Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 401 to 459 of 459
  1. #401
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Sage of the Sage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    413
    Quote Originally Posted by tungsten View Post
    If you couldn't find "wilderness" in Texas I don't think you're qualified to call people "lunatics", let alone engage in this discussion.
    Regurgitated talking points, rehashed opinion pieces, and grade-school level insults are all signs of intellectual bankruptcy, Mr. Tungsten. Perhaps if youíd care to formulate an original, well-structured rebuttal, folks would be more willing to ďdiscussĒ things with you.

    Allowing certain user groups in wilderness areas and excluding others that have similar, if not less, impact stinks of favoritism and pseudoscience. STC simply endeavors to return the control of the area in question to the individual presumably most qualified to judge impacts on expanding its use... the local land manager.
    Salsa Timberjack SS
    -Gears give me headaches

  2. #402
    mtbr member
    Reputation: veloborealis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,466
    Quote Originally Posted by tungsten View Post
    If you couldn't find "wilderness" in Texas I don't think you're qualified to call people "lunatics", let alone engage in this discussion.
    You're deliberately missing the point. Not that he needs my support, but Harold's judgement is valued by many on this forum. Yours not so much.

    Your position is clear, but what qualifies you to engage in this discussion?
    Veni vidi velo!

  3. #403
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,321
    Wilderness is for the public to enjoy.
    MTBers need to join together to fight to recreate in all wilderness areas and essentially reject all arguments to the contrary.
    These people that want to prevent the public from enjoying the land that is rightfully theirs to enjoy, do it out of pure selfishness. All of their talking points are lies to manipulate the public.
    Reject them completely.

    Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

  4. #404
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    10,671
    Quote Originally Posted by Suns_PSD View Post
    Wilderness is for the public to enjoy.

    All of it? For everyone? Why are mountain bikes ok and 500cc petrol bikes aren't? What about their right to enjoy it their way?


    Just saying there's either a line in the sand somewhere or there isn't, and if there is there's always going to be some people who feel that they've been wronged. Personally I don't think all wilderness areas are appropriate for all access and believe that some core areas should even be human-free. Help keep America wild!
    I brake for stinkbugs

  5. #405
    Bicycles aren't motorized
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,787
    Quote Originally Posted by J.B. Weld View Post
    All of it? For everyone? Why are mountain bikes ok and 500cc petrol bikes aren't? What about their right to enjoy it their way?


    Just saying there's either a line in the sand somewhere or there isn't, and if there is there's always going to be some people who feel that they've been wronged. Personally I don't think all wilderness areas are appropriate for all access and believe that some core areas should even be human-free. Help keep America wild!




    Yep, fortunately most mountain bikers really just want to open some wilderness areas that have already existing trails/roads that have to be navigated around because wilderness designations cut off access to already in place trails, making unwieldy detours necessary.
    It ain't supposed to be easy.

    Make
    America
    Gravel
    Again

  6. #406
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mack_turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,270
    Quote Originally Posted by tungsten View Post
    If you couldn't find "wilderness" in Texas I don't think you're qualified to call people "lunatics", let alone engage in this discussion.
    Have you been to Texas? It's huge and over 95% of it is privately owned ranch land.

  7. #407
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SteveF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,170
    Quote Originally Posted by Suns_PSD View Post
    Wilderness is for the public to enjoy.
    MTBers need to join together to fight to recreate in all wilderness areas and essentially reject all arguments to the contrary.
    These people that want to prevent the public from enjoying the land that is rightfully theirs to enjoy, do it out of pure selfishness. All of their talking points are lies to manipulate the public.
    Reject them completely.

    Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
    I think you're confusing recreational land with wilderness land. Wilderness land is set aside to be protected from human impact as much as possible. Recreational land is for the public to enjoy, though I think it's important that it be protected from over-use and over-development. I'd like to see some mtb trail access in wilderness areas where it is judged appropriate usage, not too impactful, etc. But I get why sometimes it isn't allowed. The way it's set up now, wilderness land can't be locally managed to that degree, removing the knee-jerk ban on mtb's and allowing managers (and advocates) to make that call on a case by case basis would be sufficient, IMO.

