just have to have access.

  84. #284
    Bicycles aren't motorized
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,645
    Quote Originally Posted by Surly29 View Post
    All depends on how much traffic the trails see. I gave an example in the other thread of a backcountry trail along a wilderness boundary that has seen an impact from bikers.

    I'm not trying to be an a absolutist here, but many people are concerned about impacts from allowing bicycles in wilderness areas. Maybe it's a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" attitude. Maybe its that most of these concerns are met with a "you're being completely ridiculous and we don't even want to respond to your concerns" attitude.



    But many are responding and not all of the people that are responding are dismissive. Most would acknowledge that not all Wilderness areas should even be candidates for inclusion of Cyclists or even are suitable for it. On the other hand, why not include Cyclists in the areas that could be deemed suitable?
    You meet the craziest people riding e-bikes!

    Make
    America
    Gravel
    Again

  85. #285
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by Curveball View Post
    I think it depends upon what you consider pristine. I'd think that pristine would mean no trails or human presence whatsoever.

    If you consider an area laced with hiking trails pristine, then you'd have to demonstrate that bikes on those trails degrade them more than the hikers and horsies do. That may be a tough case to make.
    I don't even agree with this one myself totally, but here goes...

    Wouldn't you need to demonstrate that bikes on those trails DO NOT degrade them more than hikers and horses?

  86. #286
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by life behind bars View Post
    But many are responding and not all of the people that are responding are dismissive. Most would acknowledge that not all Wilderness areas should even be candidates for inclusion of Cyclists or even are suitable for it. On the other hand, why not include Cyclists in the areas that could be deemed suitable?
    Yes. Thanks again for your well thought out replies. Others as well.

    I'd probably agree with most situation, but the blanket ban or the blanket inclusion is what bothers me.

  87. #287
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,859
    Quote Originally Posted by Surly29 View Post
    And this is where I agree with everyone. Case-by-case.

    Please don't come to my Wilderness Areas in Colorado and tell me you just have to have access.
    Don't you understand that this is what STCs bill is trying to accomplish.

    Case by case Wilderness access for some trails. Only where the land manager and locals agree on it.

    If you want to organize a MBAMB group in "your" Wilderness areas and you can get the ear of the land manager it's a certainty that you would never see access.

    Areas that already have cycling such as the many in the proposed NREPA Wilderness bill could likely remain open to cycling but still get the benefit of Wilderness protection.

    Here's a handy map if you aren't familiar with NREPA:

    http://www.saveamericasforests.org/N...PA_4_28_16.pdf


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  88. #288
    Nat
    Nat is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Nat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    12,852
    Quote Originally Posted by Curveball View Post
    Interesting. What sort of differences do you notice?

    I'm curious about this.
    In Central Oregon we have some high country single track open to biking, which get a lot of use. They are in close proximity to trails within the Wilderness boundary that sees only foot and horse traffic, so the geology and climate are the same.

    I've noticed that the trails on which there is a lot of bike traffic tend to have a U-shaped cross section, deeper in the center of the track. The trails without bike traffic tend to have a flat base with a cross section that looks more like |____| (unless horses have turned them into total F-ed up bombing ranges). Corners on the bike trails have a bit of a berm (wheeee!) whereas the non-bike trails do not. I'll see if I can pull up some of my photos that show it well.


    Quote Originally Posted by life behind bars View Post
    Here's a couple of trails in a local to me Wilderness area. As you can see, Wilderness areas aren't all the same and would not be impacted in the same ways. Access should be handled on a case by case basis by local Land Managers.
    I think that having local land managers make the final decision would be wise. I did read some articles though that said there would be a two year time limit to do so, after which if the local Land Manager did not close a trail to bikes then it is by default open. The concern with the two year time limit was that for a government agency to do impact assessments could easily take more than two years, especially if they have a lot of mileage to evaluate within their district. What's your opinion on this idea? Do you think it's a valid concern?

  89. #289
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,859
    Quote Originally Posted by Nat View Post
    In Central Oregon we have some high country single track open to biking, which get a lot of use. They are in close proximity to trails within the Wilderness boundary that sees only foot and horse traffic, so the geology and climate are the same.

    I've noticed that the trails on which there is a lot of bike traffic tend to have a U-shaped cross section, deeper in the center of the track. The trails without bike traffic tend to have a flat base with a cross section that looks more like |____| (unless horses have turned them into total F-ed up bombing ranges). Corners on the bike trails have a bit of a berm (wheeee!) whereas the non-bike trails do not. I'll see if I can pull up some of my photos that show it well.




