Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 157
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    549

    More wilderness designations for the Wasach?

    Mctweek, an MTBR member, posted this on another page. But since I don't know how many of you visit the "Trails and Advocacy" page I felt it worthwhile to make a posting here.
    There is a proposal to add nearly 30,000 more acres of the Wasatch mountains east of Salt lake city, to the Wilderness areas designations that already exist there.

    Read more at www.saveourcanyons.org

    If you look at the mapped proposal you'll see Desolation and Dog lakes as well as Mill D tr. are within the new proposals domain.
    Last edited by Shelbak73; 04-13-2008 at 12:39 PM.

  2. #2
    JMH
    JMH is offline
    Sugary Exoskeleton
    Reputation: JMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,663
    Quote Originally Posted by Shelbak73
    If you look at the mapped proposal you'll see Desolation and Dog lakes as well as Mill D tr. are within the new proposals domain.
    I agree with some of the SOC party line, but I will fight this when it conflicts with established multi-use trails. Does anybody know who to contact to voice an opinion? Is it the Forest Service that currently manages these areas?

    JMH

  3. #3
    yelgatgab
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    455
    Ah forgetit

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Boon Fly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    496

    SOC is national...

    SOC is well organized. I am from Salt Lake but now live in the Bay Area. I have seen SOC propaganda out here at least three times that I can recall. I even saw a Heli Free Wasatch bumper sticker once. They have good intentions but they are way, way over the top IMHO. Said the mountain biker AND backcountry skier...

  5. #5
    Wandervans
    Reputation: smilycook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,071
    Just write your govenor, congressman, and senator and tell them you oppose the wilderness designation.
    Live to ride!
    15 Cannondale Jekyll Team
    15 Rocky Mountain Blizzard

    https://www.facebook.com/wandervans
    wandervans.com

  6. #6
    Homer's problem child
    Reputation: Bortis Yelltzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,322
    You don't like what SOC is doing? Send them a note here:

    www.saveourcanyons.org/mail-rachael.html

    That's what I did. I wonder why they are so careful about not posting an email address? Only way to contact them is through forms on their site. Here is what I wrote:

    Hello,
    I am not a member of SOC. I have lived in SLC for over 3 years now after moving from Colorado where I spent the first 27 years of my life. I am anxious to learn more about SOC. I do agree with most of what SOC stands for but I am extremely worried that your policies are anti-mountain bike. I would like to know more about SOC's stance on mountain bikes and if closing trails to mountain bikes is a major focus of your organization.

    I can not support your other actions that I agree with (heli-free wasatch, watershed, resort expansion, etc....) when I know supporting those could just lead to me losing more trails that I enjoy biking. I am a strong believer that mountain biking when done right on well designed, maintained, and built trails causes no more erosion than hiking. I also see many trails more severely damaged by horses than any damage that could be caused by cyclists. Yet I see no focus of SOC to ban equestrians. The vast majority of the cyclists I ride with are very cautious about trail etiquette and maintenance and go above and beyond to be polite to other trail user groups and help keep the trails in good shape. I know this isn’t always the case with bike riders but in my experience this is the majority of riders.

    Please inform me on your stance on these issues. I am anxious to learn more and if I agree with you policies I'd be happy to become a member, donate money and volunteer my time. But if you are anti-mountain bike I am afraid this will not be possible.

    Regards,
    I'm not a fan of their bike policies for sure. I am for most of their other policies though (heli-free wasatch, watershed, resort development, etc...). Makes it tough, I can't support them until they relax their biking stance.

    Until then - Save us from Save Our Canyons. Soon no one will be allowed in the canyon unless they float in on a non-damaging cloud of smug.

    B
    Last edited by Bortis Yelltzen; 04-15-2008 at 09:20 PM.
    When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro....

  7. #7
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    52
    "Soon no one will be allowed in the canyone unless they float in on a non-damaging cloud of smug..."

    lol! Thats pretty damn funny...

  8. #8
    Chumley for prez!
    Reputation: mr. welcorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    445
    I wrote a letter too. I think the hardest thing for me is that I don't really know where they stand as far as bikes are concerned. I just asked them for a straight answer. Because mtn. bikers represent such a huge group in the wasatch, and many of us are load and obnoxious, I just don't see this bill passing without our support. I'll write as many letters to senators/congressmen as I have to.
    Sad thing is that I agree with a lot of their policies, they just need to learn to negotiate with other interest groups imho.
    BY, perhaps I would be a little faster uphill if I had a cloud of smug. What must I eat to produce such a cloud?

  9. #9
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    52
    Wilderness is anti-bike, so thus- SOC is anti-bike

  10. #10
    Err
    Err is offline
    Calm like a bomb
    Reputation: Err's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    3,518
    This is very unfortunate. I have a hard time as viewing this proposal as anything more than bickering among trail users, who do not want to share the trails, thinly veiled as legislation to protect the Wasatch.

    The trails in these areas are very well maintained and much of that maintenance comes from mountain bikers. We need to make sure this does legislation does not pass.

  11. #11
    Chumley for prez!
    Reputation: mr. welcorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    445
    from SOC FAQ:
    "What is SOC's position on mountain bikes in the Wasatch?

    While the use of mountain bikes does create potential user conflicts, there are well-established rules for the right-of-way on Forest Service paths. SOC believes that the presence of mountain bikes does not represent any irreversible change in the character of the canyons or mountains. Local governments and the Forest Service need to manage user conflicts. Using the best preservation tool at hand, SOC is actively working toward the expansion of the boundaries of the wilderness areas in the Wasatch and bikes are not allowed in such areas. Mountain bike enthusiasts, when they review SOC's wilderness proposal, will find that the proposed restrictions on mountain biking are minimal."


