The Wilderness Debate- Mtbr.com
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 200 of 267
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    22

    The Wilderness Debate

    Hello Fellow MTB'ers:

    I wanted to gauge a group opinion of a brewing idea.

    As many of you know, the #1 threat to mountain biking in the United States is the Wilderness Act of 1964. In short, the Act prohibits "mechanized travel" within designated Wilderness areas, which many believe to mean only motorized in the original spirit of the law. Bikes were allowed in Wilderness areas until the early 1980's until the Forest Service began interpreting the Act to include mountain bikes. There is significant evidence to support the use of mountain bikes within Wilderness areas, not the least of which is other mechanized travel being allowed (ski bindings, rafting, etc) and the fact that mountain bikes had not been invented in 1964.

    Fundamentally, this has put mountain bikers at odds with the Wilderness System. I would bet at least 95% of mountain bikers conceptually support the preservation of wild lands, but have trouble supporting a system that shuts them out permanently to those lands on their mountain bikes. The Wilderness lobby advertise their intent as preserving our cherished lands from the long arm of the extractive industries (gas/oil, mining, logging) and development (roads, construction, etc) with no inherent issue with mountain bikers. That sounds great, but the fact is when an area is designated Wilderness we are OUT. Forever.

    IMBA plays an important role in mountain bike advocacy, but has publicly stated that the Wilderness Act is impossible to amend....certainly through legislative channels....and especially given the "green" lobby. IMBA has taken on an important role in proactively fighting to keep access, redraw Wilderness boundaries and promoting new trail construction. Unfortunately, their budget (and subsequent mandate) doesn't leave much to take on the enormous Wilderness lobby and an army of "green" lawyers.

    This leads me to ask, why must mountain bikers settle for second class status on federal lands? The Forest Service has found mountain biking to be no more of an impact than hiking, yet we are not allowed in the same wild places. How do you feel about a new organization, separate from IMBA, whose sole purpose is to legally challenge the Wilderness Act of 1964? No trail construction clinics, advocacy road shows or significant infrastructure....just a simple, legal entity dedicated to winning our right to ride mountain bikes in Wilderness. Would you support an organization like this? Would you support it financially?

    Sound off. Would love to hear from the stakeholders here.

    Ride Wilderness

  2. #2
    Crop Dusting Magistrate
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    610
    It would take millions and millions of dollars for any affective lobby efforts - and the mountain bike community isn't really that large of a user group.

    All for it though.
    It wasn't me

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by Howeler
    It would take millions and millions of dollars for any affective lobby efforts - and the mountain bike community isn't really that large of a user group.

    All for it though.
    I agree, I think a lobbying/legislative path is a lost cause. What I am suggesting is a legal path through the courts.

  4. #4
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    27,311
    I think your premise is a bit off.

    As many of you know, the #1 threat to mountain biking in the United States is the Wilderness Act of 1964.
    That may be true on a local basis in some specific areas, but none of the places that I have lived.

    And being in an academic environment, I will say this to you. Do NOT invent statistics to support your claim. If you're going to make a statement, you NEED references to back it up. Posting a poll on this site doesn't count. I don't know how you'd poll a respective cross-section of mountain bikers on this issue, either. Mayhaps it can't be done with the rigor you would need. The Wilderness advocates will take you apart if you make $hit up.

    Alternate organizations have been tried before, and failed (MTBAccess?). IIRC, MTBAccess supported the use of legal action. I don't know of anything they ever got done, however.

    I won't support an organization unless I know it's going to be effective.

    I support IMBA (not constantly, but I do throw them money from time to time) because it has been effective at promoting standards and proven methods to improve trail quality and quantity.

    How is your org going to prove to me that it is worth my money? Are you going to show me a list of lawyers working towards your cause? How about some legal documents supporting your efforts? If I had the cash and I could be certain you were serious, I'd front some cash to get the efforts started. But I don't have the sort of startup cash you'd need to get the ball rolling. If you'd find someone to donate legal help to get you started, that'd be great.

  5. #5
    banned
    Reputation: cruso414's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,101
    I would definitely support it financially and any other way I could.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    113
    Look at Blue Ribbon
    http://www.sharetrails.org/

    They fight to keep land open to all users. I am a member.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: One Pivot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    8,727
    we should find a dirty, sneaky backhanded way to loophole the law and get an amendment on a rider bill to allow mountain biking in wilderness areas. thats how you get politics done in america!

    ... partial joke, partial sad truth

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: fesch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    222
    I think supporting IMBA is the best overall choice. Perhaps they can't get wilderness opened up, but they help keeping national forests from closing off. They have a lot of credibility built up over time, and work (however slow and resource constrained) to enlarge the number of places mountain bikers can ride.
    fesch
    Riding in snow is for the desperate.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by NateHawk
    I think your premise is a bit off.



    That may be true on a local basis in some specific areas, but none of the places that I have lived.

    And being in an academic environment, I will say this to you. Do NOT invent statistics to support your claim. If you're going to make a statement, you NEED references to back it up. Posting a poll on this site doesn't count. I don't know how you'd poll a respective cross-section of mountain bikers on this issue, either. Mayhaps it can't be done with the rigor you would need. The Wilderness advocates will take you apart if you make $hit up.

    Alternate organizations have been tried before, and failed (MTBAccess?). IIRC, MTBAccess supported the use of legal action. I don't know of anything they ever got done, however.

    I won't support an organization unless I know it's going to be effective.

    I support IMBA (not constantly, but I do throw them money from time to time) because it has been effective at promoting standards and proven methods to improve trail quality and quantity.

    How is your org going to prove to me that it is worth my money? Are you going to show me a list of lawyers working towards your cause? How about some legal documents supporting your efforts? If I had the cash and I could be certain you were serious, I'd front some cash to get the efforts started. But I don't have the sort of startup cash you'd need to get the ball rolling. If you'd find someone to donate legal help to get you started, that'd be great.
    Regarding your comments on a well-staffed legal team and an organized approach, we couldn't be more in agreement. Our goal is not to mount the legal battle here, our goal in this forum is to hear what people think of the concept. I think you're spot on as to what this organization needs to be.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by fesch
    I think supporting IMBA is the best overall choice. Perhaps they can't get wilderness opened up, but they help keeping national forests from closing off. They have a lot of credibility built up over time, and work (however slow and resource constrained) to enlarge the number of places mountain bikers can ride.
    I think continued support for IMBA is essential. What I'm proposing here is a parallel effort that tries to accomplish what they cannot and keeps them insulated as a cooperative organization.

    Something for everyone to consider: this is how the Wilderness community plays ball. They utilize the courts when they feel their goals have not been satisfied by the federal land managers.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    878
    Quote Originally Posted by 89hawk
    Look at Blue Ribbon
    http://www.sharetrails.org/

    They fight to keep land open to all users. I am a member.

    Me too.

    Terry

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: KRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,078
    Quote Originally Posted by fesch
    I think supporting IMBA is the best overall choice. Perhaps they can't get wilderness opened up, but they help keeping national forests from closing off. They have a lot of credibility built up over time, and work (however slow and resource constrained) to enlarge the number of places mountain bikers can ride.
    I agree. Donate directly to their legal fund and talk a couple million of your buddies to kick in $100 each and that will start to make a dent. Even with that much money we're still out-financed by the Sierra Club. Call me pessimistic.

    Money is what makes things happen (sad but true). Put enough money behind the initiative and even bikes in wilderness could become a reality.

  13. #13
    to pedal or not to pedal
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    70
    Short answer: No i wouldn't support an additional group especially one attempting to go through the legal system.

    Good discussion topic though so here's my 2 cents:
    -The IMBA certainly isn't the do all for all organization we all envision in our dreams but i think they do alot more harm than good. I'd also like to think (hope) they are becoming more effective as the organization matures.

    -This crazy idea of throwing money at Washington to solve problems has to stop at some point. I'd much rather win friends by changing peoples lives one at a time by getting them on bikes and then let them have a go at their representatives.

    -I'd love to have access to "big W" wilderness. Last semester i took a grad class on "The Wilderness Act" and it was quite a learning experience. I'm still not pleased that i can't ride my bike in these areas (especially when horses are allowed) but at least i understand the history and some of the reasoning. For me, the ideas of leaving the land untrammeled, with "man's work substantially unnoticeable", and allowing for "outstanding opportunities of solitude" are valid enough that i'm ok riding elsewhere.

    -My perspective is possibly jaded because of my geographic location. Oklahoma has 3 Wilderness areas. Equal or superior riding is available nearby in all 3 cases, so for us, it isn't an issue of lack of access to quality riding. Understanding of course, that "quality riding" is a relative term Oh to live where some of you people do!!

  14. #14
    Tree Hugger
    Reputation: Sasquatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,946
    Quote Originally Posted by elder_mtber
    Me too.

    Terry

    I stay far away from the Blue Ribbon Coalition. It's foolish to put Mountain biking in a coalition with motorized vehicles. I consider myself a hiker on wheels, not a quiet motorcyclist. We need to build relationships with hikers, not motorcyclists if we are to convince Congress to allow bikes in Wilderness.

    Do you also support opening Wilderness to motorbikes and ATV use?
    I love mankind - it's people I can't stand. ~Charles M. Schulz

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,729
    Quote Originally Posted by Sasquatch
    I stay far away from the Blue Ribbon Coalition. It's foolish to put Mountain biking in a coalition with motorized vehicles. I consider myself a hiker on wheels, not a quiet motorcyclist. We need to build relationships with hikers, not motorcyclists if we are to convince Congress to allow bikes in Wilderness.

    Do you also support opening Wilderness to motorbikes and ATV use?
    i agree that mt. bikers shouldn't pigeon hole themselves in alignment with motos. Just as we shouldn't get too cozy with hiker groups either. Both have their own primary agenda's that usually conflict with what mt. bikers want.

    To put it simply Hiker groups are the Hatfields and Moto groups are the McCoys. There are tons of folk, probably Sasquatch himself that don't want anything to do with motos. Hiker green folk can't stand them and put down conditions against a group like lowly mt. bikers. If'n we catch you "cavortin" with dem McCoys we'll shoot yer dawg...

    This might seem funny, but what's not funny is how true it is.

    But this is moving away from topic a bit, i agree a bit with Sasquatch that mt. bikers should not throw in all their cards with any particular group but where i diverge from his stance is we need to take more stock on our own. Mt. biker groups need to stick up for mt. biker interests. We do need representation that does build relations, but not relations that are built on conditions that give the mt. bike lobby no teeth or claws.
    .~...|\
    ...~.|.\
    ..~..|..\
    .~...|...\
    ~....|....\
    ...~.|.....\
    ....~|____\
    _____||_________
    .\....FAILBOAT..../

  16. #16
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    27,311
    Quote Originally Posted by Sasquatch
    I stay far away from the Blue Ribbon Coalition. It's foolish to put Mountain biking in a coalition with motorized vehicles. I consider myself a hiker on wheels, not a quiet motorcyclist. We need to build relationships with hikers, not motorcyclists if we are to convince Congress to allow bikes in Wilderness.

    Do you also support opening Wilderness to motorbikes and ATV use?
    +2

    -My perspective is possibly jaded because of my geographic location. Oklahoma has 3 Wilderness areas. Equal or superior riding is available nearby in all 3 cases, so for us, it isn't an issue of lack of access to quality riding. Understanding of course, that "quality riding" is a relative term Oh to live where some of you people do!!
    Don't let your location distant from most wide open spaces jade you. Many hiking groups and Wilderness advocates HATE bikes and use Wilderness designations as a tool to get us off the trails. I don't pretend to believe that all trails should be open to bikes, but this method is sneaky and underhanded. Getting the interpretation (a simple majority decision) on the ban on "mechanized" travel fixed would remove that tool from their toolbox. I am pretty sure it'd take some of the steam out of the people who use that as a tool...but then Wilderness advocates who actually care about preservation of wild lands would gain many more mountain bikers as supporters.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,729
    Quote Originally Posted by reed523
    Good discussion topic though so here's my 2 cents:
    Even though i don't really agree with alot of what you say i really like your responses.

    But first, if this group was on the up and up, i personally know lots of people that would support it. And if it passed the smell test i would personally promote it. i honestly don't have a clue of how feasible this notion is, but there... i played along.

    Quote Originally Posted by reed523
    -This crazy idea of throwing money at Washington to solve problems has to stop at some point. I'd much rather win friends by changing peoples lives one at a time by getting them on bikes and then let them have a go at their representatives.
    i really really really like this response. i'm not going to say kill the lobbying, but i see all groups get so top heavy they forget to provide the fundamental basics. Part of that is to have some fun! Promoting the positive aspect of mt. biking with up to date unfiltered information, providing sustainable support within stewardship efforts, all things that are weak links on the chain of advocacy from where i see things. We don't have to be super awesome at everything, but we shouldn't suck as much as we do either.
    Not every problem is so simple but i am a believer that if we streamline our efforts in nurturing more aware riders, refine our networks, and be good at being ready to focus the energy that is harnessed from that.
    Well i know from personal experience, that it's possible, and fruitful.

    Quote Originally Posted by reed523
    For me, the ideas of leaving the land untrammeled, with "man's work substantially unnoticeable", and allowing for "outstanding opportunities of solitude" are valid enough that i'm ok riding elsewhere.
    Not for me. i could debate each point at length but i'll spare both of us, and simply say mt. bikes are a great low impact way to recreate, and appreciate a quiet non-motorized nature experience.
    .~...|\
    ...~.|.\
    ..~..|..\
    .~...|...\
    ~....|....\
    ...~.|.....\
    ....~|____\
    _____||_________
    .\....FAILBOAT..../

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,027
    I understand the need for a parallel organization and I would support it. this would be no different than enviromental types belonging to a variety of organizations in order to satisfy their diverse interests.

    It would be healthy to fully explore the wilderness act and it's restrictions. And also the present Forest Service definition of mechanised use. We can debate the many details here on this thread, or not. But the question needs to be brought forth nationally once again. IMBA will not do it. At least in the present. So someone else may try.

    The Wilderness movement is well funded and very arrogant. Many wilderness professionals will read this thread, and I will catch hell from them in the future for writing this, as I am being monitored. As more wilderness is designated without making adequate consessions to the modest bicyclist requests, the entire wilderness movement becomes poorer for it and the growing trend to question the Act becomes stronger.

    The Wilderness Act is perfect, or just about perfect. The way it is being applied and used as the only viable land conservation option is far from perfect though, and that is where we all are losing.
    I don't know what trail we're on, but at least it's getting dark

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by reed523
    Short answer: No i wouldn't support an additional group especially one attempting to go through the legal system.