  8. #408
    Hardtail Steel Forever
    Reputation: jestep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,749
    Quote Originally Posted by mack_turtle View Post
    Have you been to Texas? It's huge and over 95% of it is privately owned ranch land.
    Yeah, it's ridiculous down here. Coming from Colorado, I'm still appalled at the lack of public land for the size of the state. The spanish land grant system left almost nothing at all. This always makes me equally appalled when people from states like this want to gut the BLM, and USFS, and other regulatory agencies that manage public land in the west.
    WTB: Med Bontrager Ti Lite, PM Me...

  9. #409
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    189
    Quote Originally Posted by J.B. Weld View Post
    All of it? For everyone? Why are mountain bikes ok and 500cc petrol bikes aren't? What about their right to enjoy it their way?


    Just saying there's either a line in the sand somewhere or there isn't, and if there is there's always going to be some people who feel that they've been wronged.
    I vote we advocate for mountain bikes and stop there.

  10. #410
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Curveball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    2,522
    Quote Originally Posted by tungsten View Post
    If you couldn't find "wilderness" in Texas I don't think you're qualified to call people "lunatics", let alone engage in this discussion.
    When you degrade the conversation to childish insults, you lose all credibility.

    You also help make the case that you really are Vanderman and have no place on this forum.
    Riding Washington State singletrack since 1986

  11. #411
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    10,671
    Quote Originally Posted by Abox View Post
    I vote we advocate for mountain bikes and stop there.

    Of course, me too. Just keep in mind that until the ebike issue settles out if you advocate for mtb access you might also be advocating for electric mountain bikes.

    Until you get to the top of the food chain everyone thinks we should stop wherever their interests lie. Tank driving enthusiasts don't care much who else has access.
    I brake for stinkbugs

  12. #412
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ALimon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    810
    Quote Originally Posted by BumpityBump View Post
    I completely disagree with blanket access to Wilderness Areas by bikes. I already access Wilderness a lot, on foot. If you want to access Wilderness, shoulder a pack. Mountain bikers seem to be becoming as self righteous as the motor crowd, sad. (cue horse argument, yawn)
    I do shoulder a pack when I ride. . By claiming mountain bikers shouldnít have access to the wilderness, well that there my friend, is the very definition of self-righteous

  13. #413
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    189
    Quote Originally Posted by J.B. Weld View Post
    Of course, me too. Just keep in mind that until the ebike issue settles out if you advocate for mtb access you might also be advocating for electric mountain bikes.
    That's perfect we can exclude ebikes as a concession.

  14. #414
    Bicycles aren't motorized
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Abox View Post
    That's perfect we can exclude ebikes as a concession.



    That's why e-motorbikes are considered "motorized" but not motor vehicles.
    It ain't supposed to be easy.

    Make
    America
    Gravel
    Again

  15. #415
    Here, diagonally!
    Reputation: JACKL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    2,020
    Quote Originally Posted by Abox View Post
    That's perfect we can exclude ebikes as a concession.
    Oh No!!

    That really hurts, but I suppose I could take one for the team and go along with that concession.

  16. #416
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tungsten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    499
    Quote Originally Posted by Sage of the Sage View Post

    return the control of the area in question to the individual presumably most qualified to judge impacts on expanding its use... the local land manager.
    Who is far more likely to be corrupted in some way for short term fiduciary interests rather than long term goals which have the interests of flora and fauna at heart.

  17. #417
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,869
    Quote Originally Posted by tungsten View Post
    Who is far more likely to be corrupted in some way for short term fiduciary interests rather than long term goals which have the interests of flora and fauna at heart.
    So youíre saying that USFS and NPS land managers are easily corrupted??


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  18. #418
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tungsten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    499
    Quote Originally Posted by Curveball View Post
    When you degrade the conversation to childish insults, you lose all credibility.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold
    (whether he enters it on his own, or gets inserted into it by lunatics like tungsten)
    Right, dude.