    I guess this sort of answers my question. Although I am sort of missing the part where increasing wilderness land will have a "minimal" impact on mountain biking in the wasatch.

  12. #12
    Grizzly
    Reputation: alizbee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    695
    It's not enough to list the different animals and plants in the Wasatch, juxtaposed with the fact that the population in SLC is growing. Where is the data to show that these plants and animals are being impacted in a negative way? Propaganda groups like SOC love to make blanket statements about how animals are being driven out of habitat because of a human presence.

    Without permanent protection the populations of these sensitive species are at risk due to habitat destruction and degradation.
    Am I missing where this is actually demonstrated? Where are the studies, the numbers, the actual impact?
    GrizzlyAdam.net
    Read my book
    Follow me on Twitter

    "The only thing better than solitude, is society."

    ~Ed Abbey

  13. #13
    Err
    Err is offline
    Calm like a bomb
    Reputation: Err's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    3,518
    Quote Originally Posted by mr. welcorn
    from SOC FAQ:
    [INDENT]"What is SOC's position on mountain bikes in the Wasatch?


    I guess this sort of answers my question. Although I am sort of missing the part where increasing wilderness land will have a "minimal" impact on mountain biking in the wasatch.
    I'm with ya.

    Wilderness = No mountain bikes. Plain and simple. There's no minimized or reduced access options. It's all or nothing when you speak in terms of wilderness designation.

    I'm having trouble pulling PDF's off their website right now. Were you guys able to download them? Could someone email me a copy if you already have it downloaded.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SingleWhiteCaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    152
    Just in case, maps are here...

    http://www.saveourcanyons.org/curren...wilderness.pdf

    and here...

    http://www.saveourcanyons.org/curren.../wild_land.pdf

    Both are somewhat similar. If you have trouble downloading drop a line and i'll email them.

    This can't stand. Anyone got any ideas of how to counter it?

  15. #15
    Homer's problem child
    Reputation: Bortis Yelltzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,322
    Here is the response I got back:

    Thanks you for contacting us regarding mountain biking in the Wasatch.
    Rachael passed along your email and I am happy to address some of your
    concerns.

    We are not by any means anti-mountain bike group or really anti any user
    group, but rather an environmental group. Many of our members are mountain
    bikers as are many members of our board and staff. Since our beginning in
    1972, we have been dedicated to protecting the wildness and beauty of the
    Wasatch mountains, canyons, and foothills. Some of this work has been done
    at the county level, some at the city level, and then we also work at the
    federal level too. We seek to protect access to public lands while working
    toward the long term protection of those lands.

    When protecting lands at the federal level, it has been our experience that
    the best way to do so is under the Wilderness Act of 1964. This provides the
    highest level of land protection that currently exists in the United States.
    It is this act that guides the management of Wilderness lands. It has never
    been the goal of our organization to close trails to mountain bikes. Last
    fall, we carved out nearly 2,000 acres of our wilderness proposal in
    response to concerns about popular mountain bike trails from our membership,
    board, staff and other community members. We have also, for the past 5 or 6
    years, done trail maintenance on many mountain biking trails to help repair
    any damage done to the environment.

    As our wilderness proposal currently stands, 1.6 miles of the Mill D trail
    would be closed to mountain biking. Big Water, Little Water, all of the
    Wasatch Crest Trail (or Great Western Trail) and the segment of the
    Desolation Trail which connects dog lake and Desolation Lake all lie outside
    our current wilderness proposal. Mill D has been the hardest part of our
    proposal because it cuts the Mt. Olympus Addition in half, thus leaving a
    large portion of the proposal unconnected and under 5,000 acres. We have
    tried everything from a trail reroute to cherry stemming but those will
    still result in a loss to some of the most unique terrain in the Central
    Wasatch.

    As far as your comments regarding the damage of equestrian use in the
    Wasatch I would again say that we don't advocate or align ourselves with any
    user group. Equestrian use is permitted under the Wilderness Act of 1964,
    however, it is not permitted in the Salt Lake City Watershed. Our Wilderness
    Proposal is based on data gathered from Salt Lake City Public Utilities, the
    water manager for over 400,000 Salt Lake residents. We are hoping that
    between Wilderness designation and the purchasing of private lands within
    the canyons we can reduce the amount of pavement and protect our water and
    natural resources.

    I hope that you can support our work as we are very excited to be working
    toward additional Wilderness in the Wasatch. We are committed to relocating
    trails that lie within our wilderness proposal so that their will not be a
    loss in mileage to mountain bike trails in the Wasatch.

    I look forward to speaking with you again.

    Thanks again for contacting us,

    Carl Fisher
    Issues Coordinator
    Save Our Canyons
    I read it as "quit your *****ing, we are just going to make it so you can't ride one of the funnest parts of the Crest trail, you'll still have the rest, and an exit on odd days, but the Crest will be an out and back to mtb'er on even days". What they forget is that as far as I know Mill D is the only way off the crest back into BCC. So new pirate trails will emerge to replace the Mill D exit into BCC from the Crest. Causing further conflicts. They say they are going to build new trails so no mileage is lost. But that will take longer than it takes for people to cut pirate trails.

    My $0.02.

    B
    When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro....

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SingleWhiteCaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    152
    I agree that SOC have clearly missed some key points, though in fairness they probably haven't realized it. I would expect something more from a public interest group who claim to act in the interest of the "long-term good of Salt Lake City whose residents and visitors depend on these mountains as an escape from the hectic city". Simply asking for feedback would have done it.