    Good discussion topic though so here's my 2 cents:
    -The IMBA certainly isn't the do all for all organization we all envision in our dreams but i think they do alot more harm than good. I'd also like to think (hope) they are becoming more effective as the organization matures.

    -This crazy idea of throwing money at Washington to solve problems has to stop at some point. I'd much rather win friends by changing peoples lives one at a time by getting them on bikes and then let them have a go at their representatives.

    -I'd love to have access to "big W" wilderness. Last semester i took a grad class on "The Wilderness Act" and it was quite a learning experience. I'm still not pleased that i can't ride my bike in these areas (especially when horses are allowed) but at least i understand the history and some of the reasoning. For me, the ideas of leaving the land untrammeled, with "man's work substantially unnoticeable", and allowing for "outstanding opportunities of solitude" are valid enough that i'm ok riding elsewhere.

    -My perspective is possibly jaded because of my geographic location. Oklahoma has 3 Wilderness areas. Equal or superior riding is available nearby in all 3 cases, so for us, it isn't an issue of lack of access to quality riding. Understanding of course, that "quality riding" is a relative term Oh to live where some of you people do!!
    A few responses:

    - IMBA has given up on changing the Wilderness Act. They do an admirable job of working to redraw lines and find compromise, but make no mistake, we are at the negotiating table as a second class user group. I like what they do, but we're losing the larger battle. Bit by bit, year by year we are losing amazing wild places to ride that as of today, we will NEVER ride in again.

    - I don't quite understand the recurring theme of "throwing money", and in other posts, any reference to a lobbying effort. This idea is that of mounting a legal challenge, not a legislative movement. Yes, it would most certainly cost money, but not as wasted lobbying /special interest money.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,131
    I'm okay with not riding mountain bikes in Wilderness Areas.
    Designating an area as a Wilderness protects the area from the mining and timber industries which is much more important than being able to ride my bike there.

    I used to live in Colorado and there were plenty of trails without having access to the few designated Wilderness Areas. (Although it would be nice to be able to ride the entire Colorado Trail without having to skirt Wilderness Areas).

    Now that I live in San Francisco, the number of singletrack trails I can ride is very limited and this is not due to Wilderness designation. It's all local politics. If you can't find any decent trails in Marin County (the supposed birthplace of modern mountain biking) then I'm guessing the mountain bike advocacy groups are so weak an arthritic hamster could stomp them to death. (Metaphorically speaking anyway. I wouldn't want to upset any hamster wranglers out there).

  21. #21
    BMX:Our Shining Future
    Reputation: davidarnott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    875
    This exactly right here is why mountain biking is screwed and will continue to be screwed into the forseeable future. We love our enemies and hate our allies. We are so screwed.


    QUOTE=Sasquatch]I stay far away from the Blue Ribbon Coalition. It's foolish to put Mountain biking in a coalition with motorized vehicles. I consider myself a hiker on wheels, not a quiet motorcyclist. We need to build relationships with hikers, not motorcyclists if we are to convince Congress to allow bikes in Wilderness.

    Do you also support opening Wilderness to motorbikes and ATV use?[/QUOTE]

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    911
    I have no problem with motorcyclists, but I don't want them in wilderness areas since they clearly don't belong there. At the same time I obviously think that bikes do. However not all trails should be multiuse. Some should have restrictions to allow those that can't yet play well with others to have their fun too.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BeanMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,247
    I'll break the mold. I use Wilderness areas quite often, by foot. And I think it should stay that way. In Colorado there are many other places for me to ride.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,388
    As long as horses are allowed in Wilderness areas I will oppose the law.
    We should oppose allowing these urinating and crapping, post hole digging animals in any wilderness. Then things may change for the better.
    Have you ever camped where horses are near? Flies and crap everywhere and it's never cleaned up. This seeds weeds as well.
    The horse lobby has many times the $ of the average mountain biker. I once met a competative horse rider who claimed she spent $30,000 a MONTH on her horse, hard to compete with that level of $. I was going to ski at Vail so very probable.
    Here in AZ wilderness areas are numerous and people in them are few.
    agmtb

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by BeanMan
    I'll break the mold. I use Wilderness areas quite often, by foot. And I think it should stay that way. In Colorado there are many other places for me to ride.
    I think this is an important point to address. I would agree with this IF there were no more Wilderness proposals on the table. I would be totally fine with the amount of riding I have to access and enjoy Wilderness by foot. Unfortunately, this is not the case. There are more than 2 million acres in Colorado alone right now in the crosshairs with even more being discussed. This is why I feel the issue is so important. We're slowly but surely losing rideable lands forever.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    911
    Like I said not all trails should see all use. Allowing biking in wilderness doesn't imply there are not hiking only areas still. Maybe they should just come up with a new designation. Everytime I am walking on a road dug by a bulldozer in a wilderness area I shake my head at the stupidity of it.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    753
    There are some wilderness areas I would definitely like to ride in, but I also think they should be kept foot-only. Allowing bikes seems like it might open the door for ATV's and dirt bikes, and that would be horrible.
    I really, really wish they would kick horses out of wilderness areas though. They cause way more erosion than a bike ever does.

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Howley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    634

    Go To Court

    Idaho is a State with a lot to lose from Proposed Wilderness-Exesting Wilderness not so much but if you want to challange the dfinition of mechanical transport then get busted ridding in proposed or official Wilderness and go to court-Find a leagl team to take the case pro bono and see what happens.

    Take a look here and ask these folks if a politial campaign or court battle is worth it.

    Bicycling and Wilderness

    http://www.wildernessbicycling.org/

    some times the unfunded challange will bring attantion to the issue and let the court of public opinion decide. Get ready for WAR.
    Last edited by Howley; 03-03-2010 at 10:46 AM.

  29. #29
    Over the Hill
    Reputation: dstepper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,768

    Another Washington Land Grap

    Washington Times
    March 2, 2010


    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...use-land-grab/

    By Sen. Jim DeMint

    You'd think the Obama administration is busy enough controlling the banks, insurance companies and automakers, but thanks to whistleblowers at the Department of the Interior, we now learn they're planning to increase their control over energy-rich land in the West.

    A secret administration memo has surfaced revealing plans for the federal government to seize more than 10 million acres from Montana to New Mexico, halting job- creating activities like ranching, forestry, mining and energy development. Worse, this land grab would dry up tax revenue that's essential for funding schools, firehouses and community centers.

    President Obama could enact the plans in this memo with just the stroke of a pen, without any input from the communities affected by it.

    At a time when our national unemployment rate is 9.7 percent, it is unbelievable anyone would be looking to stop job-creating energy enterprises, yet that's exactly what's happening.

    The document lists 14 properties that, according to the document, "might be good candidates" for Mr. Obama to nab through presidential proclamation. Apparently, Washington bureaucrats believe it's more important to preserve grass and rocks for birdwatchers and backpackers than to keep these local economies thriving.

    Administration officials claim the document is merely the product of a brainstorming session, but anyone who reads this memo can see that it is a wish list for the environmentalist left. It discusses, in detail, what kinds of animal populations would benefit from limiting human activity in those areas.

    The 21-page document, marked "Internal Draft-NOT FOR RELEASE," names 14 different lands Mr. Obama could completely close for development by unilaterally designating them as "monuments" under the 1906 Antiquities Act.

    It says all kinds of animals would be better off by doing so, like the coyotes, badgers, grouse, chickens and lizards. But giving the chickens more room to roost is no reason for the government to override states' rights.

    Rep. Robert Bishop, Utah Republican, made the memo public because he didn't want another unilateral land grab by the White House, like what happened under former Presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter.

    Using the Antiquities Act, President Carter locked up more land than any other president had before him, taking more than 50 million acres in Alaska despite strong opposition from the state.

    President Clinton used the authority 22 times to prohibit hunting, recreational vehicles, mining, forestry and even grazing in 5.9 million acres scattered around the country. The law allowed him to single-handedly create 19 new national monuments and expand three others without consulting anyone.

    One of the monuments President Clinton created was the Grande Staircase-Escalante in Utah, where 135,000 acres of land were leased for oil and gas and about 65,000 barrels of oil were produced each year from five active wells. But, President Clinton put an end to developing those resources.

    President Obama could do the same in other energy-rich places unless Congress takes action. At least 13.5 million acres are already on his Department of Interior's real estate shopping list.

    This includes a 58,000-acre area in New Mexico. The memo said this should be done so the lesser prairie chicken and the sand dune lizard will be better protected. Are these animals going extinct? No. The bureaucrats wrote that the land should be locked up to "avoid the necessity of listing either of these species as threatened or endangered."

    In Nevada, the Obama administration might make another monument in the Heart of the Great Basin because it, supposedly, is a "center of climate change scientific research."

    In Colorado, the government is considering designating the Vermillion Basin as a monument because it is "currently under the threat of oil and gas development."

    Americans should be wary of any plans a president has to seize land from the states without their consent. Any new plans to take away states' freedom to use land as they see fit must be stopped.

    That's why I sponsored an amendment to block Mr. Obama from declaring any of the 14 lands listed in the memo as "monuments." Unfortunately, the Senate, led by Democrats, rejected it on Thursday evening by a vote of 58-38.

    It was particularly disappointing that the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, of Nevada, voted against the amendment. The government owns more than 80 percent of the land in Nevada and the unemployment rate there is 12.8 percent. Surely it would help job prospects if more land were open for business.

    This is a nationwide problem. The government currently owns 650 million acres, or 29 percent of the nation's total land.

    Federal bureaucrats shouldn't be wasting time thinking up ways to acquire more, especially in the middle of a recession. Taking the nation's resources offline will stifle job creation and dry up tax revenues.

    If anything, the government should be selling land off, not locking more up. By voting against my amendment, the Democrats tacitly endorsed Mr. Obama's secret plan to close off millions more acres to commerce.

    If enacted, the plan would mean fewer jobs for Americans.

    The Democratic Congress refused to stop it, but one sure way Americans could help block it is if they decide some Democrats should lose their jobs on November.

    Sen. Jim DeMint, South Carolina Republican, is chairman of the U.S. Senate Steering Committee, a caucus of conservative senators.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,131
    That Washington Times article is a typical load of right-wing crap.
    The mining and timber industries have always had way more power than environmentalists in the USA.
    It is especially telling that Clinton was used as an example because he did very little to help protect our wild lands during his administration. The Grand Staircase/Escalante deal was one of the few good things that was done.

    Notice also that the person writing the article is a senator. Politicians love raping the last remaining wild lands because the rapists contribute huge amounts of money to their campaigns. They don't really care about jobs or anything else. It's just more greed.

    The fact that this article was brought up is exactly why I oppose fighting Wilderness designation in the name of mountain biking. As you can see, we end up aligning ourselves with the sort of people who would then turn those areas into stripmines and clearcuts. If you want to fight for mountain bike access in Wilderness, then okay. But as much as I love mountain biking, I love wilderness more and would rather not ride than see any more destruction.

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    911
    Funny about the "land grab" when it is my federal land they are "Grabbing" for me away from private companies. Hard to get my hackles up when I hear they try to get a better deal on the public land rent that private entities pay.

  32. #32
    I'm just messing with you
    Reputation: wv_bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    5,423
    Quote Originally Posted by dstepper
    You'd think the Obama administration is busy enough ...
    Anytime I read something that starts like that - or in the reverse, blaming the republicans - I just stop reading because I know the whole argument is gonna be based on "I hate the other side, why can't I do what I want and to hell with the consequences"
    Chasing bears through the woods drunk with a dull hatchet is strongly not advised

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,054
    Probably not going to win the legal challenge (The feds will likely get some kind of deference on the interpretation and "mechanized" reasonably covers bicycles). Maybe can get the agencies themselves to take another look at the definition, but this would involve a long and very carefully executed PR campaign. Like it or not, money and PR is the way things get done in this country. Its the way things ALWAYS have gotten done, not a recent phenomenon.

    Mountain biking is simply collateral damage in the wilderness debate. Wilderness is the most effective tool at protecting federal lands from resource extraction and development. For that reason, it is the tool used most heavily by groups like the Sierra Club and the tool most hated by the mining/timber industries. I don't doubt that many members of environmental groups like the idea of no mountain bikes in the wilderness (and it appears that some of the posters here agree), but they aren't proposing wilderness to stop bikes. Where it becomes frustrating is that if mountain bikes start pushing for wilderness access, the groups that currently advocate the strongest will not see any reason to let the bikers in and will actively oppose the change. The real issue then is how do mountain bikers go about getting a stake at the negotiating table? This can only be accomplished through money and political clout, essentially convincing the envrionmental groups to choose the lesser of two evils (accepting mountain bikes in wilderness areas in order to ensure that more wilderness will be designated versus having mountain bikers align with development and industry groups to oppose wilderness). The problem is that mountain bikers are a LONG way from having enough power for anyone else to care...

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    371
    Although I'm not subject to this act being in Canada, I have to agree with those that argue that allowing MTB's is the thin edge of the wedge. Personally, I enjoy having wilderness areas where MTB's are not allowed and my kids and I can hike without fear of some yahoo flying around the corner.

    A poster mentioned that MTB's were not around in 1964. True, but let's face it, the modern lightweight MTB with full suspension can get pretty darn close (or even exceed in some cases) motorbike speeds on tight trails, especially downhill ones.

    We all know the speeds you can hit on trails are pretty unreal, and motorbikes would have a hard time keeping up in tight narrow trails, so just because it doesn't have a piston motor doesn't mean it shouldn't be considered mechanized. MTB's will only get lighter and faster, and as a long time MTBer, I don't want them ripping around everywhere. Environmental impact aside, hikers and MTBers dont mix on certain trails.

    I'm not part of the horsy crowd, but I've run into many on the trail, and they are always clip clopping along at maybe 3mph -- not even close to the speeds MTBers are doing on the same trails.

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation: One Pivot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    8,727
    the best, by far, option for safe interaction between bikes, hikers, and other trail users.. is bike specific trails.

    some of these parks and wilderness areas are HUGE. theres plenty of space for bike specific trails. in some places they just need to bang a sign into the ground and let volunteer groups maintain and build trails. some places its logistically harder, some places easier, but its the best option.

    we cant win battles with the huge sierra clubs and horse freak clubs. they'd probably like us off their trails too.. we can compromise by giving us different access.

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    371
    I agree about different access absolutely. Also, in BC we've been able to get increased bike access and greenways around Vancouver (cycle paths) by pushing the fact that biking is healthy (reduces health care costs) and environmentally friendly (no emissions compared to motorized transport) and a tourist draw (north shore).