  19. #419
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Sage of the Sage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    413
    Quote Originally Posted by tungsten View Post
    Who is far more likely to be corrupted in some way for short term fiduciary interests rather than long term goals which have the interests of flora and fauna at heart.
    So youíre saying that someone who lives and works in the area they are responsible for is more likely to be corrupt than someone in Washington DC who has absolutely no clue about a) historic land use in the area, b) current land use in the area, c) probable impacts of different uses in an area, and sees special interest lobbyists on a daily basis?
    Salsa Timberjack SS
    -Gears give me headaches

  20. #420
    Bicycles aren't motorized
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,787
    Quote Originally Posted by tungsten View Post
    Who is far more likely to be corrupted in some way for short term fiduciary interests rather than long term goals which have the interests of flora and fauna at heart.



    Has to be M. Vanderman
    It ain't supposed to be easy.

    Make
    America
    Gravel
    Again

  21. #421
    change is good
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    2,746
    Hate me if you will. I feel wilderness should be off limits to bikes. Hike in, hike out.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

  22. #422
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Sage of the Sage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    413
    Quote Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
    Hate me if you will. I feel wilderness should be off limits to bikes. Hike in, hike out.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

    Why?
    Salsa Timberjack SS
    -Gears give me headaches

  23. #423
    Magically Delicious
    Reputation: Cleared2land's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    7,342
    Quote Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
    Hate me if you will. I feel wilderness should be off limits to bikes. Hike in, hike out.
    Hike in and hike out. That's a purely human function by most definitions.

    Where does equine fit into this equation? Are you in favor of removing the language that entitles equine and endorsing humans only?
    A bad day of cycling is better than a good day at work

    Work Truck - Dassault Falcon 7X

  24. #424
    Here, diagonally!
    Reputation: JACKL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    2,020
    Quote Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
    Hate me if you will. I feel wilderness should be off limits to bikes. Hike in, hike out.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
    No hate from me, it's a valid point of view. Been discussed before.

    On the plus side, a bicycle is fully human-powered, but it is a mechanized device. I'm sure that reasonable people can disagree on what is appropriate for these areas.

  25. #425
    change is good
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    2,746
    Quote Originally Posted by Cleared2land View Post
    Hike in and hike out. That's a purely human function by most definitions.

    Where does equine fit into this equation? Are you in favor of removing the language that entitles equine and endorsing humans only?
    I have family members who are equestrians. And I know how much damage horses cause. Plus, equestrians rarely do trail development or maintenance. And Iíve been chastised by equestrians and hikers on mountain bike developed trails.

    The belief I have is one based on maintaining a sense of purity and not based on studies or data. Also, I live close to wilderness, but have access to trails in other areas. There are many other places that can be developed. Just because a trail is in the wilderness, doesnít make it necessary enjoyable to ride.

    If i had limited access, I may feel differently. But I live in Sedona so there are many places to ride, but the tourists take a toll on the trails. Like other places I lived, there are non-wilderness areas that could be developed.

    I also believe in choosing ones battles. Wilderness access seems to me to be harder than state or national forest or BLM, but Iím making an assumption.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

  26. #426
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    23,647
    Ah, the ol fake sense of "purity" angle.

  27. #427
    Bicycles aren't motorized
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold View Post
    Ah, the ol fake sense of "purity" angle.



    Yep. If it was really based on purity they'd be walking barefoot, naked, rubbing sticks together to make fire and with no modern amenities at all. So much bullshit.
    It ain't supposed to be easy.

    Make
    America
    Gravel
    Again

  28. #428
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,869
    Quote Originally Posted by DrDon View Post

    I also believe in choosing ones battles. Wilderness access seems to me to be harder than state or national forest or BLM, but Iím making an assumption.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
    Do you understand how land designation works? BLM and FS lands can be used for cycling on a case by case basis approval. Unless of course itís Wilderness thatís managed by the BLM or FS. In that case their hands are tied. Thatís the point of STCís legislation: to allow cycling in Wilderness on a case by case basis...



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  29. #429
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    9,468
    I feel otherwise.
    Quote Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
    Hate me if you will. I feel wilderness should be off limits to bikes. Hike in, hike out.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
    Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk
    Faster is not always better, but it's always more fun

  30. #430
    change is good
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    2,746

    Mountain Bikers Seek to Gut Wilderness Act

    To each his own. I do understand access is case by case. I just do not see a need to access Wilderness if there are so many other options. Are specific case by case scenarios that are relevant?