    I actually think Carl's response is quite measured. But at the end of the day, let's not forget one simple thing: is commercial development around the Mill D trailhead really a serious issue? Is there ever really going to be a 7-11 at Beartrap or some Multi-level parking lot plans? No, the only reason to make this a wilderness area is simply to reduce traffic. Bike traffic, to be specific.

    The really unfortunate thing is that SOC have completely misjudged the will of the many dedicated bikers out here who will now be obliged to shuttle from Mill Creek to Guardsman's, thus greatly increasing car-miles and vehicle traffic in the canyon, a problem which gets worse every year (and, ironically, which SOC claim to be committed to alleviating but which they appear to have had little or no affect). And don't forget the problems at the Mill Creek end. Additional shuttle traffic, extra demand on an already insufficient parking system and of course increased potential for user conflict due to much heavier bike traffic.

    Nice going, SOC. To paraphrase another genius of planning who favors the unilateral approach and has his finger on the pulse of the people "Mission accomplished!" http://forums.mtbr.com/images/smilies/mad2.gif

  17. #17
    Talentless Hack
    Reputation: Idiot Boy 1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    186
    I will fight this as hard as I can. Once we give them Mill D they will take the Crest. It is just a matter of time. We can not let hateful hikers take our trails.

  18. #18
    Homer's problem child
    Reputation: Bortis Yelltzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,322
    Quote Originally Posted by SingleWhiteCaveman
    I actually think Carl's response is quite measured.
    Agreed. I was pleasanlty surprised at the response as a whole. He put it to me as politely as he could have.

    Quote Originally Posted by SingleWhiteCaveman
    But at the end of the day, let's not forget one simple thing: is commercial development around the Mill D trailhead really a serious issue? Is there ever really going to be a 7-11 at Beartrap or some Multi-level parking lot plans? No, the only reason to make this a wilderness area is simply to reduce traffic. Bike traffic, to be specific.

    The really unfortunate thing is that SOC have completely misjudged the will of the many dedicated bikers out here who will now be obliged to shuttle from Mill Creek to Guardsman's, thus greatly increasing car-miles and vehicle traffic in the canyon, a problem which gets worse every year (and, ironically, which SOC claim to be committed to alleviating but which they appear to have had little or no affect). And don't forget the problems at the Mill Creek end. Additional shuttle traffic, extra demand on an already insufficient parking system and of course increased potential for user conflict due to much heavier bike traffic.
    Yep again.

    I also think it is crazy for SOC to say
    "We have tried everything from a trail reroute to cherry stemming but those will
    still result in a loss to some of the most unique terrain in the Central Wasatch." Hmmm, maybe we bikers like it because it is unique too.

    So in order to work around this SOC says:
    "We are committed to relocating trails that lie within our wilderness proposal so that their will not be a loss in mileage to mountain bike trails in the Wasatch"

    So I read that as "we are going to close an existing trail to bikes and then cut a new one for bikes" How does closing a single existing trail to some users and then cutting a new trail to all users minimize our impact on the environment? Now there are 2 trails to maintain and cause problems and have user conflicts on. Is the new trail goig to be in a similar area just outside the new Wilderness area? Or is it going to be along the Jordan river near the SLC Fairgrounds next to the homeless corpses?

    I don't know. I know they mean well, but they are just a bit over the top in my opinion. I am going to reply and point them to this thread so they can get a feel for what the local bike community thinks and try to correct us all if we are out of line.

    B
    When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro....

  19. #19
    Homer's problem child
    Reputation: Bortis Yelltzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,322
    Quote Originally Posted by alizbee
    Am I missing where this is actually demonstrated? Where are the studies, the numbers, the actual impact?
    Studies, numbers? Sheesh................come on man, this SOC thing survives on donations, you think that generates enough $$ to do studies and gather real numbers?

    Besides, 76% of all statistics are made up, 14% of all people know that.

    B
    When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro....

  20. #20
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    52
    Now we know we they were so intent on 'maintaining/dumbing down' the Mill-D trail with their 'trails commitee' last year. Figures.
    Last edited by AMMAROO; 04-16-2008 at 08:20 AM.

  21. #21
    Grizzly
    Reputation: alizbee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    695
    The question I have is "why?"

    Usage of the canyons will not decrease. Car traffic will not decrease. And as has been pointed out, it may actually increase because of the enhanced need for a shuttle to ride the Crest and surrounding areas.

    Tourists will still drive up to the resorts in the summer, hikers, picnicers, bikers, horsemen... everyone will still head to the canyons the way they always have.

    The only user group effected by this proposal is mountain bikers. The Mill D area is already highly protected as a watershed. And highly regulated. Mountain bikers are already have limited access up there. If there are 120 rideable days on those trails, we are limited to 60 of them. 60 days a year, as compared to 365 for a hiker, who can access that trail any time they want.

    This seems to me to just be an attempt for another feather in SOC's cap. They want to add to the number of wilderness miles they have pushed for. It's what they do. And if it eliminates premium biking trails along the way, then it's that much better for them.

    Wether or not the wilderness area is needed is never even considered. In their minds it is ALWAYS, without question needed. They'd probably designate downtown SLC if they could get it passed.
    GrizzlyAdam.net
    Read my book
    Follow me on Twitter

    "The only thing better than solitude, is society."

    ~Ed Abbey

  22. #22
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    52
    And designating an area 'wilderness' doesn't actually change the nature of the landscape or actually do anything to 'protect' it. It just outlaws mountain bikes.