    The health care argument may not get much traction in the US though with private health care. If you can argue that special access MTB trails brings in tourists you'll get attention from decision makers.

  37. #37
    Tree Hugger
    Reputation: Sasquatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,946
    Quote Originally Posted by abegold
    As long as horses are allowed in Wilderness areas I will oppose the law.
    We should oppose allowing these urinating and crapping, post hole digging animals in any wilderness. Then things may change for the better.
    Have you ever camped where horses are near? Flies and crap everywhere and it's never cleaned up. This seeds weeds as well.
    The horse lobby has many times the $ of the average mountain biker. I once met a competative horse rider who claimed she spent $30,000 a MONTH on her horse, hard to compete with that level of $. I was going to ski at Vail so very probable.
    Here in AZ wilderness areas are numerous and people in them are few.

    I agree with you completely. From an impact standpoint, horses are so much worse than hikers or bikers. They also allow people to carry 100s of pounds of modern conveniences out into the wilderness instead of roughing it and living simple. I think that only seriously handicapped people should be allowed to bring horses into Wilderness. Fat and Lazy doesn't count, and neither does old and weak.
    I love mankind - it's people I can't stand. ~Charles M. Schulz

  38. #38
    2006 Yeti AS-X
    Reputation: Lawson Raider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,216
    Quote Originally Posted by Thor29
    That Washington Times article is a typical load of right-wing crap.
    The mining and timber industries have always had way more power than environmentalists in the USA.
    It is especially telling that Clinton was used as an example because he did very little to help protect our wild lands during his administration. The Grand Staircase/Escalante deal was one of the few good things that was done.

    Notice also that the person writing the article is a senator. Politicians love raping the last remaining wild lands because the rapists contribute huge amounts of money to their campaigns. They don't really care about jobs or anything else. It's just more greed.

    The fact that this article was brought up is exactly why I oppose fighting Wilderness designation in the name of mountain biking. As you can see, we end up aligning ourselves with the sort of people who would then turn those areas into stripmines and clearcuts. If you want to fight for mountain bike access in Wilderness, then okay. But as much as I love mountain biking, I love wilderness more and would rather not ride than see any more destruction.
    It is wrong why any President would want to grab land just because the possibility an animal might go extinct or endangered.
    I don't use Strava. Don't need an application to tell me I am slow because I already know.

  39. #39
    U sayin' Bolt ?
    Reputation: knutso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,355
    Wilderness this ... No bikes that ... If there are trails or some singletrack that you want to ride, well than ride ... Did george washington let the limeys tell him he couldnt row across the delaware ? .. No way! He waited until late night on a freezing christmas when no one else had the scrote to paddle and he laid down some law that we, today, can all be thankful for. If it is rainy and cold and no one else has the gall to get up on the trails go ahead and ride, no one is watching and no one cares ... If it is a nice sunny weekend than it is probaly best to lay off and let the hikers have there day in the sun ... Point being: the trails exist and are real, everyone's tax dollars went to pay for them. The rules only exist in the minds of those who choose to harbor them. Take responsibility for yourself and your rights and govern your own nation of self and always do the right thing ! And if any $30,000 horse of brit gets in your way then either take them to court or just avoid there pandering and rule - ladden smite until you can take YOUR FAIR SHARE of time in the wilderness. Equal rights and justice.
    NIB Salsa Timberjack Ti Medium frame for sale $1700, Portland OR

  40. #40
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    27,311
    Quote Originally Posted by thorkild
    Probably not going to win the legal challenge (The feds will likely get some kind of deference on the interpretation and "mechanized" reasonably covers bicycles). Maybe can get the agencies themselves to take another look at the definition, but this would involve a long and very carefully executed PR campaign. Like it or not, money and PR is the way things get done in this country. Its the way things ALWAYS have gotten done, not a recent phenomenon.

    Mountain biking is simply collateral damage in the wilderness debate. Wilderness is the most effective tool at protecting federal lands from resource extraction and development. For that reason, it is the tool used most heavily by groups like the Sierra Club and the tool most hated by the mining/timber industries. I don't doubt that many members of environmental groups like the idea of no mountain bikes in the wilderness (and it appears that some of the posters here agree), but they aren't proposing wilderness to stop bikes. Where it becomes frustrating is that if mountain bikes start pushing for wilderness access, the groups that currently advocate the strongest will not see any reason to let the bikers in and will actively oppose the change. The real issue then is how do mountain bikers go about getting a stake at the negotiating table? This can only be accomplished through money and political clout, essentially convincing the envrionmental groups to choose the lesser of two evils (accepting mountain bikes in wilderness areas in order to ensure that more wilderness will be designated versus having mountain bikers align with development and industry groups to oppose wilderness). The problem is that mountain bikers are a LONG way from having enough power for anyone else to care...

    As stated above, part of the reason to go legal is because we lack the clout otherwise to affect change.

    It is a big problem that some use Wilderness designation to specifically force bikes out of a particular area. Considering the relative impact of bikes compared to other users (as already described), concessions should be given to bicycles for existing trails at the bare minimum.

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,027
    Remember, the wilderness act does not need to be changed. The problem presently lies in the Forest Service definition of "mechanized". That is the legal challenge. That is why a legal challenge would be most appropriate.

    If bicycles must be banned, then many other transportation methods must also be banned. At least we then wouldn't be alone.

    From wilderness bicycling website:

    Only national forests had Wilderness in the initial Act and the U.S. Forest Service was charged with implementing the law. The agency wrote rules that provided more specific interpretation to the Act. Regarding mechanical transport, the rule, published in 1966, specified that “Mechanical transport, as herein used, shall include any contrivance which travels over ground, snow, or water on wheels, tracks, skids, or by floatation and is propelled by a nonliving power source contained or carried on or within the device.” (emphasis added) The word “and” is critical here, for it means a device is not mechanical if its power source is alive. This rule remains in the Code of Federal Regulations at 36CFR Sec. 293.6(a). In the mid-1980s, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and the National Park Service adopted identical language, except they added the clause, “or is a bicycle or a hang glider.”
    I don't know what trail we're on, but at least it's getting dark

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    190
    I actually let my IMBA membership lapse this year. I'll get around to sending it in because I do like some of the things they are doing. I really like the "ride center" idea. I wish they would change their stance on Wilderness, but If it takes another organization to fight the Wilderness battle, I would support it too. At the very least mountain bikes need to be made an exception to new Wilderness areas, just like there are exceptions for snowmobiles, motorboats and jet boats in some Wilderness areas.

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,729
    Quote Originally Posted by Thor29
    The fact that this article was brought up is exactly why I oppose fighting Wilderness designation in the name of mountain biking. As you can see, we end up aligning ourselves with the sort of people who would then turn those areas into stripmines and clearcuts. If you want to fight for mountain bike access in Wilderness, then okay. But as much as I love mountain biking, I love wilderness more and would rather not ride than see any more destruction.
    This is a falsehood. There are numerous designations besides Wilderness Designation that protect the environment. This line of thought is one that is used quite a bit by conservation types who want to promote Wilderness as the bestest ever. It's like the argument that if you masturbate somewhere a kitten will die, it's funny AND not true.



    Quote Originally Posted by thorkild
    Wilderness is the most effective tool at protecting federal lands from resource extraction and development.
    i think the ONLY reason why is that it is permanent. If there are other reasons please enlighten me, but to me the reason why Greens like it so much is they don't have to spend time and resources going back to the table every 15 years when the management plans come up for revision.

    SO...

    i've read a proposal on a conservation site about the prospect of a Wilderness Lite. Why couldn't it be feasible for a Designation to be constructed where there were stringent environmental protections, but lose the let's not fight the fire until it reaches the border, or let's not allow chainsaws and wheelbarrows for trail work, and of course the blanket ban on bikes. You know all the things that make Wilderness REALLY STUPID.


    Quote Originally Posted by thorkild
    The problem is that mountain bikers are a LONG way from having enough power for anyone else to care...
    No that's not true, we have power, we're just not using it effectively at all. First matter of business is to educate, and find a common message within our own community. And that message should be a true honest exclamation that mt. bikers want to preserve access. And no we're not less caring for the environment for wanting that.
    .~...|\
    ...~.|.\
    ..~..|..\
    .~...|...\
    ~....|....\
    ...~.|.....\
    ....~|____\
    _____||_________
    .\....FAILBOAT..../

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,593
    Quote Originally Posted by Thor29
    That Washington Times article is a typical load of right-wing crap.
    The mining and timber industries have always had way more power than environmentalists in the USA.
    It is especially telling that Clinton was used as an example because he did very little to help protect our wild lands during his administration. The Grand Staircase/Escalante deal was one of the few good things that was done.

    Notice also that the person writing the article is a senator. Politicians love raping the last remaining wild lands because the rapists contribute huge amounts of money to their campaigns. They don't really care about jobs or anything else. It's just more greed.

    The fact that this article was brought up is exactly why I oppose fighting Wilderness designation in the name of mountain biking. As you can see, we end up aligning ourselves with the sort of people who would then turn those areas into stripmines and clearcuts. If you want to fight for mountain bike access in Wilderness, then okay. But as much as I love mountain biking, I love wilderness more and would rather not ride than see any more destruction.
    Dude CHILL!

    Clinton signed a lot of midnight executive orders, just like his pardons, that probably still haven't been corrected that included government land grabs.

    Without recreational use of wilderness areas the folks who clearcut will just do so without anyone noticing. Happened to a friend's property in GA and there are lots of areas there where legally or not the trees past the first crest from the highway have been clearcut away.

    Mining and logging can be done correctly but it isn't always likely if nobody is watching.

    Most of the fires we've had in CA wouldn't have been nearly as bad if someone cleaned things out once in a while.

  45. #45
    Delirious Tuck
    Reputation: thefriar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,434
    Quick question, and maybe I'll start another thread, but the almighty dollar has a ton of clout. I've thought about how much exposure the world has to mtb, my wife and I have kept casual track of mtbs included in mainstream ads. Last night I was watching an ad for Texas tourism, it heavily featured mountain biking, I know adds for Pennsylvania, Colorado, and Utah do the same thing.

    What other state tourism agencies feature mountain biking? If they're including it in their marketing, its obviously something that they feel motivates and generates interest in their state.

    I know IMBA has already stated the economic impact case for having trails, but what about going beyond just local govt's and going straight to tourism agencies? Partner with them as a back-channel into the businesses that support those agencies and their communities, they have the reach and built in constituency. Reverse grass roots if you will, small and local business is a very very touchy group for politicians b/c they generate the most jobs, get buy in there and use that to help influence...

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    371
    If the Act is written with general language, and the Forest Service can write the interpretive rules, then what would stop them from just changing the "mechanical transport" rule in the face of litigation to include bicycles?

    I don't know what you are trying to argue. If you are trying to argue that "mechanical transport" should never include bicycles (no matter what interpretive rules are passed) that will be nearly impossible to do. The dictionary describes "mechanical" (in part) as:

    caused by or derived from machinery: mechanical propulsion.
    brought about by friction, abrasion

    Seems like bicycles fit nicely within mechanical to me. Things like skis and rafts (mentioned earlier) do not seem to fit as they do not have propulsion derived from machinery or brought about by friction.

    If you were litigating the fact that rights are being violated, then fine. The Wilderness Act itself seems to be general enough to prohibit bikes. If you arguing about Forest Service interpretations that can be changed in an instant to better clarify that bikes are mechanical transport, then you are wasting your time.

    I don't think there are any fundamental rights to ride bikes in wilderness areas.

    Quote Originally Posted by GregB406
    Remember, the wilderness act does not need to be changed. The problem presently lies in the Forest Service definition of "mechanized". That is the legal challenge. That is why a legal challenge would be most appropriate.

    If bicycles must be banned, then many other transportation methods must also be banned. At least we then wouldn't be alone.

    From wilderness bicycling website:

    Only national forests had Wilderness in the initial Act and the U.S. Forest Service was charged with implementing the law. The agency wrote rules that provided more specific interpretation to the Act. Regarding mechanical transport, the rule, published in 1966, specified that “Mechanical transport, as herein used, shall include any contrivance which travels over ground, snow, or water on wheels, tracks, skids, or by floatation and is propelled by a nonliving power source contained or carried on or within the device.” (emphasis added) The word “and” is critical here, for it means a device is not mechanical if its power source is alive. This rule remains in the Code of Federal Regulations at 36CFR Sec. 293.6(a). In the mid-1980s, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and the National Park Service adopted identical language, except they added the clause, “or is a bicycle or a hang glider.”

  47. #47
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    27,311
    Quote Originally Posted by canuckjgc
    If the Act is written with general language, and the Forest Service can write the interpretive rules, then what would stop them from just changing the "mechanical transport" rule in the face of litigation to include bicycles?

    I don't know what you are trying to argue. If you are trying to argue that "mechanical transport" should never include bicycles (no matter what interpretive rules are passed) that will be nearly impossible to do. The dictionary describes "mechanical" (in part) as:

    caused by or derived from machinery: mechanical propulsion.
    brought about by friction, abrasion

    Seems like bicycles fit nicely within mechanical to me. Things like skis and rafts (mentioned earlier) do not seem to fit as they do not have propulsion derived from machinery or brought about by friction.

    If you were litigating the fact that rights are being violated, then fine. The Wilderness Act itself seems to be general enough to prohibit bikes. If you arguing about Forest Service interpretations that can be changed in an instant to better clarify that bikes are mechanical transport, then you are wasting your time.

    I don't think there are any fundamental rights to ride bikes in wilderness areas.
    The original rules (the wording that sounds as if it permits bicycles and hang gliders and such) were part of the original Act. Think of it this way: the feds have this great idea about creating this thing called Wilderness. They have some general ideas, but don't really know how to put it into practice. They defer to a land management agency to write the specific rules to govern this new designation. Those rules are now part of the Act. Subsequently, in 1980 some people come along and publish a new "official interpretation" of those same rules. The original Act is a law, and changing it would require legislative action. However, the interpretation is not a law. A court case addressing that the interpretation does not agree with the written text of the original Act would set things straight.

    After a court case such as this, the Wilderness people would have to change the law by getting a new law passed. That's a bit more of a challenging task than just getting an interpretation passed. I'm sure they'd try, however, and we'd have a whole new battle on our hands requiring lobbying efforts.

  48. #48
    !Vamos, flaco!
    Reputation: Pabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,363
    There are a lot of dangerous and unknown consequences thta could result from removing use limitations on wilderness lands. I mountain bike but support the ban.
    "Fact is only what you believe; fact and fiction work as a team." Jack Johnson

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    190
    "There are a lot of dangerous and unknown consequences thta could result from removing use limitations on wilderness lands. I mountain bike but support the ban."