    FWIW, Iíve been mountain biking for over 30 years. I belong to IMBA. I know prominent local individuals within the community. Alone I canít change policy. Together we can. Why should people mobilize behind a cause if someone insults them?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

  31. #431
    Bicycles aren't motorized
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,787
    Quote Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
    To each his own. I do understand access is case by case. I just do not see a need to access Wilderness if there are so many other options. Are specific case by case scenarios that are relevant?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro




    Wilderness areas that bisect the AZ. Trail?
    It ain't supposed to be easy.

    Make
    America
    Gravel
    Again

  32. #432
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    9,468
    Quote Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
    To each his own. I do understand access is case by case. I just do not see a need to access Wilderness if there are so many other options. Are specific case by case scenarios that are relevant?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
    Other options are irrelevant to this discussion.

    Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk
    Faster is not always better, but it's always more fun

  33. #433
    change is good
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    2,746
    Quote Originally Posted by zorg View Post
    Other options are irrelevant to this discussion.

    Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk
    Itís not irrelevant to me. Maybe not to other mountain bikers. I canít speak for them.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

  34. #434
    change is good
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    2,746
    Quote Originally Posted by life behind bars View Post
    Wilderness areas that bisect the AZ. Trail?
    Ok. Thatís a damn good point.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

  35. #435
    Your Best Friend
    Reputation: Silentfoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    5,075
    And the Mah Dah Hey trail. Did I spell that right?

    Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
    I'm a mountain bike guide in southwest Utah

  36. #436
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,869
    Quote Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
    To each his own. I do understand access is case by case. I just do not see a need to access Wilderness if there are so many other options. Are specific case by case scenarios that are relevant?

    FWIW, Iíve been mountain biking for over 30 years. I belong to IMBA. I know prominent local individuals within the community. Alone I canít change policy. Together we can. Why should people mobilize behind a cause if someone insults them?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
    via Imgflip Meme Generator

  37. #437
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    9,468
    Quote Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
    Itís not irrelevant to me. Maybe not to other mountain bikers. I canít speak for them.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
    Still irrelevant to the merit of allowing bikes in wilderness. Options are an argument used by those that don't understand basic logic.

    Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk
    Faster is not always better, but it's always more fun

  38. #438
    change is good
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    2,746
    Quote Originally Posted by Silentfoe View Post
    And the Mah Dah Hey trail. Did I spell that right?

    Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
    I donít know enough about that trail. Thereís a picture of a mountain biker on the trail association website.

    I was under the impression the entire AZT was open to bikers. If it isnít, I feel it should be.

    So yeah, I see your point of view, although I think as whole we shouldnít go to that well too often. My 2c. I just spent some time in Grand Teton and Glacier National. Highly regulated which was somewhat annoying, but freakin gorgeous. I guess my fear is, unrestrained heavy usage, which not only damages the land but damages our sport.




    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

  39. #439
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    9,468
    Quote Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
    I donít know enough about that trail. Thereís a picture of a mountain biker on the trail association website.

    I was under the impression the entire AZT was open to bikers. If it isnít, I feel it should be.

    So yeah, I see your point of view, although I think as whole we shouldnít go to that well too often. My 2c. I just spent some time in Grand Teton and Glacier National. Highly regulated which was somewhat annoying, but freakin gorgeous. I guess my fear is, unrestrained heavy usage, which not only damages the land but damages our sport.




    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
    More FUD.

    Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk
    Faster is not always better, but it's always more fun

  40. #440
    change is good
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    2,746
    Quote Originally Posted by zorg View Post
    Still irrelevant to the merit of allowing bikes in wilderness. Options are an argument used by those that don't understand basic logic.

    Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk
    The point Iím trying to make is if you are trying to win someone to your point of view, telling them their beliefs are irrelevant is not going to be of benefit. You just have two sides telling each other that their opinions are irrelevant and illogical. Relevance and logic are both subjective and not data driven. I see your point of view, but ambivalence amongst mountain bikers I feel is the biggest obstacle to your goal. I personally donít know of any bikers that are fired up enough to enact change. I not saying your goal is not worthy. I think it needs more focus.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

  41. #441
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,869
    Quote Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
    I donít know enough about that trail. Thereís a picture of a mountain biker on the trail association website.

    I was under the impression the entire AZT was open to bikers. If it isnít, I feel it should be.

    So yeah, I see your point of view, although I think as whole we shouldnít go to that well too often. My 2c. I just spent some time in Grand Teton and Glacier National. Highly regulated which was somewhat annoying, but freakin gorgeous. I guess my fear is, unrestrained heavy usage, which not only damages the land but damages our sport.




    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
    The thing is, cycling use can be heavily regulated. Just like any other use.

    Quite simply the solution isnít to make bikes absent from the picture.

    If you actually looked at the issue without bias and researched why exactly things changed. What areas were affected and most importantly: what areas in non Wilderness are affected due to small connectors being closed that are in Wilderness. All due to a rule change, pushed by an extremely biased private interest group. That applies to public land. I think it would be quite difficult to see this issue as being morally correct at the moment.

    Or religiously correct in the case of those that view this as a religious issue. Trust me this is real.

    Or at least in the case of the PCT it isn't legally correct. As many parts of the PCT are not in a Wilderness area but are managed as such (but only in the single issue of bike use). Why it isn't legal is a long story but the ruling did not use the public process.

    If you look at this issue logically it reeks of corruption and a lack of logic.

    I think it would be fair to say this is what Zorg is getting at.

    I'm simply saying that cycling use doesn't mean unconstrained use. Doubly so for backcountry cycling use.

    Also you mentioned there are plenty of other options. This quite simply is true in rare cases in the Western United States but is not the case most of the time. In the central and eastern portions of the US, there is little Wilderness. So its a non issue. The rule change process is national and it becomes more complex.

    My personal feelings are that those who have cycling access and ignore the plight of those who are not allowed to access public land are bound to eventually lose access themselves.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  42. #442
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    9,468
    More focus? That actually makes no sense. The goal is very narrowly focused. Please try again.

    Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk
    Faster is not always better, but it's always more fun

  43. #443
    change is good
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    2,746
    Quote Originally Posted by zorg View Post
    More focus? That actually makes no sense. The goal is very narrowly focused. Please try again.

    Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk
    Your perspective is your perspective. You are entitled to your perspective. I understand your goal. I just donít see it being accomplished with the approach youíre taking. This has been a topic for years, and once again mountain bikers are unable to unite to find a solution. Mainly because of not being able to see other perspectives and compromise. Itís one thing to have an opinion. Itís what defines us. But you have to push the ball over the goal line. A lot of talk, but no do. God, I miss Senator McCain.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

  44. #444
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    9,468
    Quote Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
    Your perspective is your perspective. You are entitled to your perspective. I understand your goal. I just donít see it being accomplished with the approach youíre taking. This has been a topic for years, and once again mountain bikers are unable to unite to find a solution. Mainly because of not being able to see other perspectives and compromise. Itís one thing to have an opinion. Itís what defines us. But you have to push the ball over the goal line. A lot of talk, but no do. God, I miss Senator McCain.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
    More incoherent arguments... you just full of yourself. Good night.

    Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk
    Faster is not always better, but it's always more fun

  45. #445
    Bicycles aren't motorized
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,787
    Quote Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
    Your perspective is your perspective. You are entitled to your perspective. I understand your goal. I just donít see it being accomplished with the approach youíre taking. This has been a topic for years, and once again mountain bikers are unable to unite to find a solution. Mainly because of not being able to see other perspectives and compromise. Itís one thing to have an opinion. Itís what defines us. But you have to push the ball over the goal line. A lot of talk, but no do. God, I miss Senator McCain.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro



    The STC has one goal. Plenty is being done as well. How about a contribution to further the work being done? Write to your congressman? All help is welcomed, you can be part of a solution.

    Sustainable Trails Coalition


    They have pretty cool shirts too.