  23. #23
    Chumley for prez!
    Reputation: mr. welcorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    445
    guess who got an almost identical response to Bortis? Me.
    here it is:
    "Mr. Welcorn

    Thanks for contacting us with your concerns regarding mountain biking and
    multi-use trails in the Wasatch. Rachael forwarded me this message and I am
    happy to address some of your concerns.

    As you well may know, Save Our Canyons has always been a champion of
    preserving access to the public domains of the Wasatch all while ensuring
    the utmost protection of the resources that lie within. Over the course of
    the past few years SOC has been a lot of energy on the expansion of
    Wilderness throughout the Central Wasatch in order to protect lands from
    future development, protect additional acres that make up the Salt Lake City
    watershed, and to redraw Wilderness boundaries that are natural rather than
    political (where possible) to enhance wildlife migration corridors.
    SOC is an environmental group composed of a number of members, who represent
    multiple user groups, but all share a common goal of protecting the beauty
    and wildness of the Wasatch mountains, canyons, and foothills. Most of us
    agree that the best protection available is through Federal Wilderness
    Designation using the Wilderness Act of 1964 and we hope that we can get the
    rest of the community to see that as well.

    Our initial Wilderness Proposal came from the Salt Lake City Department of
    Public Utilities which was based on watershed data. At that time, many
    trails, popular to mountain biking, would have been closed to that use
    because of restrictions under the Wilderness Act of 1964. Since that time
    Save Our Canyons has taken steps to ensure that there is not a net loss in
    the mileage of mountain biking trails in the Wasatch. Last fall we made
    adjustments to our wilderness proposal to exclude popular mountain bike
    trails like the Wasatch Crest Trail, Little Water, Big Water, and the
    Desolation Trail. This was all due to feedback we received from the mountain
    bike community. There is however, still one area that we cannot seem to
    remedy which is the 1.6 mile stretch of the Mill D trail. That said, it has
    never been the goal of Save Our Canyons to alienate a user group from using
    a trail. We recently cut out nearly 2,000 acres of our proposal to allow for
    mountain biking on the aforementioned trails. We have also been a huge
    supporter of the Bonneville Shoreline Trail and have submitted many comments
    in favor of the "mountain bike alternative."

    We are currently working to create additional mountain biking trails to
    provide loop trails back to Guardsman Pass and elsewhere in the Wasatch. We
    sincerely hope that the measures we have taken thus far will help you
    support us in this endeavor as we need as many people as possible to get
    behind this proposal. I myself as a person who recreates in the Wasatch on a
    regular basis (yes, I have left my fair share of paint and blood on the
    spine) have been at times conflicted by the restrictiveness of the
    Wilderness Act. Thus far in history the Wilderness Act has yet to be undone,
    which is why we feel that these lands deserve that protection. As the
    population in the Salt Lake Valley continues to rise so will the demand for
    places to recreate, clean water, and places to find solitude and be with
    nature.

    I hope to continue this dialog with you and go over maps to see if there are
    ways to address your concerns, if we haven't already. I will happily answer
    any other question that you have, feel free to call me as well. Maps, with
    trails are available on our website www.saveourcanyons.org in the Wilderness
    section.

    Sincerely,

    Carl Fisher
    Issues Coordinator
    Save Our Canyons"
    The response I got seems a bit more bland, but equally measured, I think some of the paragraphs might be cut and paste. I can only imagine how many of these he does a day. At least he responded, and for that I give him credit. I agree with pretty much all above. One thing that gets me is that they can make concessions banning horses, but they can't make a concession that allow bikes.
    The IMBA has some general information about the issue at hand:
    "Wilderness often presents a dilemma to the environmentally conscious mountain biker. While most of us applaud the intentions of the Wilderness Act, we also believe that bicycles are an appropriate, muscle-powered activity that belongs in Wilderness alongside hiking and horseback riding.

    But why did bicycles ever become embroiled in the Wilderness debate? Note that bicycling is not mentioned in the Wilderness Act. The key provision often debated is in Section 4(b), which prohibits in Wilderness all motorized travel and equipment and allows "no other form of mechanical transport."

    What does the term "mechanical transport" mean? In 1965, shortly after the Congressional action, the Forest Service wrote formal regulations to implement the Wilderness Act and defined "mechanical transport" to mean a cart, sled or other wheeled vehicle that is "powered by a non-living power source." As of the year 2005, that definition is still law. However, nineteen years after the passage of the Wilderness Act, during the early days of mountain bicycling, the agency added a regulation that prohibits "Possessing or using a hang glider or bicycle." That 1984 action was one of the first to ban bicycling on public lands and by eliminating riding on approximately 25 million acres, it was also certainly the largest.

    Unfortunately, most Americans are not aware that bicycles are banned from Wilderness. This can create the impression that bicycles cause more harm to the environment than do hikers or horses. In fact, science has shown that bicycles generally cause about the same amount of damage as hikers and less damage than horses. IMBA has summarized the findings of this research, available at: imba.com/resources/science/impact_summary.html.

    When the topic of bicycles and Wilderness is debated by the conservation community, views are often split. The Spring 2003 edition of Wild Earth, a biodiversity and conservation publication of the Wildlands Project, invited six environmental advocates to weigh in on the issue. You can get a sense for both sides of the argument and those on the fence. (The article is linked from the online version of this toolkit)"

    I bet the president himself (an avid biker from what I have heard), doesn't even know that he can't ride a bike on wilderness land, neither do probably half of the senators or congressmen in washington (for some reason I sort of doubt they care). Banning bikes in 1984 was a bad idea and I think it's a bad idea now......Hang gliders on the other hand?
    You'd think the biking industry has enough money that they might have lobbyists, well maybe not.
    Last edited by mr. welcorn; 04-16-2008 at 01:01 PM.