    Like what? I hear this argument all the time, but no one can even seem to speculate what these "consequences" are. If anything, I think allowing bikes on a case by case basis would be very good for Wilderness because all of the mountain bikers that oppose Wilderness, and I bet there are a lot, would then be more likely to support it.

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    33
    Alaska has over 1/2 of all the federally protected wilderness (http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?...&sec=fastfacts)

    From 1988 through 1995 a few of us were riding across Designated Wildernss in the Brooks Range and Wrangell-St. Elias. So I wrote a letter to our Senator Ted Stevens about the legality of riding bikes in Designated Wildenrss in Alaska, which is different than the Lower 48.

    People take snow machines in winter and land airplanes for instance.

    Well here's what he said: Basically that bikes were OK except in Denali, Katmai, and Glacier Bay NP WIlderness.

    If you want to see the official response I got, check my blog:
    http://packrafting.blogspot.com/2009...ilderness.html

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,729
    Quote Originally Posted by rayray74
    Like what? I hear this argument all the time, but no one can even seem to speculate what these "consequences" are. If anything, I think allowing bikes on a case by case basis would be very good for Wilderness because all of the mountain bikers that oppose Wilderness, and I bet there are a lot, would then be more likely to support it.
    i think i already covered it, many kittens will die...
    .~...|\
    ...~.|.\
    ..~..|..\
    .~...|...\
    ~....|....\
    ...~.|.....\
    ....~|____\
    _____||_________
    .\....FAILBOAT..../

  52. #52
    to pedal or not to pedal
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by thefriar
    Quick question, and maybe I'll start another thread, but the almighty dollar has a ton of clout. I've thought about how much exposure the world has to mtb, my wife and I have kept casual track of mtbs included in mainstream ads. Last night I was watching an ad for Texas tourism, it heavily featured mountain biking, I know adds for Pennsylvania, Colorado, and Utah do the same thing.

    What other state tourism agencies feature mountain biking? If they're including it in their marketing, its obviously something that they feel motivates and generates interest in their state.

    I know IMBA has already stated the economic impact case for having trails, but what about going beyond just local govt's and going straight to tourism agencies? Partner with them as a back-channel into the businesses that support those agencies and their communities, they have the reach and built in constituency. Reverse grass roots if you will, small and local business is a very very touchy group for politicians b/c they generate the most jobs, get buy in there and use that to help influence...
    I like the way you think. You're absolutely right about tourism (and other groups) for using bikes to improve their marketing efforts. So what's the next step? Let me know if you carry this thought into another thread.

  53. #53
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    190
    Shoot….I guess we better back off. What if one was huckin kitty? I just couldn't live with myself….

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation: hikerdave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,257
    Quote Originally Posted by Ride Wilderness
    Hello Fellow MTB'ers:

    I wanted to gauge a group opinion of a brewing idea.

    ...

    Sound off. Would love to hear from the stakeholders here.

    Ride Wilderness
    No one is chained to their bike.

    Once you step off of your bicycle you have just as many rights as anyone else in a wilderness area.

    Try walking once in a while. You just might like it.
    "Thank you, God, for letting me have another day"
    The Milagro Beanfield War

  55. #55
    M_S
    M_S is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,409
    Quote Originally Posted by GregB406
    Remember, the wilderness act does not need to be changed. The problem presently lies in the Forest Service definition of "mechanized". That is the legal challenge. That is why a legal challenge would be most appropriate.

    If bicycles must be banned, then many other transportation methods must also be banned. At least we then wouldn't be alone.

    From wilderness bicycling website:

    Only national forests had Wilderness in the initial Act and the U.S. Forest Service was charged with implementing the law. The agency wrote rules that provided more specific interpretation to the Act. Regarding mechanical transport, the rule, published in 1966, specified that “Mechanical transport, as herein used, shall include any contrivance which travels over ground, snow, or water on wheels, tracks, skids, or by floatation and is propelled by a nonliving power source contained or carried on or within the device.” (emphasis added) The word “and” is critical here, for it means a device is not mechanical if its power source is alive. This rule remains in the Code of Federal Regulations at 36CFR Sec. 293.6(a). In the mid-1980s, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and the National Park Service adopted identical language, except they added the clause, “or is a bicycle or a hang glider.”
    While it is true that the interpretation of the term mechanized bans bicycles from Wilderness, those advocating legal recourse to force a different interpretation clearly have no real understanding of the legal precedent which would apply.

    While this issue specifically has not been litigated, the general area of administrative discretion has been very well established by the courts. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) are extremely well defined laws by the courts. Courts have established that all an agency needs to do in order to avoid a ruling declaring its decision is arbitrary and capricious (look it up) is to establish that its decision is reasonable. The point being; courts have left a lot of leeway for agencies to determine what is appropriate, as long as they are within the bounds of the relevant guiding statutes (in this case, mostly the Wilderness Act). District courts have left up to agencies decisions regarding public lands which, frankly, are far more important than mountain biking (sorry, it's true).

    IMBA knows this. But apparently the RideWilderness does not. Anyways, here's the short, easy version: A change in interpretation must come from within the agencies, It will not be imposed by courts. You can argue that the agency decision is somewhat inconsistent by saying, perhaps that skis are a form of mechanization. However it is simply not so out of line with the Act as to warrant court action.

    I potentially support limited bicycle access in some Wilderness areas, however it has to be done the right way. And for the most part, I support the use of alternative designations such as Recreation Areas where appropriate. This is more applicable to some lands which do not necessarily meet Wilderness criteria but are worth protecting to a large degree. But that is another debate.

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BumpityBump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,038
    Quote Originally Posted by hikerdave
    No one is chained to their bike.

    Once you step off of your bicycle you have just as many rights as anyone else in a wilderness area.

    Try walking once in a while. You just might like it.
    I whole heartedly agree with this statement. I love to ride my bike, but I also love heading into remote wilderness with a pack on my back, hiking boots on my feet, and a smile on my face. I honestly don't feel like I am missing out by not being able to bike into an area that I can access on foot anyway and I have many trail options for riding if that's what I want to do.

    I do realize some riders have lost access to trails they have ridden legally for some time, and I can feel their pain. I don't necessarily support new designations that are designed, in part, to evict bikers. But as far as opening long established wilderness to bikes, no thanks.

  57. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Blurr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,334
    Quote Originally Posted by Sasquatch
    I stay far away from the Blue Ribbon Coalition. It's foolish to put Mountain biking in a coalition with motorized vehicles. I consider myself a hiker on wheels, not a quiet motorcyclist. We need to build relationships with hikers, not motorcyclists if we are to convince Congress to allow bikes in Wilderness.
    Why are motorcyclists somehow inherently evil? We always had horses, and spent quit a bit of time on them, My father was adamently against Dirtbikes when I was younger, he would always grumble when we came across someone on a dirtbike who during that timeframe, would pull over and shut their bikes off while we road past, and he would go on about how they had no business up there, my reply as a young child was "well dad, they merely are enjoying the outdoors in a different manner than we are, and besides, someday you may be to old to wrangle these horses and need some sort of alternative transportation to enjoy the outdoors as well"
    Now that was before I knew anything about a fourwheeler, and as time went on, he became disabled and his only way of enjoying the outdoors was either from the window of a truck, or on a fourwheeler. Plenty of other people like that as well, and again, plenty of other people who simpy do not want to hike nor mountain bike, nor should they have to.
    I am fortunate to have various interests in different activities, I liked riding horses, I liked hiking, I also had a dirtbike since I was a child as well so I liked that too, and I had a cycle, and I enjoyed that, I had a snowmobile, and I had skii's, Snowshoe's and fourwheelers, all give a completely different perspective to enjoying nature. Mountain bikes are very similar to dirtbikes/atvs, when you are riding you are doing your thing, watching up ahead on the trail to see what is going on, and looking for those brisk moments of adrenaline, when you pause, is when you really get a chance to see nature and check out what is going on, talk about what you saw, what you are seeing, maybe wet a line, burn some gun powder, fry up a grouse over a fire or whatever.

    Do you also support opening Wilderness to motorbikes and ATV use?
    Absolutely, I already covered much of it above, wilderness area's are a horrible Idea for many reasons, one, as previously noted they are almost completly irreversable once made. So logic tells you at some time you may indeed need that area, there may be a mineral deposit that we need for whatever we are building, Blasphomy you say, mines and logging are evil, So I ask you this, where do you think the components for your computer and cycle came from? Do you ahve magazines? do you live in a wood house? how do you whipe your bum?
    Wilderness area's are in short, nothing more than an excuse for the government to again, fail in a job they are tasked to do. Think about it, what is done in this country? Next to nothing, roads are not maintained well, most of our infrastructure in general is in serious trouble. The forest circus can and should have some say over certain land, they can and do restrict travel, very much over what they should already, so why again, give them more land?
    Fires are another problem, I have contracted out for wildland forest fires since 2004, and ya know what, when there is a fire in a wilderness area its let burn, sounds nice, cept that the smoke iteslf is a real problem to many people, the fires get crazy and out of control from all the FUEL just laying around and by the time it gets out, many times you are already in trouble. but answer me this, is that fuel better burned needlessly, or to be used instead? Wouldnt it make more sense to have less waste?

    Think carefuly about it all please.

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    190
    "Seems like bicycles fit nicely within mechanical to me. Things like skis and rafts (mentioned earlier) do not seem to fit as they do not have propulsion derived from machinery or brought about by friction."

    Disagree. Skis, cross country skis use skins to aid in climbing "friction". Rafts, canoes, kayaks all use some form of paddle or "lever" a distinct mechanical advantage. As far as the interpretation of "mechanical transport" I think they had it right in 1966…

    “Mechanical transport, as herein used, shall include any contrivance which travels over ground, snow, or water on wheels, tracks, skids, or by floatation and is propelled by a nonliving power source contained or carried on or within the device.”

  59. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation: fitter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    22
    with the economy how it is it could come down to how much money per ride we are willing to pay

  60. #60
    Delirious Tuck
    Reputation: thefriar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,434
    Quote Originally Posted by reed523
    I like the way you think. You're absolutely right about tourism (and other groups) for using bikes to improve their marketing efforts. So what's the next step? Let me know if you carry this thought into another thread.
    Thread was moved here to put out feelers to everyone about what's out there:
    http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=597480

    I'll put something in Trail Building and Advocacy that is more strategic and forward thinking. I think there's something to it.

  61. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Blurr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,334
    Quote Originally Posted by Ride Wilderness
    I think this is an important point to address. I would agree with this IF there were no more Wilderness proposals on the table. I would be totally fine with the amount of riding I have to access and enjoy Wilderness by foot. Unfortunately, this is not the case. There are more than 2 million acres in Colorado alone right now in the crosshairs with even more being discussed. This is why I feel the issue is so important. We're slowly but surely losing rideable lands forever.

    Yup, montana is being shut down at a break neck pace.

  62. #62
    M_S
    M_S is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,409
    Y'all are still missing a really big practical point. Which is that legal "recourse" will get you nowhere. Really. Precedent is not on your side.

  63. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    371
    Look, your heart may be in the right place but you really don't understand that this issue can not be resolved by litigation, and anyone contributing money would be wasting their time.

    The Wilderness Act prohibits "mechanical transport". The Act itself does not define "mechanical transport." That has been left by the legislators to the Forest Service to do. They can define it almost anyway they want so long as it is not arbitrary (as MS pointed out above). It didn't include bikes in 1966 because they weren't an issue. In 2010 they are high tech machines that can go 20mph+ through the bush.

    There is no way that including bikes as mechanical transport is contrary to the Act. The Act states:

    "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.."

    Notice that it separates "motor vehicles" from "other forms of mechanical transport"? It clearly contemplates non-motorized mechanical transport.

    Asking people if they would donate to a lost cause is not a good use of energy.

    Quote Originally Posted by rayray74
    "Seems like bicycles fit nicely within mechanical to me. Things like skis and rafts (mentioned earlier) do not seem to fit as they do not have propulsion derived from machinery or brought about by friction."

    Disagree. Skis, cross country skis use skins to aid in climbing "friction". Rafts, canoes, kayaks all use some form of paddle or "lever" a distinct mechanical advantage. As far as the interpretation of "mechanical transport" I think they had it right in 1966…

    “Mechanical transport, as herein used, shall include any contrivance which travels over ground, snow, or water on wheels, tracks, skids, or by floatation and is propelled by a nonliving power source contained or carried on or within the device.”

  64. #64
    M_S
    M_S is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,409
    Quote Originally Posted by Blurr
    Yup, montana is being shut down at a break neck pace.
    Exaggeration. Are you referring to Tester's bill? It's got more logging than Wilderness, though I would be just fine with less of each (in the context of the bill). terrible bill, I'll grant you that.

  65. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Blurr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,334
    Quote Originally Posted by M_S
    Exaggeration. Are you referring to Tester's bill? It's got more logging than Wilderness, though I would be just fine with less of each (in the context of the bill). terrible bill, I'll grant you that.
    I wish that was the only problem, not sure about you, but I grew up here, there is not much left at all in the way of access and still more being closed off, by Anaconda they R working on closing off (and apparently succeeded) more roads and trails. I will see what I can find for ya later on.
    But that is what happens when you live in a National Socialist society where government controls everything.

  66. #66
    M_S
    M_S is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,409
    Quote Originally Posted by Blurr
    But that is what happens when you live in a National Socialist society where government controls everything.
    Oh. Riiiiiiight. Time for me to exit.

  67. #67
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Evil Patrick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    2,747
    Quote Originally Posted by rayray74

    “Mechanical transport, as herein used, shall include any contrivance which travels over ground, snow, or water on wheels, tracks, skids, or by floatation and is propelled by a nonliving power source contained or carried on or within the device.”
    Wow.

    That's an eye-opener.

    Hmmm...
    -- Evil Patrick

    Some of my Music

    My Videos

    The trail...shall set you free.

  68. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Blurr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,334
    Quote Originally Posted by M_S
    Oh. Riiiiiiight. Time for me to exit.
    The government controls roughly 80 percent of the banking and roughly the same of automotive industry.

    In other words, the United States Government now operates under the same basic premise as the Chinese government, or you can keep your head in the sand and ignore it. But hey, you get to peddle woo hoo.

  69. #69
    Delirious Tuck
    Reputation: thefriar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,434
    80% of the banking industry? where'd you get that factoid?

