Results 1 to 22 of 22
  1. #1
    fc
    fc is online now
    head minion Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    31,915

    LA Times - keep mountain bikes out of wilderness - really

    LA Times competing with Marin IJ?

    https://www.latimes.com/opinion/edit...Z6yHWp4oCx99yw
    IPA will save America

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    407
    A clutch of mountain bikers is probably no more destructive to the wilderness environment than a horse train (though it may well destroy the peace and tranquility of the hiker who finds herself on a narrow mountain trail with a pack of mountain bikers bearing down). But relaxing access rules is a path that leads to, well, more paths. And then roads. Pretty soon, you have cars and restrooms and escalators and gift shops and not a whole lot of wilderness left.
    I enjoy the slippery slope argument that is used throughout. Also "mountain bikers are probably no more destructive than a horse train."

    I don't think the author has ever been on trails used by horse trains. There is a reason why in most wilderness pack trains are limited to specific trails.

    I would probably be more scared about facing a pack train on a narrow mountain trail than a pack of bikers. With bikers I would just force my right of way as a hiker (if the situation called for it), no doing that for horses. Everyone yields to them.

    I guess my argument of "yeah, but horses are worse!" is probably just as bad "mountain bikes lead to motorcycles, boating, and building new roads!!"

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: TheMachinist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,365
    No. There are too many supporters of mountain biking in the comments to compete with Marin IJ. Surprising, actually.

    And good ol' MV is still going strong.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    137
    One argument in the article was correct. If wilderness areas get opened to mountain bikes you can be sure that hang gliders and paragliders will be all over that action in a heartbeat trying to get access too. If one sort of motorless travel gets in, why not all?

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    407
    Quote Originally Posted by wayold View Post
    One argument in the article was correct. If wilderness areas get opened to mountain bikes you can be sure that hang gliders and paragliders will be all over that action in a heartbeat trying to get access too. If one sort of motorless travel gets in, why not all?
    I don't really disagree with that. But, I would think hang / paragliding is more similar to hiking (at least until they are in the air) than any non-motorized travel. Was honestly surprised that hang gliders / paragliders aren't allowed. Are wilderness no fly zones? i.e they aren't allowed to fly above them or just not allowed to launch?

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    137
    Quote Originally Posted by cassieno View Post
    I don't really disagree with that. But, I would think hang / paragliding is more similar to hiking (at least until they are in the air) than any non-motorized travel. Was honestly surprised that hang gliders / paragliders aren't allowed. Are wilderness no fly zones? i.e they aren't allowed to fly above them or just not allowed to launch?
    You just can't hit the ground. Getting caught landing in wilderness is a good way to lose your gear and get a big fine on top. You can overfly wilderness, but need to be sure you'll make it to the other side. As a result most pilots avoid really risky wilderness overflights, but many serious cross country pilots would love to get access.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MountainBored's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    93
    IJ will ALWAYS be your best source for biased propaganda!

    STOKED that the article mentions off-road skateboarding and links to MBS mountainboards! It's so sad my board riding brethren dirtheads are an endangered species in the USA due to our litigious, fearful society whilst new habitat is created abroad. I miss dirt 360s and the Sand Hill Ranch rollers, but hey, weaving down singletrack on my DVO equipped Trance is keeping the juices flowing.

    Ride on!

  8. #8
    stop...safety first
    Reputation: TubeSSnapper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    241
    I hate losing friends but ...
    Bye IMBA
    Hello STS & BONC and other bona Fide advocates
    This is a no brainer question, especially for those who have trouble walking but can ride for hours. Bikes belong.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    407
    Quote Originally Posted by TubeSSnapper View Post
    This is a no brainer question, especially for those who have trouble walking but can ride for hours. Bikes belong.
    Can you call bikes a "wheeled chair" then you are good to go?

  10. #10
    Resident Curmudgeon
    Reputation: Buzz Cut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,544
    and vandeman is posting in the comments section...no surprise there
    Warning: Consumption of alcohol may make you think the person on the barstool next to you is attractive

  11. #11
    Oaktown Honkey on Strava
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    2,779
    Are E-Bikes going to be following Mountain Bikes? I dont care for ebikes being allowed on Mt bike legal trails, just my opinion.

