Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: 36 USC 1133(c)

  1. #1
    Sheepherder/Cat Herder Moderator
    Reputation: Visicypher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,651

    36 USC 1133(c)

    Can anyone explain this to me:

    The Wilderness Act under 36 USC 1133(c) states: "..there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any such area."

    This statement effectively kills bicycles....and conflicts with 36 CFR 293.6(a) which states:

    "Mechanical transport, as herein used, shall include any contrivance which travels over ground, snow, or water on wheels, tracks, skids, or by floatation and is propelled by a nonliving power source contained or carried on or within the device."

    So last I checked, I was in the living category. Has any used the CFR cite when submitting public comments on a proposed wilderness designation?

    Someone please, please, please explain the US Code and the Code of Federal Regulations take on mechanized transport...and how we as MTBers are being classed as "mechanized" under each. A legal interpretation would be nice.
    ...building wherever they'll let me...

  2. #2
    featherweight clydesdale
    Reputation: Fattirewilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    1,356
    Quote Originally Posted by Visicypher
    Can anyone explain this to me:

    The Wilderness Act under 36 USC 1133(c) states: "..there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any such area."

    This statement effectively kills bicycles....and conflicts with 36 CFR 293.6(a) which states:

    "Mechanical transport, as herein used, shall include any contrivance which travels over ground, snow, or water on wheels, tracks, skids, or by floatation and is propelled by a nonliving power source contained or carried on or within the device."

    So last I checked, I was in the living category. Has any used the CFR cite when submitting public comments on a proposed wilderness designation?

    Someone please, please, please explain the US Code and the Code of Federal Regulations take on mechanized transport...and how we as MTBers are being classed as "mechanized" under each. A legal interpretation would be nice.
    I believe there was a ruling several years/decades later the singled out bikes. I don't have a source handy for this info though.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,730
    Unlike most people i really think that the ban of mountain bikes will be justly overturned in Wilderness and trails on National Parks. Yet my prediction is that it will happen when i'm 80.

    It's too bad that George W couldn't do one thing i would admire and petition against this ban, considering he's a supposed mt. biker. But that's a whole other can of worms....
    .~...|\
    ...~.|.\
    ..~..|..\
    .~...|...\
    ~....|....\
    ...~.|.....\
    ....~|____\
    _____||_________
    .\....FAILBOAT..../

  4. #4
    Sheepherder/Cat Herder Moderator
    Reputation: Visicypher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,651
    Now I really want to see that briefs on that case!!!
    ...building wherever they'll let me...

  5. #5
    Sheepherder/Cat Herder Moderator
    Reputation: Visicypher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,651
    Found it.

    36 CFR 261.18(b) prohibits possessing or using a bicycle in a national wilderness area.
    [42 FR 2957, Jan. 14, 1977, as amended at 42 FR 35959, July 13, 1977; 50 FR 16231, Apr. 25, 1985. Redesignated at 70 FR 68291, Nov. 9, 2005]
    ...building wherever they'll let me...

  6. #6
    I should be out riding
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    958
    Quote Originally Posted by Skookum
    Unlike most people i really think that the ban of mountain bikes will be justly overturned in Wilderness and trails on National Parks. Yet my prediction is that it will happen when i'm 80.

    It's too bad that George W couldn't do one thing i would admire and petition against this ban, considering he's a supposed mt. biker. But that's a whole other can of worms....
    It's also too bad IMBA didn't take the opportunity to capitalize on having a mtn biker in the white house and get this done. Near as I can tell, IMBA did a whole lot of nothing to take advantage of this.

  7. #7
    I should be out riding
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    958
    Fattire, I believe there was an administrative interpretation that banned bikes - the blackletter law does not ban bikes per se, thus there is room for it to be challenged, and it could be changed without congressional action.

    This is a good article that was in Dirt Rag a couple years ago on the whether bikes were intended to be banned when the Wilderness act was passed.

    http://www.imba.com/resources/land_p...ion/stroll.pdf

  8. #8
    IMBA Guy
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    173
    Quote Originally Posted by ACree
    It's also too bad IMBA didn't take the opportunity to capitalize on having a mtn biker in the white house and get this done. Near as I can tell, IMBA did a whole lot of nothing to take advantage of this.

    Though, on the surface, GWB seems to provide a great opportunity to bring bikes into the Wilderness, any type of autocratic move to do so would likely spur wilderness advocates and those who oppose mtb access in Wilderness to bring every resource they have to bear on the issue. Mountain bikers are simply out gunned, and that's because less than 1/2% of mtb enthusiasts actually support mtb advocacy. The lawyers, and there is an army of them working on the side of Wilderness, would tie the regulation change up in the courts indefinitely if they couldn't strike the change down immediately. The backlash would probably set us back from where we are now and damage growing relationships with the Wilderness society that are helping mtb advocates preserve epic routes from Wilderness designation.

    The real value of IMBA's relationship with GWB, and there is a good relationship there, will likely develop after Bush is out of office. He has access to resources and relationships that few mountain bike advocates have, and promoting fitness and healthy lifestyles will likely be his legacy outside of the oval office. Whether you like the president's politics or not, this guy truly loves mountain biking.

    But, yes, near as you can tell IMBA has done nothing with the Prez. Due to the complexities of lobbying and political favoritism, IMBA can't say much about their relationship with the president, just know that opportunities have not been missed or lost, they are being developed. If there is a big opportunity on a national or regional level, IMBA is probably working hard to take advantage of it. Unfortunately, for one reason or another, their story just doesn't get told.
    Powered by Krispy Kreme!

  9. #9
    Single Speed Junkie
    Reputation: crux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,106
    Boils down to a few key issues in my mind.

    1.) Congress watched a mt. dew commercial and that is their impression of all mountain bikers.

    2.) We are not lining their pockets.

    Sure it is BS not to allow bikes in a wilderness area while horses and hikers roam free. I have seen more horse back riders dropping trash and other piles on the trail only to leave us hikers and bikers to pick up after them.

  10. #10
    jalepenio jimenez
    Reputation: mudflap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    525
    Hmmm...horses: This country's "sacred cows."
    I dig, chop, strangle, yank, stomp, annihilate, mutilate, eradicate, and FU goatheads

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    549
    To beat them, let's join them.
    Have them enforce the law to the letter. This way we'd have a bunch of pissed off skiiers, snowshoers, float fishers, kayakers and rock climbers as well as their organizations --Access fund, Trout unlimited to name a few -- join our ranks.
    I've brought this up with several "desk rangers" and the've rationalized that these users have little or no impact. To counter this I've pointed out that it says nothing about impact. To counter my point they told me two things.
    # 1. contact my congressman and # 2. the best way to exit their facility.

Posting Permissions

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