  70. #70
    I should be out riding
    Reputation: ACree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,833
    Quote Originally Posted by cruso414
    I would definitely support it financially and any other way I could.
    + 1

  71. #71
    I should be out riding
    Reputation: ACree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,833
    Quote Originally Posted by NateHawk
    I think your premise is a bit off.


    That may be true on a local basis in some specific areas, but none of the places that I have lived.
    You may not have lived near some of these places, but it's a huge issue that threatens hundreds, probably thousands of miles of trail currently open to bikes. It wouldn't take make effort to quantify the amount, and I have no doubt there's no other single issue that threatens as many miles of trail.

    Quote Originally Posted by NateHawk
    And being in an academic environment, I will say this to you. Do NOT invent statistics to support your claim. If you're going to make a statement, you NEED references to back it up. Posting a poll on this site doesn't count. I don't know how you'd poll a respective cross-section of mountain bikers on this issue, either. Mayhaps it can't be done with the rigor you would need. The Wilderness advocates will take you apart if you make $hit up.
    No doubt, only the Wilderness advocates are allowed to make $hit up.

  72. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Blurr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,334
    Quote Originally Posted by thefriar
    80% of the banking industry? where'd you get that factoid?

    Quick one, you should do some googling yourself

    http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/a...issued-in-2009

    Ever heard of the term "government sachs"?

    http://wallstreetpit.com/17283-the-debt-monger

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...011501715.html

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/26/bu...y/26banks.html


    If Americans paid half the attention to what is going on in this county instead of wothless sports we may not be having this discussion.

  73. #73
    I should be out riding
    Reputation: ACree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,833
    Quote Originally Posted by sxotty
    Like I said not all trails should see all use. Allowing biking in wilderness doesn't imply there are not hiking only areas still. Maybe they should just come up with a new designation. Everytime I am walking on a road dug by a bulldozer in a wilderness area I shake my head at the stupidity of it.
    Exactly. IMO use should be determined on a trail by trail basis, based on impact. Nothing makes less sense then an arbitrary line on a map, where bikes aren't allowed, yet horses are.

  74. #74
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    190
    "Notice that it separates "motor vehicles" from "other forms of mechanical transport"? It clearly contemplates non-motorized mechanical transport"

    Yes, and there are exceptions in a number of Wilderness areas that allow motorized use in one form or another. I understand it's not an easy fight, and maybe litigation isn't the answer, but I do believe bikes belong in Wilderness, and even if my contributions never make a change, I don't consider it a waste because it's something I believe in. I believe the ban goes against the intent of the act itself. I like these quotes by Frank Church.

    "As the floor manager of the 1964 Wilderness Act, I recall quite clearly what we were tying to accomplish by setting up the National Wilderness Preservation System. It was never the intent of Congress that wilderness be managed in so "pure" a fashion as to needlessly restrict customary public use and enjoyment. Quite the contrary, Congress fully intended that wilderness should be managed to allow its use by a wide spectrum of Americans."

    "I believe, and many citizens agree with me, that the agencies are applying provisions of the Wilderness Act too strictly and thus misconstruing the intent of Congress as to how these areas should be managed."

    And the Theodore Stroll law review found on IMBA's site

  75. #75
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,027

    Good job!

    Quote Originally Posted by rayray74
    "Notice that it separates "motor vehicles" from "other forms of mechanical transport"? It clearly contemplates non-motorized mechanical transport"

    Yes, and there are exceptions in a number of Wilderness areas that allow motorized use in one form or another. I understand it's not an easy fight, and maybe litigation isn't the answer, but I do believe bikes belong in Wilderness, and even if my contributions never make a change, I don't consider it a waste because it's something I believe in. I believe the ban goes against the intent of the act itself. I like these quotes by Frank Church.

    "As the floor manager of the 1964 Wilderness Act, I recall quite clearly what we were tying to accomplish by setting up the National Wilderness Preservation System. It was never the intent of Congress that wilderness be managed in so "pure" a fashion as to needlessly restrict customary public use and enjoyment. Quite the contrary, Congress fully intended that wilderness should be managed to allow its use by a wide spectrum of Americans."

    "I believe, and many citizens agree with me, that the agencies are applying provisions of the Wilderness Act too strictly and thus misconstruing the intent of Congress as to how these areas should be managed."

    And the Theodore Stroll law review found on IMBA's site
    I have never heard of that quote by Frank Church before. That is an excellent viewpoint, IMHO. I like this thread.
    I don't know what trail we're on, but at least it's getting dark

  76. #76
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    371
    Ok but you've just made a quantum leap in changing your argument. Believing bikes belong in the wilderness is just fine, but that's a long way from your initial assertion that they are entitled to be there under a mis-interpreted law and polling people whether they would contribute to a legal fund!

    By all means, make all efforts to get bike access to wildnerness areas, but that's 180 from suing.

    Quote Originally Posted by rayray74
    "Notice that it separates "motor vehicles" from "other forms of mechanical transport"? It clearly contemplates non-motorized mechanical transport"

    Yes, and there are exceptions in a number of Wilderness areas that allow motorized use in one form or another. I understand it's not an easy fight, and maybe litigation isn't the answer, but I do believe bikes belong in Wilderness, and even if my contributions never make a change, I don't consider it a waste because it's something I believe in. I believe the ban goes against the intent of the act itself. I like these quotes by Frank Church.

    "As the floor manager of the 1964 Wilderness Act, I recall quite clearly what we were tying to accomplish by setting up the National Wilderness Preservation System. It was never the intent of Congress that wilderness be managed in so "pure" a fashion as to needlessly restrict customary public use and enjoyment. Quite the contrary, Congress fully intended that wilderness should be managed to allow its use by a wide spectrum of Americans."

    "I believe, and many citizens agree with me, that the agencies are applying provisions of the Wilderness Act too strictly and thus misconstruing the intent of Congress as to how these areas should be managed."

    And the Theodore Stroll law review found on IMBA's site

  77. #77
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    190
    I never mentioned suing, I just said I would support an organization that fought for bikes in Wilderness. I think you have me mixed up with the OP. I believe both though, that bikes belong, and the law/act is mis-interpreted.

  78. #78
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by hikerdave
    No one is chained to their bike.

    Once you step off of your bicycle you have just as many rights as anyone else in a wilderness area.

    Try walking once in a while. You just might like it.
    Strangely, we're not in total disagreement. I love backpacking and hiking myself...often times in the Wilderness. What concerns me is that the Wilderness march is continuing. If we stopped with the Wilderness we have in the system now, I don't think this is as much an issue. Unfortunately that's not the case. Millions of acres are either being added or being seriously discussed for designation. Assuming Congress has no plans of a moratorium, I see Wilderness as a long term threat to a perfectly legitimate activity on federal public lands.

  79. #79
    Because I am !
    Reputation: outdoornut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,307
    It sounds like some here have the idea that all we want to do is get access to wilderness. I don't think that is the case. We just lost thousands of acres and miles upon miles of awesome trails that we have ridden, legally, for years untill some group decided it needed to be wilderness. It was already listed as a national scenic area which kept it from being damage more than it was during WWII when the used it from a training ground.

    I think the point we all need to look at, instead of thinking we need access to all wilderness is to keep them from taking away further land that we have legally had access to for years.

    It doesn't do much good to have a number of smaller organizations trying to accomplish the same thing. Strength is in numbers. If every mountain biker was a member of IMBA can you imagine the kind of numbers they could then take to Washington.

    The number game is what killed us here in WV on the last wilderness bill. We, West Virginians, and IMBA did not have near the backing as the other groups pushing for this bill.

    Join IMBA and let the numbers help them. One huge group can make a big statement.
    Caffeine ! "Do stupid things faster and with more energy" ! !

  80. #80
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,027
    Right now, every mountain biker on earth should belong to IMBA. The excuses for people to not join pale in comparison to the reasons for joining.
    I don't know what trail we're on, but at least it's getting dark

  81. #81
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Blurr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,334
    Quote Originally Posted by outdoornut
    It sounds like some here have the idea that all we want to do is get access to wilderness. I don't think that is the case. We just lost thousands of acres and miles upon miles of awesome trails that we have ridden, legally, for years untill some group decided it needed to be wilderness. It was already listed as a national scenic area which kept it from being damage more than it was during WWII when the used it from a training ground.

    I think the point we all need to look at, instead of thinking we need access to all wilderness is to keep them from taking away further land that we have legally had access to for years.

    It doesn't do much good to have a number of smaller organizations trying to accomplish the same thing. Strength is in numbers. If every mountain biker was a member of IMBA can you imagine the kind of numbers they could then take to Washington.

    The number game is what killed us here in WV on the last wilderness bill. We, West Virginians, and IMBA did not have near the backing as the other groups pushing for this bill.

    Join IMBA and let the numbers help them. One huge group can make a big statement.
    Good post

  82. #82
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    190
    It would be nice if mountain bikes could fall under the same exception (established use provision) as motorboats and aircraft.

  83. #83
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 11 Bravo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    963
    Quote Originally Posted by fitter
    with the economy how it is it could come down to how much money per ride we are willing to pay
    I don't think so. The federal, state and local governments could take in hundreds of millions of dollars off selected mineral and timber leases in some of these areas if the federal government wanted to allow it. In many cases the state and local governments desperately need to generate some income from these lands and the folks in Washington won't even hear the case. That is why I don't think the tourism angle will make any difference in this debate.

    Look at the plight of the farmers in the central valley of your state of California. People are being bankrupted, towns have lost nearly all their tax revenue, the state is loosing untold tax dollars, and so on. But the federal government doesn't care. Turning the irrigation water back on MAY have an adverse effect on a fish that is not even endangered. Talk about another out of control application of a law, look at how the Endangered Species Act is being used.

    I could go into gory details about how much money the oil, gas and mining business puts into the federal and local coffers, and how much we spend on regulatory compliance and reclamation, but I will spare you all. The ones that think the mineral extraction industry is evil won't believe it anyway.

    I think the best way to resolve the Wilderness issues, and most other issues, is for people to actually get informed about issues and candidates and start voting for better representatives and senators.
    I'm not very smart, but I can lift heavy things

  84. #84
    Sheepherder/Cat Herder Moderator
    Reputation: Visicypher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,715

    Ouch

    Quote Originally Posted by M_S
    While it is true that the interpretation of the term mechanized bans bicycles from Wilderness, those advocating legal recourse to force a different interpretation clearly have no real understanding of the legal precedent which would apply.

    While this issue specifically has not been litigated, the general area of administrative discretion has been very well established by the courts. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) are extremely well defined laws by the courts. Courts have established that all an agency needs to do in order to avoid a ruling declaring its decision is arbitrary and capricious (look it up) is to establish that its decision is reasonable. The point being; courts have left a lot of leeway for agencies to determine what is appropriate, as long as they are within the bounds of the relevant guiding statutes (in this case, mostly the Wilderness Act). District courts have left up to agencies decisions regarding public lands which, frankly, are far more important than mountain biking (sorry, it's true).

    IMBA knows this. But apparently the RideWilderness does not. Anyways, here's the short, easy version: A change in interpretation must come from within the agencies, It will not be imposed by courts. You can argue that the agency decision is somewhat inconsistent by saying, perhaps that skis are a form of mechanization. However it is simply not so out of line with the Act as to warrant court action.

    I potentially support limited bicycle access in some Wilderness areas, however it has to be done the right way. And for the most part, I support the use of alternative designations such as Recreation Areas where appropriate. This is more applicable to some lands which do not necessarily meet Wilderness criteria but are worth protecting to a large degree. But that is another debate.
    Ouch. Next time I am in Missoula, I'd love to sit down with you. You seem to know your kung-fu.

    And yes, changing the ban is akin to parting the Red Sea. It would talke a change to the Code of Federal Regulations, the FSH, the FSM, and numerous others.
    ...building wherever they'll let me...

  85. #85
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    545
    Quote Originally Posted by dstepper
    Washington Times
    March 2, 2010


    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...use-land-grab/

    By Sen. Jim DeMint

    You'd think the Obama administration is busy enough controlling the banks, insurance companies and automakers, but thanks to whistleblowers at the Department of the Interior, we now learn they're planning to increase their control over energy-rich land in the West.

    A secret administration memo has surfaced revealing plans for the federal government to seize more than 10 million acres from Montana to New Mexico, halting job- creating activities like ranching, forestry, mining and energy development. Worse, this land grab would dry up tax revenue that's essential for funding schools, firehouses and community centers.

    President Obama could enact the plans in this memo with just the stroke of a pen, without any input from the communities affected by it.

    At a time when our national unemployment rate is 9.7 percent, it is unbelievable anyone would be looking to stop job-creating energy enterprises, yet that's exactly what's happening.

    The document lists 14 properties that, according to the document, "might be good candidates" for Mr. Obama to nab through presidential proclamation. Apparently, Washington bureaucrats believe it's more important to preserve grass and rocks for birdwatchers and backpackers than to keep these local economies thriving.

    Administration officials claim the document is merely the product of a brainstorming session, but anyone who reads this memo can see that it is a wish list for the environmentalist left. It discusses, in detail, what kinds of animal populations would benefit from limiting human activity in those areas.

    The 21-page document, marked "Internal Draft-NOT FOR RELEASE," names 14 different lands Mr. Obama could completely close for development by unilaterally designating them as "monuments" under the 1906 Antiquities Act.

    It says all kinds of animals would be better off by doing so, like the coyotes, badgers, grouse, chickens and lizards. But giving the chickens more room to roost is no reason for the government to override states' rights.

    Rep. Robert Bishop, Utah Republican, made the memo public because he didn't want another unilateral land grab by the White House, like what happened under former Presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter.

    Using the Antiquities Act, President Carter locked up more land than any other president had before him, taking more than 50 million acres in Alaska despite strong opposition from the state.

    President Clinton used the authority 22 times to prohibit hunting, recreational vehicles, mining, forestry and even grazing in 5.9 million acres scattered around the country. The law allowed him to single-handedly create 19 new national monuments and expand three others without consulting anyone.

    One of the monuments President Clinton created was the Grande Staircase-Escalante in Utah, where 135,000 acres of land were leased for oil and gas and about 65,000 barrels of oil were produced each year from five active wells. But, President Clinton put an end to developing those resources.

    President Obama could do the same in other energy-rich places unless Congress takes action. At least 13.5 million acres are already on his Department of Interior's real estate shopping list.

    This includes a 58,000-acre area in New Mexico. The memo said this should be done so the lesser prairie chicken and the sand dune lizard will be better protected. Are these animals going extinct? No. The bureaucrats wrote that the land should be locked up to "avoid the necessity of listing either of these species as threatened or endangered."