  12. #12
    mtb'er
    Reputation: Empty_Beer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,933
    Note: the article is a year old. Bike hater from Mountain Journal posted it the other day (on FB) and it is on round 2 of viral sharing. I can only wonder what took place for the LA Times to run this as an editorial. HOHA's are winning.
    Last edited by Empty_Beer; 1 Week Ago at 12:15 PM.

  13. #13
    J-Flo
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,642
    This editorial was part of the modest push-back effort by certain anti-bike and pro-Wilderness forces to kill the STCís proposed amendment to the Wilderness Act in the last Congress. Itís old but unfortunate news. That bill was reported out of committee in the Senate but died at that point. In my humble and uninformed opinion It has zero chance of being revived at any point in the near future.

    There might be hope in getting Trumpís Interior Department to issue new regulations, but I think they are too busy trying to make the US safe for coal mining, drilling, and other things near and dear to the hearts of the big money people who put them in office.

  14. #14
    fc
    fc is online now
    head minion Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    31,915
    Quote Originally Posted by J-Flo View Post
    This editorial was part of the modest push-back effort by certain anti-bike and pro-Wilderness forces to kill the STCís proposed amendment to the Wilderness Act in the last Congress. Itís old but unfortunate news. That bill was reported out of committee in the Senate but died at that point. In my humble and uninformed opinion It has zero chance of being revived at any point in the near future.

    There might be hope in getting Trumpís Interior Department to issue new regulations, but I think they are too busy trying to make the US safe for coal mining, drilling, and other things near and dear to the hearts of the big money people who put them in office.
    Good context. Was wondering what the backstory was. Seemed so random for LA Times.
    IPA will save America

  15. #15
    mtb'er
    Reputation: Empty_Beer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,933
    We're in a new congress session now, so a new bill will need to be introduced into either/each legislative branch... but the window of opportunity for taking advantage of a somewhat sympathetic Republican congress is gone. The path forward is fairly uncertain.

    Those who oppose bikes in Wilderness can thank IMBA more than they should thank The Wilderness Society, Sierra Club, Backcountry Horsemen or any other evangelical opponent. IMBA went out of their way to show we are a house divided, and no congressman wants to waste time on something that the primary interest groups can't agree on. IMBA quietly celebrated this.

    Mountain bikers sure are a fickle group. Everyone has their idea of what a trail should look like at any stage of its life, who should yield to whom on descents, what wheel size is best, and who shouldn't sponsor reasonable legislation that saves access to legacy trails already on the ground while opening some old trails that would be beneficial for mountain biking adventures without disturbing much of anyone's pursuit of solitude. So many of us just cannot see the forest for the trees.

    The LA Times article, like most of the press coverage about this issue, was effective in making sheeple believe mt. bikers wanted ALL trails in Wilderness open to bikes and that the legislation's sponsors didn't care about mountain biking as much as they cared about OHV, road building, mining, fracking and clearcutting Wilderness. If any of you bought into that last notion, I have a swamp in Florida I'd like to sell ya.

    Oh well. We're NorCal mt. bikers... the Detroit Lions of mountain biking.

    PS - and to those of you reading this that supported this issue (donated $ to STC, communicated with your member of congress, tried to educate others on the issue, etc.), thank you for doing so. We all still have work to do. This thing isn't going to be over until it is fixed. Could be several more years, but it will happen.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    426
    My own personal oppinion is that funds/time/ energy should be spent turning our plentiful national Forest and blm land into a proper mtb Mecca of trails. The wilderness seems like a lost cause and waste of resources. Concentrate on making the "land of many uses" prime time mtb friendly. Less hurdles and equally epic potential.

    Not to mention Trump needs people to rake the floors of our national forest.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    455
    Man am I ever sick of the old "slippery slope" argument

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sfgiantsfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Empty_Beer View Post
    We're in a new congress session now, so a new bill will need to be introduced into either/each legislative branch... but the window of opportunity for taking advantage of a somewhat sympathetic Republican congress is gone. The path forward is fairly uncertain.

