Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 54
  1. #1
    MattSavage
    Reputation: mattsavage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    2,431

    Wydens Wilderness bill...

    What's the status on Wydens Wilderness bill? I was on his website the other day and there are tons of maps of new areas and what not, but I couldn't figure out how we as mtb'ers were affected. I know I've been riding trails in several of these new "wilderness areas" up until the snow hit... I'm not big on political/legal jargon, so the pdf's of the actual bill was not helpful. He had a statement on there how he wanted to improve access for cyclists to these areas, but that was very vague.

    Looking for legit information, not opinions and rants on bikes vs. wilderness...

    Thanks!
    "I wrote a hit play! What have you ever done?!"

    Have Ashtray, Will Travel....

  2. #2
    it means 'no problem'
    Reputation: sans soucie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    506
    link?

    There is talk of a John Day and Maury Mountains land swap that would create new BLM wilderness. I've been told there is existing and historic mountain bike use there.

    ONDA (Oregon Natural Desert Assoc.) is working with Wyden's office but it is "years out there".

    I support "No net loss of trails." Not sure yet where this one leaves us bikers.
    "“May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view." - Edward Abbey

  3. #3
    MattSavage
    Reputation: mattsavage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    2,431
    http://wyden.senate.gov/issues/Legis...Mount_Hood.cfm

    I looked around in here, but didn't see much...
    "I wrote a hit play! What have you ever done?!"

    Have Ashtray, Will Travel....

  4. #4
    it means 'no problem'
    Reputation: sans soucie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    506
    That has passed. We basically gave up 127 miles of open, legal trail in exchange for squat.

    Some of us learned the difficult lesson that when Mt. Bikers were invited "to the table" to discuss these proposals, it was merely so that the Wilderness Coalition could say that we were "invited to the table". I believe, as do many of the others who originally worked on that issue, the W.C. never intended to incorporate our wishes to continue access to these trails.

    On the other hand there was a post on here recently that someone went and rode in the Roaring River area (one of the new Wilderness areas) the ranger said I don't care if you do. This new Wilderness area (like many others I suspect) was set up to protect the land and the adequate funding to keep the trails open was not part of the deal. Mt. Bikers were critical for performing the necessary maintenance for these trails but of course we won't maintain anything we can't ride.

    I support Wilderness as much as the next tree hugger but the argument of creating Wilderness for the increased "recreational opportunities" is purely hogwash.

    Mountain biking advocates need to become more proactive if we want to stop losing trails in this way.

    End of rant.
    "“May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view." - Edward Abbey

  5. #5
    Keep Singletrack Single
    Reputation: willem3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    1,080
    Wyden is just another Politician... Doing deals in secret and hiding his real objectives from those who elect him. Time for change in Washington... Also some TERM Limits.
    Last edited by willem3; 02-12-2010 at 05:36 AM.
    Phil's Trail Steward for COTA
    http://www.cotamtb.com
    Phil's Trail Facebook Page
    https://www.facebook.com/PhilsTrail

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    902
    Wilderness is certainly a difficult issue for Mountain Bikers. On the one hand, it is the one sure way to "permanently" eliminate future development or resource extraction. On the other, because mountain bikes weren't even heard of around the time of the original Wilderness Act, they have never really been considered for inclusion as allowed activities in wilderness areas (unlike horses). So, bikers really have three options: try to get special exceptions for existing bike trails put into each new wilderness designation (lots of time and money); amend the wilderness act to allow land managers to provide for biking (one time deal, but extreme amounts of money, and low chance of success); or fight every wilderness bill that impacts bike trails (hurts relations with land managers and environmental groups which might otherwise support bikers).

    As for the Mt. Hood bill, it really sucks to have lost Dry Ridge/Grouse Point even if some people are still riding it...

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    195
    willem3,

    If you are asking for people to support COTA, as you do in your signature, you shouldn't alienate at least half your potential supporters by posting such a polarizing opinion. No one cares who you voted or didn't vote for, you should turn off FOX news and go for a ride.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    585
    Quote Originally Posted by jmeldrum26
    willem3,

    If you are asking for people to support COTA, as you do in your signature, you shouldn't alienate at least half your potential supporters by posting such a polarizing opinion. No one cares who you voted or didn't vote for, you should turn off FOX news and go for a ride.
    O brother

  9. #9
    it means 'no problem'
    Reputation: sans soucie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    506
    "The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily represent COTA, it's board of Directors, members, sponsors, heirs, assigns or next of kin."

