What do you think?- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 28 of 28
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: skerry00's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    360

    What do you think?


  2. #2
    saddlemeat
    Reputation: bsieb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,852
    High level of ignorance, ten years behind the times.
    I ride with the best dogs.




  3. #3
    Stucco Bucket
    Reputation: the_owl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    1,917
    op-ed
    reads like most journalism these days.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: juan_speeder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,472
    Let's act as if the ban on bikes in the wilderness is lifted. It's then up to the local authority to decide which trails would be open to bikes.

    Aren't you that authority? What would you do?
    Scarlett Johansson loves my hummus.

  5. #5
    CoolArrow
    Reputation: jhazard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,468
    Sorry, couldn't make it past "vocal minority".
    Cool BandolArrow

    Jerry Hazard Ė website

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,459
    I think the author made some good points. I'm a little on the fence about it, but tending towards keeping wilderness as wilderness and being more careful about the areas we apply the designation to.

    New Mexico is probably a strange place to debate this all...we don't really have enough people in the state to overrun our wilderness even if the ban was lifted. I mean honestly in the northern part of the state it's pretty unusual to run into another group of bikers out on our regular trails (or for that matter, it's pretty unusual to run into other hikers in wilderness). In more densely-populated states, I can see that being a very different story.

  7. #7
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    55
    I agree with Juan Speeder. I'm curious what the OP thinks since it's his Wilderness to manage. If my opinion counts, I think it's ridiculous that the entire West facing, and much of the back side of the Sandias is Wilderness. The lawyer guy fails to mention that bicycle advocacy (IMBA) was not around to contest the 'intentions' of Wilderness during those initial 40 years, so they were basically drawing lines with a pencil back then.

    I think some Wilderness needs reconsideration. But, until that time comes I won't support the STC either.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: skerry00's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    360
    Jerry, I think if you look at use statistics for National Forest lands, hikers way outnumber bikes. Thatís always been true. Further, bikers who advocate for wilderness access are even a smaller subset although that may or may not be reflected locally.

    I am the wilderness manager but I donít make the decision - that would most likely be Regional Forester level. And really, the aspect of what the STC message has been as it relates to this has been my biggest complaint - even with passing the law, there would be a ton of process and most likely litigation to follow. Just like building a new trail, weíd have to go through a NEPA process and if you donít think groups like the Wilderness Society and others would object well I canít help you.

    I will refrain from my personal opinion(s) but will say from a partnership prospective, this would strain things. Conversely, I liked the ďspiritĒ of what happened with regard to boundary modification of the Wheeler Peak wilderness to have the Lost Lake Loop. Certainly there was much more riding going on within the Columbine-Hondo WSA prior but at least the different groups could work on something together and that more often is the direction we need to go. Otherwise, weíre alienating ourselves among other groups that we actually have a lot in common with.

    This partner approach will always garner more support at higher levels both in the agency and politically.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: skerry00's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    360
    Another thing I consider with regard to trails to ride in Alb - the district Iím temporarily on here in CA is 10 times as big, half of it is wilderness. There is only 17 miles of trail open to bikes....

    If you consider the mileage locally available in Abq, it looks pretty good.

  10. #10
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    55
    lol

    Good job, Kerry! Thanks for being a team player!!!

  11. #11
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    55
    He is right, though. Most Wilderness would stay closed, with no hope of ever opening it to bikes the way that 'law' is written. The focus is too narrow, imo.

    I can only speak to our Wilderness areas and the shear lack of thought that went into creating it. This whole side of the mountain is a matchbook, just waiting to go up in flames. Not that the FS is exactly great at managing fire dangers, but there are plenty of idiots out there camping during the summer. And, the irony of the Tram does not escape me!!!

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: skerry00's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    360
    Actually we are good at it, too good hence the state of the forest. Actually, being in Wilderness is not the reason we suppress in the Sandias but the multi-million dollar communication towers, tram, ski area and urban interface is. However, the reason we cannot go in and masticate is because of wilderness but something tells me someone wouldnít like that either - canít win!