    In Nevada, the Obama administration might make another monument in the Heart of the Great Basin because it, supposedly, is a "center of climate change scientific research."

    In Colorado, the government is considering designating the Vermillion Basin as a monument because it is "currently under the threat of oil and gas development."

    Americans should be wary of any plans a president has to seize land from the states without their consent. Any new plans to take away states' freedom to use land as they see fit must be stopped.

    That's why I sponsored an amendment to block Mr. Obama from declaring any of the 14 lands listed in the memo as "monuments." Unfortunately, the Senate, led by Democrats, rejected it on Thursday evening by a vote of 58-38.

    It was particularly disappointing that the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, of Nevada, voted against the amendment. The government owns more than 80 percent of the land in Nevada and the unemployment rate there is 12.8 percent. Surely it would help job prospects if more land were open for business.

    This is a nationwide problem. The government currently owns 650 million acres, or 29 percent of the nation's total land.

    Federal bureaucrats shouldn't be wasting time thinking up ways to acquire more, especially in the middle of a recession. Taking the nation's resources offline will stifle job creation and dry up tax revenues.

    If anything, the government should be selling land off, not locking more up. By voting against my amendment, the Democrats tacitly endorsed Mr. Obama's secret plan to close off millions more acres to commerce.

    If enacted, the plan would mean fewer jobs for Americans.

    The Democratic Congress refused to stop it, but one sure way Americans could help block it is if they decide some Democrats should lose their jobs on November.

    Sen. Jim DeMint, South Carolina Republican, is chairman of the U.S. Senate Steering Committee, a caucus of conservative senators.
    IMO there's no better way to derail support for our efforts than to inject political crap like this, tying our efforts to a political agenda. Polorizing the situation and alienating half of our riders will not help.

  86. #86
    mtbr member
    Reputation: otis24's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,360
    I just joined imba...it's about time.
    I like to ride bikes.

  87. #87
    Over the Hill
    Reputation: dstepper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,768
    Quote Originally Posted by Shelbak73
    IMO there's no better way to derail support for our efforts than to inject political crap like this, tying our efforts to a political agenda. Polorizing the situation and alienating half of our riders will not help.

    You see I am not political at all, so the political message was lost on me. To me most all of the politicians are corrupt and liars, so I take info from wherever I can get it regardless of the source. It seems that some are so political that they turn off before they pay attention to the underlying problem...sad in my opinion.

    Dean

  88. #88
    M_S
    M_S is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,409
    Quote Originally Posted by Visicypher
    Ouch. Next time I am in Missoula, I'd love to sit down with you. You seem to know your kung-fu.

    And yes, changing the ban is akin to parting the Red Sea. It would talke a change to the Code of Federal Regulations, the FSH, the FSM, and numerous others.
    Thanks. Though I'm no lawyer, I just pick stuff up from people a lot smarter and more knowledgeable than me.

    I'd just like to reiterate that in many cases I do support alternative designations and a reinterpretation of the statute in question, such as to allow cycling. But the premise of this thread, that legal action would accomplish anything of merit, is fundamentally flawed IMO.

  89. #89
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    4,126
    Quote Originally Posted by dstepper
    You see I am not political at all, so the political message was lost on me. To me most all of the politicians are corrupt and liars, so I take info from wherever I can get it regardless of the source. It seems that some are so political that they turn off before they pay attention to the underlying problem...sad in my opinion.

    Dean
    Let me suggest something that I hope you don't take as condescending or political. Given your premise that many politicians are liars and corrupt, I'd be especially wary of taking at face value any info that comes from one party and exclusively bashes the other., which that piece does

    As someone who does follow politics, but am something of a centrist, one thing struck me as suspicious, besides the partisan bashing. Even given the current levels of rancor in American politics, it's unusual for a senator from South Carolina to be the only author listed on possible actions in the Rocky Mountain states. Senatorial courtesy may not be what it once was, but it's considered good form to have someone from the affected states involved. .

  90. #90
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    545
    Quote Originally Posted by dstepper
    You see I am not political at all, so the political message was lost on me. To me most all of the politicians are corrupt and liars, so I take info from wherever I can get it regardless of the source. It seems that some are so political that they turn off before they pay attention to the underlying problem...sad in my opinion.

    Dean
    Yeah...rrrright

  91. #91
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,768
    Are wheel chairs allowed in wilderness areas?My bike is my wheel chair.I have bad knees and that's how I get around.That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

  92. #92
    Over the Hill
    Reputation: dstepper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,768
    Quote Originally Posted by frikka
    Are wheel chairs allowed in wilderness areas?My bike is my wheel chair.I have bad knees and that's how I get around.That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
    Possession of any wheel in the wilderness is illegal. There are some exemptions like on The Arizona Trail they allow you to pack your bike in and out of the grand canyon or put in on a mule.

    Dean

  93. #93
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    190
    Actually wheelchairs are allowed.

  94. #94
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,768
    Well I guess I'm in! All I need is a doctors note.

  95. #95
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,729
    Quote Originally Posted by frikka
    Well I guess I'm in! All I need is a doctors note.
    hmmm my knees are starting to hurt me too!
    .~...|\
    ...~.|.\
    ..~..|..\
    .~...|...\
    ~....|....\
    ...~.|.....\
    ....~|____\
    _____||_________
    .\....FAILBOAT..../

  96. #96
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,602
    I found it so disheartening when Outside magazine concluded that it was virtually impossible to have such a ban reversed. It provides such a feeling of hopelessness. What a sad situation the whole thing is!
    Ever been to Mountain Bike Tales Digital Magazine? Now if only the print rags would catch on!

  97. #97
    M_S
    M_S is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,409
    While the case that it is a poor interpretation is strong, I also think there are much bigger issues.

    Not to imply that they are mutually exclusive values, but what's more important, long-term environmental protection, or mountain biking in Wilderness? Think hard. If you answered the latter, I don't think you have much valuable input in regards to Wilderness. Fully recognizing this fans the flames, it's JMO, I'm a doofus, etc.

  98. #98
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,729
    Quote Originally Posted by M_S
    Not to imply that they are mutually exclusive values, but what's more important, long-term environmental protection, or mountain biking in Wilderness? I'm a doofus, etc.
    haha, you ARE a doofus, not because of your opinion in so much as you preface your opinion stating you are not making an implication that you then wind up making IN THE SAME SENTENCE haha.

    Seriously people. There is alot of great points to be learned from here, but the one thing that jumps out to me is the guilt or angst mt. bikers feel if they fight against Wilderness to defend access. Wilderness Designation is NOT the end all do all perfect designation some people make it out to be, and the "slippery slope" arguments are all laughable using critical logical thinking when examining the process. But really who has time to do that...

    What is very real is the slow death of Backcountry Cross Country riding as all the best spots are being pushed for the designation. And it will not stop, there is no end to it unless people become more active and better informed. Don't just nod your head and say oh geeze there is a group of folk in these groups that say it's the best thing for the good of the environment. i can save the world if i just take the mt. bikes, wheelbarrows, and chainsaws off the trail permanantly, for a vast majority of the revisions, THAT'S ALL that is happening...
    Last edited by Skookum; 03-07-2010 at 11:25 PM.
    .~...|\
    ...~.|.\
    ..~..|..\
    .~...|...\
    ~....|....\
    ...~.|.....\
    ....~|____\
    _____||_________
    .\....FAILBOAT..../

  99. #99
    M_S
    M_S is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,409
    Quote Originally Posted by Skookum
    haha, you ARE a doofus, not because of your opinion in so much as you preface your opinion stating you are not making an implication that you then wind up making IN THE SAME SENTENCE haha.
    No I didn't. The fact that values can and should be prioritized does not make them mutually exclusive. My point, which I was trying to make lightheartedly, is that if you love riding in the woods, especially the backcountry, you should probably love the backcountry more than the riding itself. Make sense? This is, again, not to say bikes and backcountry do not belong together. Nowhere have I even implied that.
    Seriously people. There is alot of great points to be learned from here, but the one thing that jumps out to me is the guilt or angst mt. bikers feel if they fight against Wilderness to defend access. Wilderness Designation is NOT the end all do all perfect designation some people make it out to be, and the "slippery slope" arguments are all laughable using critical logical thinking when examining the process. But really who has time to do that...
    I've already mentioned I support alternative designations in many areas. A good chunk of my riding is in a National Recreation Area.
    What is very real is the slow death of Backcountry Cross Country riding as all the best spots are being pushed for the designation. And it will not stop, there is no end to it unless people become more active and better informed. Don't just nod your head and say oh geeze there is a group of folk in these groups that say it's the best thing for the good of the environment. i can save the world if i just take the mt. bikes, wheelbarrows, and chainsaws off the trail permanantly, for a vast majority of the revisions, THAT'S ALL that is happening...
    No, there is a logical end to Wilderness expansion, and IMO we will see it very soon, and we will see more alternative designations of the type mentioned as public lands become increasingly valued for recreation and non consumptive use over mining, logging, etc.

  100. #100
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by Skookum
    Seriously people. There is alot of great points to be learned from here, but the one thing that jumps out to me is the guilt or angst mt. bikers feel if they fight against Wilderness to defend access. Wilderness Designation is NOT the end all do all perfect designation some people make it out to be, and the "slippery slope" arguments are all laughable using critical logical thinking when examining the process. But really who has time to do that...

    What is very real is the slow death of Backcountry Cross Country riding as all the best spots are being pushed for the designation. And it will not stop, there is no end to it unless people become more active and better informed. Don't just nod your head and say oh geeze there is a group of folk in these groups that say it's the best thing for the good of the environment. i can save the world if i just take the mt. bikes, wheelbarrows, and chainsaws off the trail permanantly, for a vast majority of the revisions, THAT'S ALL that is happening...
    Very well said, Skookum. Disagreeing with specific points within the Wilderness Act is NOT the same as being against conservation. Somewhere along the line we've been duped into thinking the Wilderness Act is a sacred cow, not to be questioned. I simply don't accept the WA as the end all/be all, nor do I believe change is "impossible".

  101. #101
    M_S
    M_S is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,409
    Great. But that doesn't square with your hyperbole that Wilderness is the "#1 threat to mountain biking in America." Nor have you presented any reasoning or strategy for your legal group. What are your legal grounds for fighting the mountain bike ban?

  102. #102
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by M_S
    Great. But that doesn't square with your hyperbole that Wilderness is the "#1 threat to mountain biking in America." Nor have you presented any reasoning or strategy for your legal group. What are your legal grounds for fighting the mountain bike ban?
    Easy there, angry sauce...lay off the gas pedal. I've been perfectly clear that I wanted to gauge people's opinion of this sort of organization. I'm not trying to justify it, nor lay out the battle plan - simply get opinions on what people think. Thus far, this thread has been very helpful to that goal.

  103. #103
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    175
    In the long run, I don't believe that Wilderness Area designation is as irreversible as the conventional wisdom now concludes. All it will take is an economic depression, worse than what we are now experiencing, to cause a law change that would allow public land to be sold or leased for oil, gas, mineral, and tourism in current Wilderness Areas. The long term consequences associated with our dependence on foreign oil will eventually force significant and unpredictable change.

    The next bubble that the U.S. will experience will be the debt bubble, and unlike all previous bubbles, there will be no one to bail us out. I believe we are getting close to an irreversible tipping point with regard to our ability to live high off of deficit spending. The exact timing and the speed of the correction is hard to predict, but one thing for sure is that the U.S. Government's attempts to "print" its way out of the debt bubble will only cause ever higher interest rates, inflation, and unemployment.

    In preparation, rather than hoarding gold, tools, and weapons, I am hoarding bikes, lots and lots of bikes and bike parts. Hopefully I can trade them for some food when the time comes.

  104. #104
    M_S
    M_S is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,409
    Quote Originally Posted by Ride Wilderness
    Easy there, angry sauce...lay off the gas pedal. I've been perfectly clear that I wanted to gauge people's opinion of this sort of organization. I'm not trying to justify it, nor lay out the battle plan - simply get opinions on what people think. Thus far, this thread has been very helpful to that goal.
    I'm not angry. I don't know what angry sauce is, but I don't think I'm that either. By "gauging interest" I think it's pretty reasonable to assume you were promoting the idea of a legal organization.

  105. #105
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    175
    One constructive idea I have not heard proposed yet: Could fully rigid (no suspension) be a useful compromise in Wilderness Areas? Seems to me it would be a natural speed control devise. The one thing most folks can't get past in the "court of public opinion" is the downhill speed of mountain bikes. Meeting one going 40mph around a blind corner is hardly a wilderness experience. And speeds are only getting faster.

  106. #106
    local trails rider
    Reputation: perttime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    12,228
    You are probably aware of how access is handled in many parts of Europe:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam

    It seems to work great, at least in less densely populates areas.

  107. #107
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by pureslop
    One constructive idea I have not heard proposed yet: Could fully rigid (no suspension) be a useful compromise in Wilderness Areas? Seems to me it would be a natural speed control devise. The one thing most folks can't get past in the "court of public opinion" is the downhill speed of mountain bikes. Meeting one going 40mph around a blind corner is hardly a wilderness experience. And speeds are only getting faster.
    Something occurred to me recently on this "speed" point. Where we see a lot (not ALL people!!) of speed issues are on shutteable trails. I think this is less of an issue in non-motorized Wilderness that are often times, also roadless.

  108. #108
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    175
    Side note: Why does a moose that weighs about the same as a horse do virtually no damage to a trail and why do horses erode a trail so much? Answer: Shoes. Iron horse shoes act like the tip of a shovel and pry out and loosen up dirt with each step, which is way more damaging than an incompetent skidding MTB'er. Making a case for banning shoes might help the mtb cause in a round about way. Horses will never be banned, but banning horse shoes based on erosion is realistic because the damage is provable and iron shoes are not natural. The debate should be largely about the impact / damage that the different groups of users cause. MTB's win in this area.

  109. #109
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    175
    Quote Originally Posted by Ride Wilderness
    Something occurred to me recently on this "speed" point. Where we see a lot (not ALL people!!) of speed issues are on shutteable trails. I think this is less of an issue in non-motorized Wilderness that are often times, also roadless.
    I agree that shuttleable trails are the worst for speeders, but unshuttleable Wilderness trails won't solve the problem. Where I ride, most of those who ride up also rip down fast. Even low skill riders who only get 1 foot or so of air seem extremely fast to a hiker. Fully rigid riders are the only ones who pick their way down. Seriously, MTB'ers need a bargaining chip. Rigid in the Wilderness is the way! That's certainly the way I am when my wife goes with me.