    No matter who you voted for, can't we mountain bikers all agree that we are opposed to losing single track?
    "“May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view." - Edward Abbey

  10. #10
    MattSavage
    Reputation: mattsavage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    2,431
    Did I not specify in my first post that I did NOT want rants or opinions in this thread?

    Thanks Sans Soucie, that kind of solidified my idea of what was going on. I've read elsewhere that not only mtb'ers are losing out. Alot of trails in general are going to wind up being abandoned without volunteer support due to lack of funding and changes in mgmt. plans.

    15 mile creek appears to be a wild and scenic river area, so technically should be open to bikes still, luckily. That area is my favorite to ride on the eastside.
    "I wrote a hit play! What have you ever done?!"

    Have Ashtray, Will Travel....

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: OldHouseMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    3,068
    Quote Originally Posted by mattsavage
    15 mile creek appears to be a wild and scenic river area, so technically should be open to bikes still, luckily. That area is my favorite to ride on the eastside.
    Yep, it is still open. This was part of a compromise, that sans soucie seems to feel, did not happen.
    I only ride bikes to fill the time when I'm not skiing.

  12. #12
    it means 'no problem'
    Reputation: sans soucie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    506
    Yeah, you're right, there was a compromise. We mountain bikers were granted the "most popular trails". Fifteen Mile is probably the most primitive of those, so I guess we did get more than "squat" as I previously stated. Sorry.

    Having worked closely on the issue, I like the others, felt betrayed by the end result and the "process". It seemed that this "compromise" was best for everyone but legal mountain biking is seriously curtailed around Mt. Hood. We lost all the most primitive trails.
    "“May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view." - Edward Abbey

  13. #13
    Keep Singletrack Single
    Reputation: willem3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    1,080
    Quote Originally Posted by sans soucie
    "The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily represent COTA, it's board of Directors, members, sponsors, heirs, assigns or next of kin."

    No matter who you voted for, can't we mountain bikers all agree that we are opposed to losing single track?
    My apologies. I should not have ranted. The Government is not exactly an easy thing to watch. It is time to RIDE!! And do some trailwork!!
    Phil's Trail Steward for COTA
    http://www.cotamtb.com
    Phil's Trail Facebook Page
    https://www.facebook.com/PhilsTrail

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: freebiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    616

    Bonking ... not feelin' well

    Quote Originally Posted by Hack
    O brother
    How is mobbing up and down courtney road shuttling the syncline, pissing off local land owners and users, eventually leading to the closures of these areas any different than setting them aside as wilderness?

  15. #15
    Singletrack Addict
    Reputation: Snake Muesl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,145
    Quote Originally Posted by mattsavage
    Did I not specify in my first post that I did NOT want rants or opinions in this thread?

    How about that motorboat ban at Waldo Lake? (Ducks and covers)

  16. #16
    it means 'no problem'
    Reputation: sans soucie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    506
    Quote Originally Posted by willem3
    My apologies. I should not have ranted. The Government is not exactly an easy thing to watch. It is time to RIDE!! And do some trailwork!!

    No need to apologize. When has the Government ever been easy to watch? (Let alone participate in)

    Ride, do trailwork - couldn't agree more - clears the cobwebs wonderfully!
    "“May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view." - Edward Abbey

  17. #17
    it means 'no problem'
    Reputation: sans soucie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    506
    Quote Originally Posted by freebiker
    How is mobbing up and down courtney road shuttling the syncline, pissing off local land owners and users, eventually leading to the closures of these areas any different than setting them aside as wilderness?

    Very good point. I agree. We should work hard to NOT allow closures on these trails, that would really be a shame.
    "“May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view." - Edward Abbey

  18. #18
    Keep Singletrack Single
    Reputation: willem3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    1,080
    Dealing with the government is always a battle! Yuck! No matter what part you deal with... The worst part is that all the politicians...no matter what side...are only in it for themselves. Even if they say they are in it for their constituents. I am all for some term limits. This will help greatly. It might be the magic ingredient necessary to make things better.

    For now...Just ride....Enjoy nature... I just came back from some amazing Backcountry Skiing around Todd Lake... Nice conditions! Happy camper here! All the best!
    Phil's Trail Steward for COTA
    http://www.cotamtb.com
    Phil's Trail Facebook Page
    https://www.facebook.com/PhilsTrail

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: freebiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    616