  13. #13
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by skerry00 View Post
    Actually we are good at it, too good hence the state of the forest. Actually, being in Wilderness is not the reason we suppress in the Sandias but the multi-million dollar communication towers, tram, ski area and urban interface is. However, the reason we cannot go in and masticate is because of wilderness but something tells me someone wouldnít like that either - canít win!
    Most of the major fires in our immediate vicinity in recent years (that caused significant damage to structures) were started by FS operations. That may be the exception, but it is a fact. The way FS manage the thinning and burning is pretty bad, Kerry. It's just another way for you guys to spend our money. Luckily, you have nature and good willing volunteers to take over when you are done.

    PS: It's not about winning, necessarily. But, as the Wilderness keeper for the CNF you started a thread asking for others opinion at the same time withholding your own stating professional conflicts of interest. This whole thread is a conflict of interest.

  14. #14
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    55
    Just admit that the Wilderness boundary in the Sandias is about as useful (and dated) currently, as the law here in New Mexico that "idiots can't vote." lol

  15. #15
    Stucco Bucket
    Reputation: the_owl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    1,917
    I am of the opinion that anytime you can take away federal power and give it back to the state, thats a good thing. no matter whos in office. Like grand escalante, which i spent time in last week.
    Certainly local agencies and governments know whats better for them than some lobbyists in dc
    This administration will be the only shot at getting lands re-designated and truly given back to the people, albeit a long shot
    the next administration is only going to work to make more wilderness area

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: skerry00's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    360
    I was actually hoping to have honest and productive dialogue but I see things will just plunge into a never ending loop of blaming somebody else. Cool, good luck with that.

  17. #17
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    55
    And, who runs our state? Buncha sand baggers sucking the Federal teet, both indirectly through private contracts and directly through it's employees. And they are cheapskates to boot.

    Also, it's not that big of a long shot. The STC sure did see this administration coming, even before it shouldn't have. Makes a fella go, hmmmmm?

  18. #18
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by skerry00 View Post
    I was actually hoping to have honest and productive dialogue but I see things will just plunge into a never ending loop of blaming somebody else. Cool, good luck with that.
    Yeah, right. How you gonna start a thread asking someone's else opinion, then withhold your own? You are being totally dishonest. There is plenty of productive debate to be had, but in all honesty it's not our opinion that matters, according to the STC. It's YOURS! There are also plenty of other points in the other posts that you could address. Just ignore the stuff you don't want to hear. I'm not mad, bro. It's your world, man.

  19. #19
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    55
    Are you asking this question as a fellow mountain biker, or as a federal employee?

  20. #20
    Stucco Bucket
    Reputation: the_owl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    1,917
    Quote Originally Posted by skerry00 View Post
    I was actually hoping to have honest and productive dialogue but I see things will just plunge into a never ending loop of blaming somebody else. Cool, good luck with that.
    whos blaming who?
    typically defensive when people dont like big govt. i get it. my income doesnt come from uncle sam.
    as far as honest and productive i think whats been said has been both of those, you dont?

  21. #21
    CoolArrow
    Reputation: jhazard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,468
    Quote Originally Posted by skerry00 View Post
    Jerry, I think if you look at use statistics for National Forest lands, hikers way outnumber bikes. Thatís always been true. Further, bikers who advocate for wilderness access are even a smaller subset although that may or may not be reflected locally.
    To be clear, he said "Lately, a vocal minority of the mountain bike community, led by the Sustainable Trails Coalition".

    I read it as a minority of the mountain bike users, not total trail users.

    Otherwise, no argument
    Cool BandolArrow

    Jerry Hazard Ė website

  22. #22
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    55
    Not sure how someone could start up such a hot button topic as this and not expect some level of discourse, especially as the acting Wilderness keeper.

    Aaron, how does one differentiate state and local government from the Fed? Nothing happens without federal funding.