  24. #24
    yelgatgab
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    455
    I carried this discussion to another forum. I think it's important to get the word out. Here's a post I thought brought up some important points. If we fight to block this designation, or even change the boundary, chances of failure are much higher. Protection of this area isn't a bad thing, there just need to be some concessions for bikers, such as the designation of certain areas as National Recreation Areas, National Scenic Areas or National Conservation Areas...for example. I don't completely agree with his assessment of IMBA, but that's beside the point.

    Alright, I've officially gone overboard on this issue. I just spent 30 minutes on the phone with a representative from wilderness.org in Durango. He also happens to be the president of the Durango Wheel Club and sits on the board of Trails 2000. The fights down there over portions of the Colorado Trail and the Hermosa Creek Trail are pretty much identical to the proposal up here. They were able to reach consensus to keep those trails open to non-motorized mechanized travel.

    The conversation ran the gamut from the the intent of the original WA 1964 to common sense approaches to new land designations. From what I cold gather the WA 1964 is not open for re-interpretation as the forces behind it have uber deep pockets and fro the most part (and I agree) the act is a good one and does far more good than harm.

    The approach that worked for them (mtb'rs) was too take the stance that they too want to protect the areas in question, but that it cold be done without eliminating the most widely used trails while conceding the use of more obscure areas. To me that seems to make sense on all levels because, as was pointed out, what would the Wasatch look like if there was no protection?

    Mtb'rs need to segregate themselves from the typical motorhead stereotype (IMBA's major downfall) and organize into a far more green consortium along the lines of Trails2000 in order to better work with environmental groups. Being new to this area I am pretty ignorant to what the current state of cycling advocacy is here so enlightenment on that would be appreciated.

  25. #25
    on yer left
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    252
    Quote Originally Posted by bagtagley
    Here's a post I thought brought up some important points.
    That'd be my post. I guess I'm here and there now. Just what I needed, another time suck. My wife is gonna kill me, again.

    So....I found this list of advocacy in Utah. Seems there is a need for something more along the lines of Trails2000 here.

  26. #26
    Homer's problem child
    Reputation: Bortis Yelltzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,322
    Quote Originally Posted by radnasty
    That'd be my post. I guess I'm here and there now. Just what I needed, another time suck. My wife is gonna kill me, again.
    Welcome! I'm UB over there and on a couple other winter related sites.

    B
    When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro....

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    549
    [QUOTE=mr. welcorn]from SOC FAQ:
    "What is SOC's position on mountain bikes in the Wasatch?

    While the use of mountain bikes does create potential user conflicts, there are well-established rules for the right-of-way on Forest Service paths. SOC believes that the presence of mountain bikes does not represent any irreversible change in the character of the canyons or mountains. Local governments and the Forest Service need to manage user conflicts. Using the best preservation tool at hand, SOC is actively working toward the expansion of the boundaries of the wilderness areas in the Wasatch and bikes are not allowed in such areas. Mountain bike enthusiasts, when they review SOC's wilderness proposal, will find that the proposed restrictions on mountain biking are minimal."

    Here's the way this reads to me:
    Mountain bikes create conflict due to right-of-way issues.
    Remove the "presence" of mountain bikes and reverse the change in "character" of our outdoor experience.
    Since local government and the Forest Service will not manage user conflicts in a way that suites us...
    We will eliminate this conflict by banning mountain bikes through the use of wilderness designation.
    And since mountain bikers are an ignorant group we'll add this last sentence so the'll think we've worked hard on their behalf.

    You know what happened to the mountain biking in the Uintas?
    "They" came up with an amicable soloution on our behalf.
    Let's not let that happen again. "Remember the Uintas!"

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1

    Wilderness is anti-bike?

    Wilderness is anti-bike? Come on, give me a break. Have any of you actually read the wilderness act? It is a piece of legislation and as such, has no opinions. It isn't anti bike or pro anything. It's a piece of paper. Now the people who worked tirelessly to pass it, and the people who continue to work to increase wilderness, they have opinions. Some of those folks may not like bikes, I suspect most of them do however. But they value the concept of wilderness and if that means loosing a bike trail, so be it. I'll gladly stop riding that trail if it means that those places will be protected in perpetuity.
    We as a society have no desire to stop making more of ourselves, and that means more of ourselves out there. Maybe it is time we look beyond our own selfish desires and begin to think of these places that give back so much to the quality of our life.

  29. #29
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    52
    Sorry, you are wrong. Bikes are banned in wilderness, so therefore wilderness is anti-bike.
    Last edited by AMMAROO; 04-17-2008 at 11:17 AM.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    761
    Quote Originally Posted by AMMAROO
    And designating an area 'wilderness' doesn't actually change the nature of the landscape or actually do anything to 'protect' it. It just outlaws mountain bikes.
    I agree - the only impact would be to prevent mtb bikers. The ONLY possible other reason would be to keep the helicopter skiing out in the winter -- the wilderness designation would prevent that too.

    How mtbikes got lumped in with MOTORIZED travel is beyond me, but in 1964, they probably just didn't really know what mtbiking would become. Mechanized travel...what else is there besides a bike that falls into that category?

    Whacked.

    I've always hated the fact that horses can use trails that bikes can not. More impact - those of you who have backpacked in the Uintas will know this - big horse train with boxes of food/gear ... ridiculous.