    It's a shame

    [quote=sans soucie]Very good point. I agree. We should work hard to NOT allow closures on these trails, that would really be a shame.[/quote
    I spoke with an older long time white salmon(actually lives just north of hospital hill) local the other day on the highline trail, he was out there jogging, he is an avid cross country mtb'er and cross country skier. He seemed rather involved in local trail politics and knows most of the folks that live up and around the hill/sincline. I asked him about his thoughts on the future of syncline in regards to closures and he quoted freeriders as the main sources to the problem. I thought that was interesting. The cheapest and easiest solution I could think of to mitigate/prevent shuttle access and keep the trails open was to just close access from the top on courtney road. Still allow users to climb up trails from the bottom, this would weed out all the shuttlegypsies and keep the trails open. You could still climb up to do the coyote cliffs/agony trail from the bottom and you could still climb up and ride coyote proper from the bottom. The only downside would be losing the ability to do out and backs from the bottom of hospital hill to the bottom of the syncline viia the coyote/agony trails. You could still do out and backs with coyote proper to hospital hill trails via milennium. Just a thought on weeding out the problem. Too bad there isn't a mtb mafia to do this type of work!

  20. #20
    Daniel the Dog
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    6,525

    Everybody wants some...

    We all want what we want when it comes to trails. For example, I want motorcycle off Post Canyon because they screw up Mitchell and the trails I enjoy. The hikers want me off their trails because it is scary having a mountain biker coming at them and their dogs. The local homeowners just want peace and quiet. The problem is ridable trails are getting harder and harder to find. I have seen Whoop's trail and other awesome trails closed due to logging and wacko politically driven jerk offs like Wyden. I hear the Scappoose trail system is going to be logged. Thanks goodness for new areas like Sandy Ridge opening up. I just wish folks would quit driving up and down roads in Hood River but I'm a trail guy and think shuttling is goofy.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gorgedon's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    211
    I went to an early meeting in Hood River with a couple of Wyden's staff & they seemed to be genuinely interested in accommodating everyone's desires as much as possible, but we all know how politics works. Personally, I'm OK with what they ended up with & think it could have been a lot worse.

    As far as the Wilderness Act goes, my opinion is we all need to hammer our gov't reps with emails, letters & comments at any & all meetings we can attend until they change that one stinking word in the Act that kills us; "mechanical" needs to be changed to "motorized". Plain & simple.

    Hope that doesn't start another firestorm. : )

  22. #22
    MattSavage
    Reputation: mattsavage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    2,431
    [QUOTE=gorgedon] Personally, I'm OK with what they ended up with & think it could have been a lot worse.

    ...change that one stinking word in the Act that kills us; "mechanical" needs to be changed to "motorized". Plain & simple.

    Hope that doesn't start another firestorm. : )[/QUOTE

    You're right, it could have been worse... What I want to know is how strongly will they be implementing and enforcing these changes? IMBA still hasn't updated its list of affected trails since 2007. MHNF website notes the changes about new wilderness areas, but hasn't updated its list of trails and allowed usage either. I know it's not reasonable to expect overnight change, but it has been almost 3 years.

    Until signage and available public information is updated, there's gonna be alot of people playing dumb... or just truly ignorant of the situation.
    "I wrote a hit play! What have you ever done?!"

    Have Ashtray, Will Travel....

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaybo
    We all want what we want when it comes to trails. For example, I want motorcycle off Post Canyon because they screw up Mitchell and the trails I enjoy. The hikers want me off their trails because it is scary having a mountain biker coming at them and their dogs. The local homeowners just want peace and quiet. The problem is ridable trails are getting harder and harder to find. I have seen Whoop's trail and other awesome trails closed due to logging and wacko politically driven jerk offs like Wyden. I hear the Scappoose trail system is going to be logged. Thanks goodness for new areas like Sandy Ridge opening up. I just wish folks would quit driving up and down roads in Hood River but I'm a trail guy and think shuttling is goofy.
    There always seems to be someone or organization that wants to take away what you enjoy to do and this applies to many outdoor recreational activities.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by gorgedon
    I went to an early meeting in Hood River with a couple of Wyden's staff & they seemed to be genuinely interested in accommodating everyone's desires as much as possible, but we all know how politics works. Personally, I'm OK with what they ended up with & think it could have been a lot worse.

    As far as the Wilderness Act goes, my opinion is we all need to hammer our gov't reps with emails, letters & comments at any & all meetings we can attend until they change that one stinking word in the Act that kills us; "mechanical" needs to be changed to "motorized". Plain & simple.

    Hope that doesn't start another firestorm. : )
    Unfortunately motorized vs mechanical turns us against them and leaves less to fight again.

  25. #25
    Obviously Single
    Reputation: LeeMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,139
    Anybody else notice that Outside Magazine (Mar 2010), in an Editorial, is advocating letting bikes *back* in Wilderness?

    Cool. It's a start, even if it doesn't happen now.
    The Lee-Man

    A witty saying proves nothing. -- Voltaire

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 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
  •