    I think that having local land managers make the final decision would be wise. I did read some articles though that said there would be a two year time limit to do so, after which if the local Land Manager did not close a trail to bikes then it is by default open. The concern with the two year time limit was that for a government agency to do impact assessments could easily take more than two years, especially if they have a lot of mileage to evaluate within their district. What's your opinion on this idea? Do you think it's a valid concern?
    The two year time limit is no longer part of the bill. So it is no longer a concern.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  90. #290
    Nat
    Nat is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Nat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    12,852
    Quote Originally Posted by Davey Simon View Post
    The two year time limit is no longer part of the bill. So it is no longer a concern.
    That's good to know. So would the default be everything is opened until closed, or everything stays closed until opened?

  91. #291
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by Davey Simon View Post
    Don't you understand that this is what STCs bill is trying to accomplish.

    Case by case Wilderness access for some trails. Only where the land manager and locals agree on it.
    The bill, HR 1349, was introduced on March 15th on behalf of the mountain biker organization, the Sustainable Trails Coalition (STC). This bill would amend the Wilderness Act to allow bikes, strollers, wheelbarrows, game carts, survey wheels, and measuring wheels in every unit of the National Wilderness Preservation System.

    So was this quoted wrong in the original post? I've been mostly arguing against allowing any of these things in "EVERY UNIT OF THE NWPS"

  92. #292
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,859
    Quote Originally Posted by Nat View Post
    That's good to know. So would the default be everything is opened until closed, or everything stays closed until opened?
    As previously designated (closed).

    Again all we are doing is giving the land managers the ability to open a trail to cycling in a Wilderness area.




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  93. #293
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by Nat View Post
    That's good to know. So would the default be everything is opened until closed, or everything stays closed until opened?
    That would make all the difference to me.

  94. #294
    Nat
    Nat is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Nat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    12,852
    Quote Originally Posted by Surly29 View Post
    That would make all the difference to me.
    Same here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Davey Simon View Post
    As previously designated (closed).

    Again all we are doing is giving the land managers the ability to open a trail to cycling in a Wilderness area.
    Davey, maybe you should've opened with that, like in your first post instead of that thing about helicopters, LOL.

    Maybe make it crystal clear in the first paragraph of the STC website too, "default is closed unless opened by the land managers."

    I think it would make a difference to a lot of people if they understood the default.

  95. #295
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,859
    Quote Originally Posted by Nat View Post
    Same here.



    Davey, maybe you should've opened with that, like in your first post instead of that thing about helicopters, LOL.

    Maybe make it crystal clear in the first paragraph of the STC website too, "default is closed unless opened by the land managers."

    I think it would make a difference to a lot of people if they understood the default.
    Did you read the recent press release. It's all addressed there.




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  96. #296
    Nat
    Nat is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Nat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    12,852
    Quote Originally Posted by Davey Simon View Post
    Did you read the recent press release. It's all addressed there.
    Yes, I even went back and re-read it. I'm trying to help you by telling you, it wasn't clear enough. The press release had a lot of info that people will skim right over. If I could miss it, so could others, and the burden is on you guys to communicate your proposal well.

    Or don't listen to me and continue to run into needless opposition. If the press release had stated the default right at the top I would've had my concerns allayed before the end of page 1.

  97. #297
    Bicycles aren't motorized
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,645
    Quote Originally Posted by Davey Simon View Post
    Did you read the recent press release. It's all addressed there.




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



    With all due respect, people should not have to ask. It should be out front, center. In your face transparency so it's crystal clear. Ally peoples fears of a take over because it's not happening like that.

    Mountain Bikers are not going take over the Wilderness, most just want to transit it to connect already existing routes or regain recently lost legacy trails.
    You meet the craziest people riding e-bikes!

    Make
    America
    Gravel
    Again

  98. #298
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,859
    I'll pass it along to the board


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  99. #299
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    285
    I saw different statements on your web-site. Only link to the bill I found still had a 2-year limit with all areas being open to bikes if a decision wasn't made.

  100. #300
    Nat
    Nat is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Nat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    12,852
    Quote Originally Posted by life behind bars View Post
    With all due respect, people should not have to ask. It should be out front, center. In your face transparency so it's crystal clear. Ally peoples fears of a take over because it's not happening like that.
    Exactly. This fight is going to come down to communication skills. STC might even want to hire a pro PR person if they're serious.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-24-2017, 01:32 PM
  2. 96% of mt. bikers surveyed supported reasonable access to Wilderness
    By Empty_Beer in forum Trail Building and Advocacy
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 02-19-2016, 11:00 PM
  3. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 05-31-2015, 07:01 PM
  4. WH Petition to Not Close Proposed Wilderness to mt bikers
    By powpig in forum California - Norcal
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-30-2015, 05:33 PM
  5. Replies: 95
    Last Post: 08-26-2011, 08:35 PM

Members who have read this thread: 213

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

mtbr.com and the ConsumerReview Network are business units of Invenda Corporation

(C) Copyright 1996-2018. All Rights Reserved.