  110. #110
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    190
    "No, there is a logical end to Wilderness expansion, and IMO we will see it very soon, and we will see more alternative designations of the type mentioned as public lands become increasingly valued for recreation and non consumptive use over mining, logging, etc."

    Not sure how the Wilderness advocates are where anyone else is, but here they are sneaky, lying and 2-faced. They acted concerned about what trails we used, but literally the same day they were having discussions with the forest service to close the very trails we were interested in keeping open. I've heard from more than one, that after they push the Wilderness limits as far as possible, they would like to work on kicking horses out. Not a very "logical" crowd around here.

  111. #111
    M_S
    M_S is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,409
    Wilderness "advocates" are only one facet, though. Of course they will keep punishing for more, but they will be less and less successful, even with a conservation minded public. It's an idea I've gotten from some very smart people when it comes to public lands policy.

    Look, I'm not even really a fan of the Sierra Club, but not all wilderness advocates are against cyclists. This guy, for example:

    http://www.newwest.net/topic/article...iking/C41/L41/

    Hikers, Wilderness Groups Should Re-think Mountain Biking
    Why one wildernut hiker who doesn't want to ride bicycles on single-track trails has become an advocate for mountain biking in Wilderness.

    By Bill Schneider, 4-23-09

    Some wilderness advocates don’t consider the conflict between hikers and mountain bikers serious, nor do they believe it prevents worthy roadless lands from becoming Wilderness, but I do.

    If you want to know why, read my past commentaries on the issue. I’m devoting this column (and next week’s) to how and why hikers and wildernuts need to take the lead in resolving the conflict.

    If you haven’t been in the trenches of efforts to preserve Wilderness, you might not see the impasse. Bicycling groups, led by the International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA), commonly say they aren’t opposed to Wilderness, but they are, in fact, opposed to any proposed Wilderness that includes single-track trails commonly used for mountain biking, which is most of them.

    ...

    So what to do? In my opinion, our best option is for wilderness and hiking groups to initiate an effort to encourage the Forest Service (FS) and other federal agencies to re-write the administrative rules regulating the use of Wilderness to allow mountain biking.


    So fortunately there are at least some people on the side of cyclists, who are also pro-wilderness.

  112. #112
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by M_S
    Wilderness "advocates" are only one facet, though. Of course they will keep punishing for more, but they will be less and less successful, even with a conservation minded public. It's an idea I've gotten from some very smart people when it comes to public lands policy.

    Look, I'm not even really a fan of the Sierra Club, but not all wilderness advocates are against cyclists. This guy, for example:

    http://www.newwest.net/topic/article...iking/C41/L41/

    Hikers, Wilderness Groups Should Re-think Mountain Biking
    Why one wildernut hiker who doesn't want to ride bicycles on single-track trails has become an advocate for mountain biking in Wilderness.

    By Bill Schneider, 4-23-09

    Some wilderness advocates don’t consider the conflict between hikers and mountain bikers serious, nor do they believe it prevents worthy roadless lands from becoming Wilderness, but I do.

    If you want to know why, read my past commentaries on the issue. I’m devoting this column (and next week’s) to how and why hikers and wildernuts need to take the lead in resolving the conflict.

    If you haven’t been in the trenches of efforts to preserve Wilderness, you might not see the impasse. Bicycling groups, led by the International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA), commonly say they aren’t opposed to Wilderness, but they are, in fact, opposed to any proposed Wilderness that includes single-track trails commonly used for mountain biking, which is most of them.

    ...

    So what to do? In my opinion, our best option is for wilderness and hiking groups to initiate an effort to encourage the Forest Service (FS) and other federal agencies to re-write the administrative rules regulating the use of Wilderness to allow mountain biking.


    So fortunately there are at least some people on the side of cyclists, who are also pro-wilderness.
    Great addition, M_S. I actually have a little hope when I read this.

  113. #113
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    190
    Of course not all, and that was a good article, read that a while back. As I recall some of the comments were "less than friendly". I usually like the stuff Bill writes. One thing though, instead of calling it "Wilderness lite", we should call it True WIlderness, or Original Wilderness. Something better than the 1980's interpretation of the Act.

  114. #114
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    22

    some fodder for the debate

    Consider the definition in the act itself:

    DEFINITION OF WILDERNESS

    (c) A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.


    Considering the numerous studies showing no incremental impact on soils, vegetation and wildlife by mountain biking over that of hiking (AND certainly horses) and the Forest Service memo (last year or year before?) stating they see mountain biking as the same as hiking impact-wise, does any part of this definition make you think mountain bikes should remain banned....or ever have been banned in the first place?

  115. #115
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,729
    Quote Originally Posted by M_S
    No I didn't. The fact that values can and should be prioritized does not make them mutually exclusive. My point, which I was trying to make lightheartedly, is that if you love riding in the woods, especially the backcountry, you should probably love the backcountry more than the riding itself. Make sense? This is, again, not to say bikes and backcountry do not belong together. Nowhere have I even implied that.

    I've already mentioned I support alternative designations in many areas. A good chunk of my riding is in a National Recreation Area.

    No, there is a logical end to Wilderness expansion, and IMO we will see it very soon, and we will see more alternative designations of the type mentioned as public lands become increasingly valued for recreation and non consumptive use over mining, logging, etc.
    Ok fine don't want to get into a tussle with you. My first paragraph was directed at you specifically, but the rest of my tirade was being meant to be broadcast out "in general". It's really hard to segment a post where i'm speaking towards an individual or speaking toward the crowd.

    So sorry about that, i wasn't really trying to get into a big debate specifically with you or your points other than the sentence which i posted.
    .~...|\
    ...~.|.\
    ..~..|..\
    .~...|...\
    ~....|....\
    ...~.|.....\
    ....~|____\
    _____||_________
    .\....FAILBOAT..../

  116. #116
    M_S
    M_S is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,409
    OK. Sorry if I was overly confrontational. I got a little riled up over some stuff earlier in the thread and it kind of got directed at you.

  117. #117
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    594
    Quote Originally Posted by Ride Wilderness
    I think this is an important point to address. I would agree with this IF there were no more Wilderness proposals on the table. I would be totally fine with the amount of riding I have to access and enjoy Wilderness by foot. Unfortunately, this is not the case. There are more than 2 million acres in Colorado alone right now in the crosshairs with even more being discussed. This is why I feel the issue is so important. We're slowly but surely losing rideable lands forever.
    This is where user group alliances have some validity. There is already enough designated wilderness. There is a need for a designation with the ‘teeth’ of the wilderness act that leaves multiuse recreation management up to local authorities. By teeth I mean it can never be sold or developed and by multi use I mean leaving all but the most sensitive trails open to bikes and leaving some of the dirt roads open to motorized travel.

  118. #118
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    594
    The idea of filing a law suit seems to have merit. I’d support a well organized effort. In fact it seems like IMBA should be doing this. I’m a bit disappointed that they aren’t.

  119. #119
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    594
    Quote Originally Posted by pureslop
    Side note: Why does a moose that weighs about the same as a horse do virtually no damage to a trail and why do horses erode a trail so much? Answer: Shoes. Iron horse shoes act like the tip of a shovel and pry out and loosen up dirt with each step, which is way more damaging than an incompetent skidding MTB'er. Making a case for banning shoes might help the mtb cause in a round about way. Horses will never be banned, but banning horse shoes based on erosion is realistic because the damage is provable and iron shoes are not natural. The debate should be largely about the impact / damage that the different groups of users cause. MTB's win in this area.
    I agree that a horse does far more damage than a bike. However large animals like Moose and Elk definitely leave a mark on the landscape. I suspect that the reason you see so little damage to hiking trails is that wild animals only use them a little. I’ve come across elk trails 3 feet wide where the dirt was pounded into talk. Of course beauty is in the eye of the beholder. As a bow hunter I think an elk trail littered with ripped up trees leading to a muddy wallow at the end is a beautiful thing indeed.

  120. #120
    Delirious Tuck
    Reputation: thefriar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,434
    Quote Originally Posted by Ride Wilderness

    Considering the numerous studies showing no incremental impact on soils, vegetation and wildlife by mountain biking over that of hiking (AND certainly horses) and the Forest Service memo (last year or year before?) stating they see mountain biking as the same as hiking impact-wise, does any part of this definition make you think mountain bikes should remain banned....or ever have been banned in the first place?
    Do you have a link to the FS memo?

  121. #121
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Blurr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,334
    I find it sad and pathetic that in a free country its citizens are resorted to quit literally begging for access to land that they all own.

  122. #122
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by thefriar
    Do you have a link to the FS memo?
    IMBA's PR Release on said memo

  123. #123
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Broccoli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,762
    Any place that allows horse travel must allow bikes. There is no possible reason to justify excluding bikes and allowing horses. End of story.

    In fact - any trail that allows hiking should allow bike travel, as impact is of the same magnitude. Hiking only trails should be made by trail design, not by prohibition.

    Wilderness prohibition must be repealed.

  124. #124
    U sayin' Bolt ?
    Reputation: knutso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,355
    Wilderness and Open Space designations are set by representatives nominated by political parties and elected by voters, the people who hold the largest stake in such designations are locally registered landowners and local voters whose stake in increasing, designating and monitoring open space is based on it effect on increasing the values of their parcels of PRIVATELY OWNED LAND. The person to talk to if you want more say in the matter than your one measely vote, is your state and federal government representatives; they most likely will not heed you any mind and you will most likely occupy a lowly paid office worker ( like my good friend was for congressman Mike Thompson ). Sorry to say but they don't care about mtbing and they make the rules. If you wanna ride these trails you better ride like George Washington and do it in the dead of night on Christmas

  125. #125
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by knutso
    Wilderness and Open Space designations are set by representatives nominated by political parties and elected by voters, the people who hold the largest stake in such designations are locally registered landowners and local voters whose stake in increasing, designating and monitoring open space is based on it effect on increasing the values of their parcels of PRIVATELY OWNED LAND. The person to talk to if you want more say in the matter than your one measely vote, is your state and federal government representatives; they most likely will not heed you any mind and you will most likely occupy a lowly paid office worker ( like my good friend was for congressman Mike Thompson ). Sorry to say but they don't care about mtbing and they make the rules. If you wanna ride these trails you better ride like George Washington and do it in the dead of night on Christmas
    Yes, another vote from the status quo - "It's impossible", "we can't do anything", "it's just the way it is". I simply don't accept what I'm force fed quite so calmly and submissively as you.

  126. #126
    mtbr member
    Reputation: robinlikethebird's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    129

    Hope why can't we be happy with what we have??

    It is hard to trust the IMBA sources when they are completely bias for mt bikes. I have looked into this issue greatly before and have written many papers on it.(which if there is a desire i will post), ANd...

    For Me It comes down to the question of this am I a conservationist or a mountain biker??

    First off I am a conservationist, I use my mountain bike as a means to take me to the areas that are beautiful. But If i need to sacrifice my desires of mountain biking to help preserve a place I am okay with that. In the land that is out there, there are plenty of trails and opportunities for new trails to be built, more then enough for any one to travel in one life time.
    Yes, it seems a shame that Horses are allowed and bikes are not, but horses are not helping, why should we add another problem to the list. If it was up to me they would be regulated even more so then they are now, Carry it in carry it out. there poop is gross.

    For me i am great full that we have places to ride and place to make new trails.

  127. #127
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by robinlikethebird
    It is hard to trust the IMBA sources when they are completely bias for mt bikes. I have looked into this issue greatly before and have written many papers on it.(which if there is a desire i will post), ANd...

    For Me It comes down to the question of this am I a conservationist or a mountain biker??

    First off I am a conservationist, I use my mountain bike as a means to take me to the areas that are beautiful. But If i need to sacrifice my desires of mountain biking to help preserve a place I am okay with that. In the land that is out there, there are plenty of trails and opportunities for new trails to be built, more then enough for any one to travel in one life time.
    Yes, it seems a shame that Horses are allowed and bikes are not, but horses are not helping, why should we add another problem to the list. If it was up to me they would be regulated even more so then they are now, Carry it in carry it out. there poop is gross.

    For me i am great full that we have places to ride and place to make new trails.

    I totally disagree, or at the very least, don't understand. I don't think conservation and mountain biking are mutually exclusive. This somehow suggests when using a mountain bike in the Wilderness; it somehow ceases to be conserved Wilderness?? I really do not follow.

  128. #128
    U sayin' Bolt ?
    Reputation: knutso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,355
    Quote Originally Posted by Ride Wilderness
    Yes, another vote from the status quo - "It's impossible", "we can't do anything", "it's just the way it is". I simply don't accept what I'm force fed quite so calmly and submissively as you.
    well ... What I am saying here is if you want to ride the trails, find a time when no one is there and ride them. If you want to make or change laws, garner political support and run for office. This is a democratic republic and citizens vote for nominated political representatives to act as law makers, you get one vote and that is it, if you want more power than that then you better either fork over some serious money to support the nomonation of a mtb advocating candidate or, like I said, run for office; otherwise it is out of your hands.
    Believe me I would love to ride my bike in wilderness and open space preserves. However just because we think there is a wrong to be righted in reality there is no definitive right or wrong; right and wrong only exists in the human mind. If every individual wholly sought to change what they wanted 'righted' then we would be in anarchy and would most likely not have nations, corporations, or bikes to ride at all.

  129. #129
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Broccoli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,762
    Quote Originally Posted by robinlikethebird
    Yes, it seems a shame that Horses are allowed and bikes are not, but horses are not helping, why should we add another problem to the list. If it was up to me they would be regulated even more so then they are now, Carry it in carry it out. there poop is gross.
    Bikes have the same impact as biking - that is very very minimal. Biking in a wilderness does not take away ANYTHING from the goal of conservation. There is no point in conserving something that you can not enjoy. Anybody who thinks otherwise is an anti-human extremist.

    We can not be happy with what we have because we do not have it. I do not have time for long hikes and I do not have time and money to ride in wilderness on a horse (and horses are damaging and dangerous). It is patently unfair to exclude me for no good reason.

  130. #130
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,027
    Quote Originally Posted by otis24
    I just joined imba...it's about time.
    Attaboy.
    I don't know what trail we're on, but at least it's getting dark

  131. #131
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,027
    Quote Originally Posted by pureslop
    One constructive idea I have not heard proposed yet: Could fully rigid (no suspension) be a useful compromise in Wilderness Areas? Seems to me it would be a natural speed control devise. The one thing most folks can't get past in the "court of public opinion" is the downhill speed of mountain bikes. Meeting one going 40mph around a blind corner is hardly a wilderness experience. And speeds are only getting faster.
    I have been trying to bring rigid bikes forward as a solution. A lot of people don't agree with it. Under certain circumstances I feel the concept is appropriate. Under other circumstances it is unnecessary or irrelavant.
    I don't know what trail we're on, but at least it's getting dark

  132. #132
    mtbr member
    Reputation: robinlikethebird's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    129

    I see what your saying....