  23. #23
    saddlemeat
    Reputation: bsieb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,852
    I think the embedded wilderness industry will do whatever they think will work to keep the light from shining on their special interests. Wilderness is being abused by commercial interests while we argue technicalities among ourselves. Wilderness needs some exposure!
    I ride with the best dogs.




  24. #24
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    55
    You have made that claim a number of times, Bill. What commercial interests, exactly? Hunting, guiding, what? How is the STC going to solve that?

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    191
    Quote Originally Posted by skerry00 View Post
    Jerry, I think if you look at use statistics for National Forest lands, hikers way outnumber bikes. Thatís always been true. Further, bikers who advocate for wilderness access are even a smaller subset although that may or may not be reflected locally.
    Is that chicken or egg?

    I think many bikers enjoy a road trip to a new trail. So you go where the trails you can ride are. I certainly wouldn't drive somewhere to ride my bike on a crushed limestone path. National forest lands are not designed for bikers, so they don't attract them.

    I don't see many mountain bikes at the BMX track, does that mean that mountain bikers don't like to race? Or is it just not suited to them?

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,459
    Quote Originally Posted by sockrates View Post
    Not sure how someone could start up such a hot button topic as this and not expect some level of discourse, especially as the acting Wilderness keeper.

    I think he was expecting discourse. Maybe he was not expecting personal attacks.

    But you went there. And now your point is lost!

  27. #27
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by oldmanjoe View Post
    Is that chicken or egg?

    I think many bikers enjoy a road trip to a new trail. So you go where the trails you can ride are. I certainly wouldn't drive somewhere to ride my bike on a crushed limestone path. National forest lands are not designed for bikers, so they don't attract them.

    I don't see many mountain bikes at the BMX track, does that mean that mountain bikers don't like to race? Or is it just not suited to them?
    I think the back country experience is something that every mountain biker should should get a taste of. Personally, I like it all. Always have. Driving back from a Sedona/Prescott vacation with my two boys, we took a chance on a back road (that should have been closed) on our way down to Reserve/Apache Creek just outside of Alpine, AZ. There are trails open to bikes in places that you'd never even know. I would have liked to cap off the gnarcore experience of Prescott and Sedona with a nice backcountry ride in a place that I've never ridden, but I don't think the boys would have been up for it. I plan on going back there eventually this summer to see what it has to offer. It's surrounded by Wilderness I believe, but you'd probably be hard pressed to find anyone enforcing it out there.

    Sure, these trails aren't groomed and provide unexpected challenges, and I think that is something that only seasoned mountain bikers can appreciate. I would argue that mountain bike specific destinations/trails soak up much of the need for the average mountain biker, and rural Forest Lands should not cater to mountain bikes specifically. That is part of the reason I put so much effort into building fun trails!

  28. #28
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by Porch View Post
    I think he was expecting discourse. Maybe he was not expecting personal attacks.

    But you went there. And now your point is lost!
    Well, why don't you ask him if I hurt his feelings? I'm pretty sure I know Kerry a little better than you do. It's a pretty regular occurrence that he brings a subject only to keep his opinion veiled such that it pleases the masses. You never really know what he is thinking, unlike me!, until some sections of trail start to disappear or get re-routed.

    Also, my criticism INITIALLY was directed at the FS in general, and not at Kerry. Of course, you never know when he's on the clock. lol!

Similar Threads

  1. Think once, think twice, think bike Campaign
    By mtbxplorer in forum Commuting
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-08-2014, 09:00 AM
  2. Replies: 75
    Last Post: 01-14-2012, 10:24 AM
  3. what do you think other people think mountain biking is ?
    By nailtrail in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: 01-01-2012, 06:37 PM
  4. How long do you think you will still be riding?
    By fatcat in forum California - Socal
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 07-22-2011, 08:09 PM
  5. You think you know your Irish beers?
    By Finch Platte in forum Beer Forum
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 06-25-2011, 03:29 PM

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.