  31. #31
    Err
    Err is offline
    Calm like a bomb
    Reputation: Err's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    3,518
    I can't even imagine loosing the Mill D trail. This is by far one of the best mountain bike trails in the Wasatch. We need different approach to protect that land.

  32. #32
    Grizzly
    Reputation: alizbee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    695
    Quote Originally Posted by dabast
    Maybe it is time we look beyond our own selfish desires and begin to think of these places that give back so much to the quality of our life.
    How do these areas inherently give back to the quality of our life? Just by being there? Just by existing? My life is improved because of the mere existence of some pristine wilderness? Give me a break.

    It improves the quality of my life because I venture out into that land. I use the land, I enjoy being among the trees, the mountains, the fresh air.

    Who is being selfish? The people who want to exclude 1 user group from usage so thier lives are the ones enriched? Or the people who want to still be able to use the area.

    Mountain bikers have been getting the shaft from political propaganda groups for years. We are seen as the black sheep of trail users. Despite the fact that bikers are out there building and creating new trails, maintaining existing ones, educating the public about proper trail use and etiquette. And despite the fact that our impact is less than that of horses and in some cases even hikers. Don't give me garbage about "giving back" to areas that enrich our lives. Bikers as a group are the ones who are most actively giving back.

    These areas don't enrich anyone's lives just by existing, as if some ethereal peace of mind transcends the valley knowing that "out there" is some peaceful lake with peaceful trees. It is in the act of using, and being in the mountains that improves our lives.

    ----

    In regards to the Wilderness Act and bikes. I believe bikes were banned in 1984, 20 years after the Act.
    GrizzlyAdam.net
    Read my book
    Follow me on Twitter

    "The only thing better than solitude, is society."

    ~Ed Abbey

  33. #33
    Chumley for prez!
    Reputation: mr. welcorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    445
    Quote Originally Posted by dabast
    Wilderness is anti-bike? Come on, give me a break. Have any of you actually read the wilderness act? It is a piece of legislation and as such, has no opinions.
    Welcome,
    I have read the wilderness act, and you are right, acts/laws don't have opinions. They state legal guidelines/rules. As such, the wilderness act prohibits "mechanical transportation". This has been interpretted by legislators to mean bikes/atvs/planes/anything mechanical. If you have read the wilderness act, you'll see this is in section 4c:
    http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?...sec=legisAct#5
    you can see the relevance to bikes here:
    http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?...misconceptions
    I'm not saying aren't entitled to your opinion, but did you really read the Act before you asked everyone if they did?

  34. #34
    JMH
    JMH is offline
    Sugary Exoskeleton
    Reputation: JMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,663
    Quote Originally Posted by alizbee
    The Mill D area is already highly protected as a watershed. And highly regulated. Mountain bikers are already have limited access up there. If there are 120 rideable days on those trails, we are limited to 60 of them. 60 days a year, as compared to 365 for a hiker, who can access that trail any time they want.
    The Odd-Even days apply to the Millcreek drainage side where dogs are allowed. The Mill-D trail is in Big Cottonwood (watershed, no dogs) and you can ride any day you like.

    Please correct me if I am wrong?

    Cherry Steming the Mill D and Desolation Lake trails sounds like an excellent compromise, read about it at IMBA:

    http://www.imba.com/resources/land_p...toolkit_7.html

    "Cherry-stemming, the process of cutting out a trail or road from surrounding Wilderness, is a fairly common strategy for accomodating motorized interests in current Wilderness bills. With a cherry-stem, motorized users can continue to access certain roads or trails even though they are now surrounded by Wilderness. There is no reason why this technique could not be utilized to protect bicycle access to some of our favorite trails. A cherry-stem works best on out-and-back trails to a campground, lake, scenic vista, or some other landmark. Wilderness advocates are receptive to cherry-stemming because it does not require allowing "non-conforming" uses in Wilderness. Bicyclists should consider cherry-stemming because it allows us to ride singletrack with Wilderness on both sides of the trail."

    JMH

  35. #35
    Grizzly
    Reputation: alizbee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    695
    Quote Originally Posted by JMH
    The Odd-Even days apply to the Millcreek drainage side where dogs are allowed. The Mill-D trail is in Big Cottonwood (watershed, no dogs) and you can ride any day you like.

    Please correct me if I am wrong?

    JMH
    Yes, I think you are right.
    GrizzlyAdam.net
    Read my book
    Follow me on Twitter

    "The only thing better than solitude, is society."

    ~Ed Abbey

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,495
    Best post on "wilderness designations" that I have read in a long time. The same thing is happening across North America and it is a sham.

  37. #37
    on yer left
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    252
    Quote Originally Posted by dabast
    Wilderness is anti-bike? Come on, give me a break. Have any of you actually read the wilderness act? It is a piece of legislation and as such, has no opinions. It isn't anti bike or pro anything. It's a piece of paper. Now the people who worked tirelessly to pass it, and the people who continue to work to increase wilderness, they have opinions. Some of those folks may not like bikes, I suspect most of them do however. But they value the concept of wilderness and if that means loosing a bike trail, so be it. I'll gladly stop riding that trail if it means that those places will be protected in perpetuity.
    We as a society have no desire to stop making more of ourselves, and that means more of ourselves out there. Maybe it is time we look beyond our own selfish desires and begin to think of these places that give back so much to the quality of our life.
    The WA 1964 is anti-bike in so much that it bans the usage of bikes within a designated wilderness area. This in and of itself is not a bad thing. However, having the WA 1964 as the only means to protect lands that are currently enjoyed by a multiple of users (some of which are inherently more abusive than others) is an issue, especially when it is applied to an area that adjoins an urban landscape and is used by it's citizens. It's hardly a selfish act to want to maintain the use of limited recreational areas in an urban setting. SOC is seeking to prevent current users from using the lands that the SOC doesn't like. Plain and simple.