    Failbook group;

    https://www.facebook.com/Sustainable...ion/?ref=br_rs
    It ain't supposed to be easy.

    Make
    America
    Gravel
    Again

  46. #446
    change is good
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    2,746
    Quote Originally Posted by life behind bars View Post
    The STC has one goal. Plenty is being done as well. How about a contribution to further the work being done? Write to your congressman? All help is welcomed, you can be part of a solution.

    Sustainable Trails Coalition


    They have pretty cool shirts too.


    Failbook group;

    https://www.facebook.com/Sustainable...ion/?ref=br_rs
    That I can and will do. Thanks for the info.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

  47. #447
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    23,647
    Quote Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
    Mainly because of not being able to see other perspectives and compromise.
    Not really. The reason is because so many people think (either due to their own failures, or because they believe the wildernuts) that STC wants to open ALL Wilderness trails in ALL Wildernesses to bikes. That is simply not true. It has never been true, and never will be true.

    They want to stop Wilderness designation from being used as a weapon to get bikes off of trails, because it is one of the few weapons that the anti-mtb crowd has left (of course it is not necessarily diplomatic for them to phrase it that way). It is easier for them to get us excluded from trails in large areas that way than it is to address each trail on a case by case basis.

    Side benefit: if mtb use is permitted as a legitimate potential use within Wilderness, new Wilderness designation is likely to GAIN support within the mtb community.

    Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

  48. #448
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Curveball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    2,522
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold View Post
    Side benefit: if mtb use is permitted as a legitimate potential use within Wilderness, new Wilderness designation is likely to GAIN support within the mtb community.

    Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

    This is actually a rather huge factor for me.


    I would like to see mountain bikers more actively involved in land preservation and STC's proposal, if enacted, would go a long way in that direction.
    Riding Washington State singletrack since 1986

  49. #449
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    23,647
    Quote Originally Posted by Curveball View Post
    This is actually a rather huge factor for me.


    I would like to see mountain bikers more actively involved in land preservation and STC's proposal, if enacted, would go a long way in that direction.
    Absolutely. MTB riders would have more skin in the game, so to speak. If MTB riders support stronger land protections now, they do it for other reasons than protecting places to ride, because currently, stronger land protections pretty much means MTB riders get kicked out.

    It creates fairly significant conflict for people like me, with my biology, wildlife, environmental science, environmental education, and conservation background, yet who enjoys outdoor recreation. IME, if land protectionism is so strong and widespread that it begins to exclude relatively low impact uses, then the general population loses interest in conservation in general.

    Conservation needs two big things, IMO. First, it needs space. Public land is what most people think about when it comes to conservation efforts, but conservation can (and should) happen on private land, too. But, the critical part to getting the public to support conservation efforts at the government level, and at the level of pressuring corporations to do better is ACCESSIBILITY. That's all fine and dandy if you've got huge swathes of land that are protected, but if you can't figure out how to get the public to visit it and appreciate it, then it's a losing battle.

    In my time doing environmental education work, I worked primarily with urban kids who mostly didn't get exposed to nature any other way. For as crowded as some Wilderness areas are, there's an incredible number of people in this country that have no concept of such places. The last thing we should be doing is restricting access further. We should be looking at ways to get MORE people to support public land protection, and Wilderness specifically.

  50. #450
    change is good
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    2,746
    Valid points. Since gaining wilderness access is not high or no priority with many bikers across the country, increasing promotion of the STC could obviously be helpful. Living on the east coast and the in the Midwest the fight seemed to be with local and state governments. Where Iím at now in AZ there seems to be lower hanging fruit.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

  51. #451
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    23,647
    Quote Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
    Valid points. Since gaining wilderness access is not high or no priority with many bikers across the country, increasing promotion of the STC could obviously be helpful. Living on the east coast and the in the Midwest the fight seemed to be with local and state governments. Where Iím at now in AZ there seems to be lower hanging fruit.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
    STC does quite a lot of promotion. For the most part, if you are a mountain biker and don't know what they are really about, willful ignorance is probably the most likely explanation. Especially if you've been mountain biking for awhile, you're probably aware of many of the specific cases that built the current movement to regain access to Wilderness (I am, and I'm a midwestern boy).

