Feds to regulate MTB rentals- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 12 of 12
  1. #1
    Almost Human
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,908

    No good Feds to regulate MTB rentals

    "Forest managers say they'll also scrutinize mountain-bike-rental operations as part of a push to set "commercial capacity" limits. Two companies that drop off and pick up ATVs and snowmobiles at the Vail Pass summit parking area have received shut-down orders.


    "Not all proposed commercial activities are appropriate for the location proposed, and some are not appropriate on national Forest Service lands at all," White River National Forest ranger Jan Cutts said in an e-mailed response to Denver Post queries.



    Rentals of motorized and non-motorized vehicles have exploded in recent years, with mountain-bike companies supplying 2,000 or more visitors on peak days atop Vail Pass, which straddles two of Colorado's busiest tourism counties.


    While the bike riders generally stick to paved paths along Interstate 70, dozens of rented all-terrain vehicles and, in winter, snowmobiles, roar into once-remote woods and can reach fragile alpine tundra, terrain traditionally revered as wilderness."

  2. #2
    Trail Connoisseur
    Reputation: RIVER29's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    721
    I don't know anything about ATVs and such but Mountain Bikes? This goes to a whole new level of stupid. Lets just kill tourism in CO it's not like it's important to the economy of any of the mountain towns. Come see CO but stay on the highway and see it from your car.

  3. #3
    HAHA PWN
    Reputation: Vhom's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    177
    That's sad. But, I understand at the same time too. Have you seen some of the trails? At least they are not completely shutting the trails down or banning it for mountain bike uses.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: skiahh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    4,045
    Your title is a bit sensationalist.

    It sounds like they aren't regulating rentals as much as who can use federal parking lots and trail heads. I suspect that might include shuttle services, but that wouldn't make as titillating a thread title....

  5. #5
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    7,168
    Quote Originally Posted by skiahh View Post
    Your title is a bit sensationalist.

    It sounds like they aren't regulating rentals as much as who can use federal parking lots and trail heads. I suspect that might include shuttle services, but that wouldn't make as titillating a thread title....
    But you know it's UT and how he rolls...so why aren't you applying the grain of salt filter on anything he posts? Don't you have friends that...magnify...everything by like 200% when they tell you things? Same dealio here...

    That said, what UT posts are (very) generally somewhat interesting...

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    9,023
    How the Feds can lump ATVs and snowmobiles and mountain bikes into one user group is beyond comprehension. Hey, put horses into that group while you're at it!
    The only reply to a fool is silence

  7. #7
    ride
    Reputation: ignazjr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,273
    I'm sure they'd put hikers in the same group as motorized and bikes if tour companies were dumping off 50 hikers at a time to hike at Vail Pass. There would definitely be impact.

    What they are trying to regulate is essentially tour operators operating without permits. We've got a few in our neck of the woods. Tour operators will unload a trailer full of 20 quads on a County Road just outside of USFS property, arm people a map and very little training and send them off into USFS property. USFS feels the impact but there are no operators permitted to associate with the impact. Bunce School Road area is a perfect example. USFS and several volunteer orgs have been in there cleaning up messes that a tour operator left years ago. The cost of cleanup was significant but the area looks much better now. The current ATV rental guy in that area seems to care a little bit more, but the average ATV user up there sure doesn't. I've been run off the trail more than a few times by ATV renters (yes they are that obvious). Fortunately (or unfortunately) now, damn near the entire area up there is fenced in so ATV users can't depart from the road.

    The catch is that if the tour operator dropped off all of their ATVs ON USFS PROPERTY they would need a permit for operating a commercial enterprise on USFS property.

    Renting a bike from a shop or brick and mortar business in town and taking it out for your own use is not what the Feds are seeking to regulate. Feds are strictly trying to limit significant impact on Federal land by commercial businesses without permits. I don't have a problem with it, I think it's a good idea.
    Redstone Cyclery
    intense*transition*rocky mountain*turner
    web - tweet - FB
    Lyons, CO

  8. #8
    formerly shabadu
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    961
    I'd also imagine that it's a rather loose usage of the term "mountain bike". Bike path bike is probably the case for the vast majority of these shuttle drop offs....it's just people coasting back in to Vail or Frisco.
    I'm just impressed there wasn't mention of drones in the first post.

  9. #9
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    7,168
    Quote Originally Posted by xcguy View Post
    How the Feds can lump ATVs and snowmobiles and mountain bikes into one user group is beyond comprehension. Hey, put horses into that group while you're at it!
    I agree. I never could understand this lumping of mtbs w/ motorized toys...to the end of not letting a mtbs into wilderness areas. I'm curious what Luddite had pushed for that one in favor of the 4-legged mulching and tilling machines...especially after riding where the sh!+ and those 6" post holes covers the trail from edge to edge.

  10. #10
    Almost Human
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,908
    Quote Originally Posted by skiahh View Post
    Your title is a bit sensationalist.

    It sounds like they aren't regulating rentals as much as who can use federal parking lots and trail heads. I suspect that might include shuttle services, but that wouldn't make as titillating a thread title....
    Sensationalist? perhaps. I'll give you that. But using the word "limit" as
    the the DP article doesn't quite describe the extent of what's happening
    IMHO.

    Read carefully.

    "Two companies that drop off and pick up ATVs and snowmobiles at the
    Vail Pass summit parking area have received shut-down orders."

    Shut-down orders? That sounds like a regulation to me.

    And I'm really on the fence on this one myself. I don't like running into 30 inexperienced riders coming down St. Mary's at me when I'm going up.

    But I like to see people having fun.

    I believe tourism should be promoted and it's good for our economy.
    Recreation creates jobs. It gave me a paycheck for many years.

    If anything this proves the very strong need across Colorado for
    active use recreational areas. Large areas where people can have these
    types of experiences and land managers are given the tools and resources
    to do their jobs and mitigate the impacts. DH MTB, XC motos, ATV's there
    needs to be areas set aside for these folks too. It's good for Colorado.

  11. #11
    ride
    Reputation: ignazjr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,273
    Quote Originally Posted by UncleTrail View Post
    If anything this proves the very strong need across Colorado for
    active use recreational areas. Large areas where people can have these
    types of experiences and land managers are given the tools and resources
    to do their jobs and mitigate the impacts. DH MTB, XC motos, ATV's there
    needs to be areas set aside for these folks too. It's good for Colorado.
    Colorado already has these areas. When you say that land managers need tools and resources to do their jobs and mitigate the impacts is EXACTLY what the feds are trying to do in this case. Feds aren't trying to crush anyones fun the way I read this. They're just trying to give their land managers the tools to mitigate impact. One of these tools is closing up the loopholes that allow tour operators to run for profit business on public land without permits.

    I think you made your own point
    Redstone Cyclery
    intense*transition*rocky mountain*turner
    web - tweet - FB
    Lyons, CO

  12. #12
    Almost Human
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,908
    Quote Originally Posted by ignazjr View Post
    Colorado already has these areas. When you say that land managers need tools and resources to do their jobs and mitigate the impacts is EXACTLY what the feds are trying to do in this case. Feds aren't trying to crush anyones fun the way I read this. They're just trying to give their land managers the tools to mitigate impact. One of these tools is closing up the loopholes that allow tour operators to run for profit business on public land without permits.

    I think you made your own point

    This is the tool I'm talking about.


Members who have read this thread: 0

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 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.