    Quote Originally Posted by alizbee
    These areas don't enrich anyone's lives just by existing, as if some ethereal peace of mind transcends the valley knowing that "out there" is some peaceful lake with peaceful trees. It is in the act of using, and being in the mountains that improves our lives.
    You're wrong on both counts.

  38. #38
    Grizzly
    Reputation: alizbee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    695
    Quote Originally Posted by radnasty
    You're wrong on both counts.
    I am right in how it applies to me. It is not enough for me to just KNOW these areas exist. I want to experience them. That is where, for me, the real improvment to my quality of life stems from.

    Perhaps I should have personalized my statement a bit more. But I would think we can agree that experiencing these lands is more valuable than just knowing they are there?
    GrizzlyAdam.net
    Read my book
    Follow me on Twitter

    "The only thing better than solitude, is society."

    ~Ed Abbey

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SingleWhiteCaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    152
    Quote Originally Posted by radnasty
    The WA 1964 is anti-bike in so much that it bans the usage of bikes within a designated wilderness area. This in and of itself is not a bad thing. However, having the WA 1964 as the only means to protect lands that are currently enjoyed by a multiple of users (some of which are inherently more abusive than others) is an issue, especially when it is applied to an area that adjoins an urban landscape and is used by it's citizens. It's hardly a selfish act to want to maintain the use of limited recreational areas in an urban setting. SOC is seeking to prevent current users from using the lands that the SOC doesn't like. Plain and simple.



    You're wrong on both counts.
    I'm curious, what current use of land in the wasatch does the SOC not "like" that they hope to restrict by designating Mill-D? In response to an earlier invitation I actually have read the WA ( http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?...sec=legisAct#5 ) and it states the intent as this "there shall be no commercial enterprise and no permanent road ...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".

    I have no problem with that. I don't have much of a problem with "mechancial transport" being stretched to mean a bicycle (even though SOC and others agree that it has no lasting affect on the environment). However, I have a very serious problem with the fact that SOC is trying to justify disenfranchising a big section of people who love and use the wasatch based on a "need" to protect against roads, cars, aircraft, boats and shopping centers springing up all over Mill-D. Are those serious threats, or is SOC trying to find some way to kick out bikers because they believe we somehow cheapen their experience?

    SOC have my full suport in designating wilderness all over the Wasatch. They can designate my back yard if they feel it would help. I just wish they did it with a little more thought and don't try to abuse the WA. It was put in place to preserve lands and people's appreciation of them, not as a tool to achieve some elitist agenda.

  40. #40
    Talentless Hack
    Reputation: Idiot Boy 1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    186
    Dabast has one post. I'm sure he is an SOC'er.

  41. #41
    Chumley for prez!
    Reputation: mr. welcorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    445
    Quote Originally Posted by SingleWhiteCaveman
    I'm curious, what current use of land in the wasatch does the SOC not "like" that they hope to restrict by designating Mill-D?

    I have no problem with that. I don't have much of a problem with "mechancial transport" being stretched to mean a bicycle (even though SOC and others agree that it has no lasting affect on the environment). However, I have a very serious problem with the fact that SOC is trying to justify disenfranchising a big section of people who love and use the wasatch based on a "need" to protect against roads, cars, aircraft, boats and shopping centers springing up all over Mill-D. Are those serious threats, or is SOC trying to find some way to kick out bikers because they believe we somehow cheapen their experience?
    I am just giving my opinion based on the feeling i get talking with people involved with SOC, and what I read on other non-biking boards, so take it for what it's worth. I think the big thing SOC would like to get rid of is heli-skiing in the wasatch. I don't know if there is a hidden agenda to target bikes, or if we are just a side effect of wanting to be free of helicopters during ski season. I personally hate the choppers during the winter, and yes it does cheapen MY experience in the backcountry, not to mention potential safety concerns. That is for a different forum though.
    From my limited communication with SOC, the real problem is with the wording of the Wilderness Act. From what I was told you can't pick and choose what things you allow and what things you ban. If you want bikes you can't have a "wilderness" designation. Some people have brought up the idea that some of this "anti-bike" legislation is due to user conflicts between bikes and hikers, I don't know about the merit of that. From all I can tell it is just speculation and hearsay.
    In terms of solutions, I think everyone can agree with err that it would be a shame to lose any of the mill D trail. It truly is one of the best in the wasatch. I am wondering if it is possible to just designate the trail itself and 5 feet on either side as "non-wilderness". This would eliminate the ability of helicopters to travel there, while allowing bikes ( I think). The only downside is that it would break up the wilderness land, but perhaps I am missing the big deal there? Anyone on the SOC listening? If there was some hidden agenda (which I don't think exists) then they certainly wouldn't agree to this idea. Just a thought.

  42. #42
    on yer left
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    252
    Quote Originally Posted by SingleWhiteCaveman
    I'm curious, what current use of land in the wasatch does the SOC not "like" that they hope to restrict by designating Mill-D?
    There are two. Heli skiing and mtb. While there is clearly a need to protect the Wasatch it's idiotic to attempt to designate areas that see heavy recreational use on the border of an urban area as wilderness. The corridor from I-80 south to LCC should never even be considered for a wilderness designation. The reason the Wasatch is such an asset is because SLC residents have access to it. SOC's elitist myopic agenda is total crap. Wilderness Areas have their place, but it's not here.