    I have also read much of the documentation that the current policy of the prohibition of bikes is based on. It's not even a law. It's just an interpretation of the original Wilderness Act that was written decades after the original Act was passed. It could just as easily be rewritten without involving Congress, if TPTB would just do so. The original Wilderness Act PERMITTED bikes!

  52. #452
    mtb'er
    Reputation: Empty_Beer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,888
    Losing this because of semantics is why I fight for STC.



    And I don't live in Idaho and I have never ridden that route.

  53. #453
    change is good
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    2,746

    Mountain Bikers Seek to Gut Wilderness Act

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold View Post
    STC does quite a lot of promotion. For the most part, if you are a mountain biker and don't know what they are really about, willful ignorance is probably the most likely explanation. Especially if you've been mountain biking for awhile, you're probably aware of many of the specific cases that built the current movement to regain access to Wilderness (I am, and I'm a midwestern boy).

    I have also read much of the documentation that the current policy of the prohibition of bikes is based on. It's not even a law. It's just an interpretation of the original Wilderness Act that was written decades after the original Act was passed. It could just as easily be rewritten without involving Congress, if TPTB would just do so. The original Wilderness Act PERMITTED bikes!
    Willful ignorance? Maybe career. Maybe single dad. Now you lost me. Iíll spend my time and money doing voter registration.. Peace out.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

  54. #454
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    23,647
    Quote Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
    Willful ignorance? Maybe career. Maybe single dad. Now you lost me. Iíll spend my time and money doing voter registration.. Peace out.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
    your choice (see how that works?)

  55. #455
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    5,075
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold View Post
    STC does quite a lot of promotion. For the most part, if you are a mountain biker and don't know what they are really about, willful ignorance is probably the most likely explanation. Especially if you've been mountain biking for awhile, you're probably aware of many of the specific cases that built the current movement to regain access to Wilderness (I am, and I'm a midwestern boy).

    I have also read much of the documentation that the current policy of the prohibition of bikes is based on. It's not even a law. It's just an interpretation of the original Wilderness Act that was written decades after the original Act was passed. It could just as easily be rewritten without involving Congress, if TPTB would just do so. The original Wilderness Act PERMITTED bikes!
    Agreed, bad interpretation of " mechanized transport" The whole idea of wilderness was getting out, under ones own power and exploring. Bikepacking and day trips would fit this perfectly. MA guy here, was looking to link up some bikepacking segments in the NH white mts. Part of an old rail trail ran into the Dry Gulf Wilderness area, no bikes. So hiking on railroad ballast and grass is ok, but bikes would hurt it? Yikes.
    Last edited by AshevilleMTB; 09-14-2018 at 03:17 PM.

  56. #456
    mtb'er
    Reputation: Empty_Beer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,888
    The writer makes a good case for prohibiting himself and his family and his friends from exploring public wild lands, and I'll bet he'd never support such a regulation.

  57. #457
    the discerning hooligan
    Reputation: MOJO K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,020
    TUNGSTEN!!!
    MERCY! MERCY! MERCY!

  58. #458
    beater
    Reputation: evasive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,328
    Mountain bike manufacturers are building trails here in Montana? Strange I first heard about it here.

  59. #459
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,869
    So how did Tungsten get my comment deleted? In addition to his...


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-24-2017, 01:32 PM
  2. 96% of mt. bikers surveyed supported reasonable access to Wilderness
    By Empty_Beer in forum Trail Building and Advocacy
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 02-19-2016, 11:00 PM
  3. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 05-31-2015, 07:01 PM
  4. WH Petition to Not Close Proposed Wilderness to mt bikers
    By powpig in forum California - Norcal
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-30-2015, 05:33 PM
  5. Mountain bikers belong in the Wilderness - NEW Follow up story
    By CHUM in forum Riding Passion and Stories
    Replies: 95
    Last Post: 08-26-2011, 08:35 PM

Members who have read this thread: 218

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

mtbr.com and the ConsumerReview Network are business units of Invenda Corporation

(C) Copyright 1996-2018. All Rights Reserved.