    Those who oppose bikes in Wilderness can thank IMBA more than they should thank The Wilderness Society, Sierra Club, Backcountry Horsemen or any other evangelical opponent. IMBA went out of their way to show we are a house divided, and no congressman wants to waste time on something that the primary interest groups can't agree on. IMBA quietly celebrated this.

    Mountain bikers sure are a fickle group. Everyone has their idea of what a trail should look like at any stage of its life, who should yield to whom on descents, what wheel size is best, and who shouldn't sponsor reasonable legislation that saves access to legacy trails already on the ground while opening some old trails that would be beneficial for mountain biking adventures without disturbing much of anyone's pursuit of solitude. So many of us just cannot see the forest for the trees.

    The LA Times article, like most of the press coverage about this issue, was effective in making sheeple believe mt. bikers wanted ALL trails in Wilderness open to bikes and that the legislation's sponsors didn't care about mountain biking as much as they cared about OHV, road building, mining, fracking and clearcutting Wilderness. If any of you bought into that last notion, I have a swamp in Florida I'd like to sell ya.

    Oh well. We're NorCal mt. bikers... the Detroit Lions of mountain biking.

    PS - and to those of you reading this that supported this issue (donated $ to STC, communicated with your member of congress, tried to educate others on the issue, etc.), thank you for doing so. We all still have work to do. This thing isn't going to be over until it is fixed. Could be several more years, but it will happen.
    You guys will still get my IMBA money again this year.
    I'm sick of all the Irish stereotypes, as soon as I finish this beer I"m punching someone

  19. #19
    Rent this space for $
    Reputation: Oh My Sack!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,471
    Quote Originally Posted by wayold View Post
    You just can't hit the ground. Getting caught landing in wilderness is a good way to lose your gear and get a big fine on top. You can overfly wilderness, but need to be sure you'll make it to the other side. As a result most pilots avoid really risky wilderness overflights, but many serious cross country pilots would love to get access.
    FAA regulations require transiting over Wilderness, Nat'l Park, Wildlife Refuges, etc., be done at a minimum altitude of 2000' AGL (above ground level). They are well marked on FAA Sectional Charts. It is perfectly legal to crash there, though.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    137
    Quote Originally Posted by Oh My Sack! View Post
    FAA regulations require transiting over Wilderness, Nat'l Park, Wildlife Refuges, etc., be done at a minimum altitude of 2000' AGL (above ground level). They are well marked on FAA Sectional Charts. It is perfectly legal to crash there, though.
    I believe the statement says "request" not "require". It's a legal gray area. Some specific areas (like the Grand Canyon) prohibit overflights, but for most it's just 2000 foot clearance "requested".

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by prozach0215 View Post
    My own personal oppinion is that funds/time/ energy should be spent turning our plentiful national Forest and blm land into a proper mtb Mecca of trails. The wilderness seems like a lost cause and waste of resources. Concentrate on making the "land of many uses" prime time mtb friendly. Less hurdles and equally epic potential.

    Not to mention Trump needs people to rake the floors of our national forest.
    This is best path forward. It works in other states, just not so much here.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  22. #22
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    30,421
    Quote Originally Posted by Oh My Sack! View Post
    FAA regulations require transiting over Wilderness, Nat'l Park, Wildlife Refuges, etc., be done at a minimum altitude of 2000' AGL (above ground level). They are well marked on FAA Sectional Charts. It is perfectly legal to crash there, though.
    No, they don't, and I should know

    And the FAA doesn't regulate/manage where people land. That is up to the land-owner. In Alaska, people can land on highways, there's nothing prohibiting it. Some state/national parks do not allow any landings, except for on a few designated strips. Some land managers prohibit landings, some do not regulate it. If someone complaints about someone landing near them, as long as the actions were not careless or reckless, it's nothing the FAA cares about.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

Similar Threads

  1. Wilderness Act Article in the LA Times
    By 5k bike 50cent legs in forum California - Norcal
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 01-04-2018, 01:36 PM
  2. Replies: 33
    Last Post: 06-15-2017, 05:41 PM
  3. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 05-31-2015, 07:01 PM
  4. Replies: 19
    Last Post: 05-17-2015, 07:02 PM
  5. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 10-22-2012, 09:50 PM

Members who have read this thread: 288

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

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.