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SingleWhiteCaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    152
    Quote Originally Posted by mr. welcorn
    .... I am wondering if it is possible to just designate the trail itself and 5 feet on either side as "non-wilderness". This would eliminate the ability of helicopters to travel there, while allowing bikes ( I think). The only downside is that it would break up the wilderness land, but perhaps I am missing the big deal there? Anyone on the SOC listening? If there was some hidden agenda (which I don't think exists) then they certainly wouldn't agree to this idea. Just a thought.
    Agreed, though i think in an earlier letter SOC claimed the "cherry-stem" approach didn't work. While they certainly are not obliged to explain themselves to us, they might get more support if they were able to explain why we couldn't pursue this approach. If SOC's proposal included a cherry stem on Mill-D I'd pay-up, become a member for life, put their fugly, busted stickers all over my helmet and eat my chamois.

  44. #44
    Err
    Err is offline
    Calm like a bomb
    Reputation: Err's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    3,518
    If they Cherry Stem in Mill D and any other existing trails in their proposal, then they've got my full support. We don't need any more trails up there but we need to keep what we have.

    No cherry stem, then this needs to be fought to the bitter end.

  45. #45
    Homer's problem child
    Reputation: Bortis Yelltzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,322
    Quote Originally Posted by dabast
    "Wilderness is anti-bike? Come on, give me a break. Have any of you actually read the wilderness act? It is a piece of legislation and as such, has no opinions. It isn't anti bike or pro anything. It's a piece of paper."

    I'll gladly stop riding that trail if it means that those places will be protected in perpetuity.
    Haha. This dude is hilarious. Obviously a SOC or pro-SOC voice. Nice to have their perspective, but they are obviously not the sharpest spoon in the drawer.

    So a piece of paper is going to protect places for "perpetuity"? How many civilizations have lasted that long? How many governments have lasted into "perpetuity"? Your basic logic is flawed if not at the very least short-sighted in the context of the global timeline. If it's just a peice of paper, the places protected by that "piece of paper" will only be protected as long as people give a fuk about that paper. And as history proves, that isn't going to be "perpetuity".

    So during my time on this planet, I'm going to fight to be able to ride the places I enjoy riding. That's right, it's all about me and my enjoyment right here and now.

    "Can't there be some things in life just for me? Is that so selfish?" - George Castanza

    B
    When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro....

  46. #46
    Talentless Hack
    Reputation: Idiot Boy 1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    186
    [I]I'll gladly stop riding that trail if it means that those places will be protected in perpetuity[/I

    How noble. Dude probably never rode that trail.

    IB1

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    549
    As I understand it, when areas are selected for wilderness designation they have to meet certain standards. What these standards are I do not know, the one thing I can see is they do allow established trails. I can't understand why an established trail being used by MTBRs before wilderness designation cannot be grandfathered in for it's continued use. They grandfather logging and mining roads and "cherry stem" around their areas of operation. But something as inocent as cycling is eliminated asap, no question, no debate. Where the he!! is our support, why are all the bike mfgrs and component mfgrs standing around with their hands in their pockets?

    Idoit boy 1 isnt such an Idoit boy. dabast's drivle and that of Mr. Carl Fisher seem very similar.

    P.S. SOC feels the are in charge of the Wasatch from Wellsville to Mt. Nebo, so we may want to keep our eyes peeled for threats on AF canyon, Ben Lomond areas, as well as all points south.

  48. #48
    on yer left
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    252
    Quote Originally Posted by Shelbak73
    As I understand it, when areas are selected for wilderness designation they have to meet certain standards. What these standards are I do not know, the one thing I can see is they do allow established trails. I can't understand why an established trail being used by MTBRs before wilderness designation cannot be grandfathered in for it's continued use. They grandfather logging and mining roads and "cherry stem" around their areas of operation.

    Logging and mining are never grandfathered in. They are written into the WA 1964. Read it.

  49. #49
    Homer's problem child
    Reputation: Bortis Yelltzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,322
    Damn!

    As much as I'm opposed to losing Mill D in the summer. I'm more opposed to losing backcountry only access to Silver Fork, Days Fork, Grizzley, etc... in the winter.

    Read more here. The wise Wizard of the Wasatch (www.wowasatch.com) has spoken. I don't want to lose any of this personally.

    http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...0&postcount=40

    This sucks. It's like choosing whether I lose my right nut or my left nut. I want both!

    B
    When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro....

  50. #50
    JMH
    JMH is offline
    Sugary Exoskeleton
    Reputation: JMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,663
    Quote Originally Posted by dabast
    ...and if that means loosing a bike trail, so be it. I'll gladly stop riding that trail if it means that those places will be protected in perpetuity.
    We as a society have no desire to stop making more of ourselves, and that means more of ourselves out there. Maybe it is time we look beyond our own selfish desires and begin to think of these places that give back so much to the quality of our life.
    It's a 1.6 mile stretch of the Mill D trail that is being debated, not the wilderness designation in general. It's not at all selfish to stand up and say "hey, I support wilderness designation, but I really enjoy using that trail. Isn't there some way we can compromise on this issue?"

    If SOC is TRULY concerned about wilderness designations, they would be happy to concede a 8,440 linear foot section of trail to win thousands of acres of forest without complaint (and with potential support) from the cycling community. If they won't compromise, it goes a long way toward showing that eliminating bikes from Mill D is a higher priority than simply protecting land.

    JMH

Page 1 of 4 1234 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
  •