    I think that I should let you know my bias on the whole Issue, I would not totally consider my self and extinctionist , but I do believe that we are overpopulated and having a negative affect on the land that supports us. WE NEED to preserve land and keep it wild to keep our self around. I am not totally against having areas that no humans would go to. And i do think that we would reap the benefits from that area, even though we do not set foot in it.

    Well, First I guess that there is never just one or the other biking or conservation.. But as the definition is now on the wilderness act it seems to be that way. What comes to mind is, at what time does a biking in wilderness not make that area wild, and if no one know that you have biked there is it still wild to others?? And sure maybe if a couple people poach some trails the area is not going to be affected, but if we open the gates then yes it will be affected.

    To say that bikes have a very minimal impact is just not true, or to say that there impact is the same as a hiker is also not true. Well, maybe if you read some of the IMBA lit., but we affect the land that we travel through, the animals in the land and on average we will travel twice if not three times as far as a hiker or horse rider on an average outing. I live near Idyllwild, ca and It is very black and with the diferences where mountain bikes are allowed and the areas where they are not. ie hurkey creek vs the PCT.


    According to the IMBA’s Website Mt. biking can occur on 153,500 miles of trail in the USA spread through the National Forest Services (NFS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and US Army Corps of Engineering. This does not include 600,000 miles of unpaved road on BLM Land. This seems like a lifetime of trails to ride and explore. so there is the trails out there for us to travel on..

    It seems to me that There is plenty of land out there for us. It is we just want more of it. The big question for me is how are we as biker who like the wilderness going to help to create more of it and not feel like we are losing areas to bike??

    I also want to point out that I can articulate much better in person, so I would gladly want to go riding with any of ya'll up here in the San jacinto and go out for some beer and pizza
    (I am also soo lonley and need friends )

    Here are some reading that helped me decide,

    Carroll, Michael and Brian O’Donnel. “Don’t Tread Here” Wild Earth: The Journal of the Wildlands Projects. Vol. 13, NO. 1, Spring 2003. 31-33

    Formeman, Dave. “A Modest Proposal” Wild Earth: The Journal of the Wildlands Projects. Vol. 13, NO. 1, Spring 2003. 34-35.

    Hassenauer, Jim. “A Niche forBicycles”Wild Earth: The Journal of the Wildlands Projects. Vol. 13, NO. 1, Spring 2003. 21-22

    International Mountain Bike Association (IMBA). “Bicycling and Wilderness: A Mountain Biker's Guide to Wilderness Advocacy” http://www.imba.com/resources/land_p...rness_faq.html

    Kerr, Andy. “Which Way?” Wild Earth: The Journal of the Wildlands Projects. Vol. 13, NO. 1, Spring 2003. 26-30.

    Scott, Douglas W, “Some History” Wild Earth: The Journal of the Wildlands Projects. Vol. 13, NO. 1, Spring 2003. 23-25

    Vandeman, Ph.D, Michael J. “Science Proves Mountain Biking Is More Harmful Than Hiking: The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People”. http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande. July 3, 2004

  133. #133
    Delirious Tuck
    Reputation: thefriar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,434
    Quote Originally Posted by robinlikethebird

    Vandeman, Ph.D, Michael J. “Science Proves Mountain Biking Is More Harmful Than Hiking: The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People”. http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande. July 3, 2004
    dear. god. no. Peer reviewed, credible, sources are probably a better reference point.

  134. #134
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    190
    http://www.americantrails.org/resources/ManageMaintain/SprungImpacts.htm

    The result of several scientific studies. Some even point to hiking having more impact on some species than mountain biking.

    And Vandeman…coo coo for coco puffs, and a hypocrite to boot.

  135. #135
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Broccoli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,762
    Quote Originally Posted by robinlikethebird
    Vandeman, Ph.D, Michael J. “Science Proves Mountain Biking Is More Harmful Than Hiking: The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People”. http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande. July 3, 2004
    I can not serioulsy consider anything said by anybody who actually quotes that dangerous lunatic and hypocrite.

    Biking in wilderness will not take away ANYTHING from the goal of preserving those natural lands for our children to enjoy.

    That is a simple fact, proven beyond any reasonable doubt.

    If you disagree with that fact, then you actual motive is not preservation of nature and land, but a generic anti-human sentiment.

  136. #136
    mtbr member
    Reputation: robinlikethebird's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    129

    interesting article...

    I like that part in the article that brings up that how trails are built might be a better way at managing erosion then the actual activity it self. It also seem that there might be some fault on the bikers that skidd out on every turn and hurler down a hill uncountably.
    That seems to b very valid point.

    The point that I did not see be brought up, was the amount of usage that bikers compare to hikers. If in fact hikers cause the same amount of damage as biker(which i am not convinced of but i'll reluctantly agree).The normal bike ride is usually twice as long as a normal day hike. Bikers are able to travel further, and usually do because of there mechanization, thus cause more damage then a hiker.

    Also it seem that most of the studies that where sited in that article were from the 90's, which I have a problem with, when you look at how much bigger our user group has gotten and how much bigger bikes have become since then.

  137. #137
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Broccoli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,762
    Quote Originally Posted by robinlikethebird
    . Bikers are able to travel further, and usually do because of there mechanization, thus cause more damage then a hiker.
    This "damage" is inconsequential. If you do not like human presense in the nature - admit it. Do not invent excuses.

    Bikes became bigger? What are you talking about? My current bike is half the weight of what I had 20 years ago. It has much wider and softer tires and much better brakes and suspension that allows it not to skid and always ride in control. I weight less with my bike then with my backpack. I am not even talking about horses. It is painfully obvious that you do not know what you are talking about and just inventing excuses for your preconcieved opinion.

  138. #138
    mtbr member
    Reputation: robinlikethebird's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    129
    I feel like I am offending you, I am not try to attack any one personally, so sorry if i have.

    I have also admitted my bias and said how I feel about human impact on the earth.

    Yes some bikes have gotten lighter, but i feel the general trend is to get bigger and fatter. Is this not correct. And it is great that you out theres doing their part to help bikers images. and not tear up the trails that we have now

    And how is the damage inconsequential?

  139. #139
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Broccoli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,762
    Quote Originally Posted by robinlikethebird
    I feel like I am offending you
    I find lies about the impact of cycling that are being propagated and that keep me out of enjoying nature and the public lands that are paid for with my tax dollar offensive. I find lack of logic offensive. I find quoting that kook, not to be named, to be offensive.

    Any erosion issues that could be possibly caused by cycling or hiking can be addressed with trail design and reasonable use restrictions - such as seasonal and wet weather closures and permits. Blanket prohibition is not an acceptable solution. At the very least anything open to use by half-ton steel hooved animals should be open for cycling.
    Last edited by Broccoli; 03-10-2010 at 03:33 PM.

  140. #140
    mtbr member
    Reputation: robinlikethebird's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    129

    no is keeping you out

    no one is saying that you can not go, It is just your bike that can not go to certain places.

    It nice that you called Vandeman cook but I do not think that word means what you think it means( like to make food/ or the wacko in the surf line up) .I have heard alot of slander tossed around about Vandeman , I would be more that willing to read something about these dissagrements that you have with him

    I am also not sure what lies you might be referring to, I am just try figure things out here

    can we agree that bikes do damage the area they travel?
    and if they were not allowed in an area then there would be no damage from bikes?

    and can we agree that bikers in general are going to travel a greater distance then a normal day hiker?

    It seems to me also that you Curmy will only pull the out the facts the you dissagree on. have you happened to look at any of the other articles, Or the fact there is 153,000 miles of trails and 600,000 of unpaved roads

  141. #141
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    190
    "can we agree that bikes do damage the area they travel?
    and if they were not allowed in an area then there would be no damage from bikes?"

    The same can be said for horse and hikers. I'll have to do some searching, but I think I remember a study saying that bikes actually helped pack trails down that were loosened by foot and hoof.

    "and can we agree that bikers in general are going to travel a greater distance then a normal day hiker?"

    Yes, but I would say more hikers are doing overnight trips….cooking, campfires etc., and then the amount of time it takes to hike in, it takes the same to hike out. So while bikes may travel further, hikers spend more time.

    I didn't see anyone calling Vandeman a "cook". I called him coo coo for coco puffs. Have you seen some of the stuff he's posted on similar forums? I found the FAQ on Mike

    http://evergreenmtb.org/php/show_page.php?page_id=32

  142. #142
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Broccoli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,762
    Quote Originally Posted by robinlikethebird
    can we agree that bikes do damage the area they travel?
    No. Properly designed trail is not damaged. And if it can handle horses, it can handle ten times more bikes.

    Wind causes "damage". Rain does. Bikes allow us to enjoy the nature. Humans can not be summarily excluded and not any measurable impact is "damage".

    Quote Originally Posted by robinlikethebird
    and if they were not allowed in an area then there would be no damage from bikes?
    No. There will be no damage of consequence.

    Quote Originally Posted by robinlikethebird
    and can we agree that bikers in general are going to travel a greater distance then a normal day hiker?
    If that is an issue, then you are admitting that your whole agenda is keeping people out of nature.

    But we already knew that.

    Traveling further means less congestion near trailheads and a better experience for everybody.

    Quote Originally Posted by robinlikethebird
    It seems to me also that you Curmy will only pull the out the facts the you dissagree on. have you happened to look at any of the other articles, Or the fact there is 153,000 miles of trails and 600,000 of unpaved roads
    The only fact that is being discussed here is that cycling is unjustifiably excluded from best public lands. The rest of "facts" that you are desperately grasping at have nothing to do with this issue.

    Yes, it was obviously "kook", not a "cook". I guess bringing attention to a spelling error is one of the better "arguments" that you can present.

  143. #143
    mtbr member
    Reputation: robinlikethebird's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    129

    I'm tired

    I think that I am going to leave it for a while and go ride my bike,
    I see more clearly why people do not like this Kook PHD Vandeman
    For me I happy with just riding my bikes in the places that we have now and leaving the place the are wild alone.

    What has come to mind during this thrilling morning and into the early afternoon is Abbey and Leopold some of mentors..
    Aldo Wrote once:

    Man always kill the things that he loves, and so we the pioneers have killed our wilderness. Some say we had to. be that as it may I am glad I shall never be youn without wild country to be young in. Of what avail are forty freedoms with out a blank spot on the map.

    I wonder how we can get horse out of the wilderness??



    Please come and visit we will ride and laugh and crash and drink beer..
    cheers,
    Robin like the bird

  144. #144
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Broccoli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,762
    Quote Originally Posted by robinlikethebird
    I wonder how we can get horse out of the wilderness??
    There is nothing particularly wrong with horses in the wilderness.

    As long as we realise that the goal is to preserve, not to exclude. Impact of light and reasonably regulated recreational use is inconsequential for the preservation goal. It does not damage anything.

  145. #145
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by Curmy
    There is nothing particularly wrong with horses in the wilderness.

    As long as we realise that the goal is to preserve, not to exclude. Impact of light and reasonably regulated recreational use is inconsequential for the preservation goal. It does not damage anything.
    Bingo. We use horses as an example of damage, but I think we're wrong to remove them....that would make us (MTB'ers) no better. But considering the minimal impact of mountain biking, it strikes me as discriminatory to allow hikers, horses, skiers, kayakers and rafters....but not mountain bikers. Everyone one of these methods of transport inherently make Wilderness less wilderness-like to some degree.

  146. #146
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    545
    In the last few years I've stepped back from the battle to lift the ban on bikes. Simply put, I don't trust mountain bikers, or at least a small percentage of them. I've seen, first hand, new, unauthorized, poorly thought out, unsustainable trails cut into our national forest land. I've seen first hand how a few people, who have become bored with trails on national forest land, have set about reconstructing them, adding features to increase their "air-time", and removing other features that obstruct their "flow". I don't think this attitude would change no matter what the areas designation. This in mind, I can't, in good conscience, work to overturn the ban on bikes. I will however continue to fight against any new Wilderness designations that would ban bikes from lands we've been already been riding.

    My .02 cents

  147. #147
    mtbr member
    Reputation: robinlikethebird's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    129

    me too

    I like your 2 cents...

    It seems that the wilderness comunity is in a cross roads with the bikers and that there are going to be compromises made in New land designation or protected in a wilderness setting.

    Would people be against having permitting for certain areas, say a quota on how many riders could ride a trail in a certain day or at certain seasons?

  148. #148
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Broccoli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,762
    Quote Originally Posted by Shelbak73
    I've seen, first hand, new, unauthorized, poorly thought out, unsustainable trails cut into our national forest land. I've seen first hand how a few people, who have become bored with trails on national forest land, have set about reconstructing them, adding features to increase their "air-time", and removing other features that obstruct their "flow". I don't think this attitude would change no matter what the areas designation.
    Bad trails are build because there not enough good ones. That is what happens when you summarily exclude a very large group of legitimate users from proper recreational opportunities.

    By that logic you would need to ban hikers from forests because some of them are growing marihuana there - a far bigger problem around here.

  149. #149
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Broccoli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,762
    Quote Originally Posted by robinlikethebird
    Would people be against having permitting for certain areas, say a quota on how many riders could ride a trail in a certain day or at certain seasons?
    Of course that is a reasonable solution. That is called management. Excluding a group is not management - it is a lack of management.

  150. #150
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Broccoli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,762
    Quote Originally Posted by OldSkool123
    How many of the posters have actually moved dirt in the last year?
    I did - but I also paid a whole lot of taxes that pay for the public lands. Every taxpayer is entitled to get something back for that.
    Last edited by Broccoli; 03-11-2010 at 02:49 PM.

  151. #151
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    190
    There have been at least a couple of success stories from the "illegally" built trails. There is a trail where I live that started out illegal. Some key members of the bike club had left, and the rest of us were under the assumption that it was legal. It turned into a lot of he said-she said and CYA, and at first was frowned upon. Eventually it was given the blessing by the city, and there was such positive response, that we were able to extend the trail.

    Earlier this week we had a meeting with our National Forest manager. It was mostly about helping out with trail maintenance that will no longer be done by the motorized users due to closures. Eventually it turned to the topic of re-routes and new trail construction. I was surprised about how open to it they were. They even brought up trying to get something going at the local ski hill. A few years ago when that subject was brought up, we were told politely to "take a hike". Understand, that none of this is Wilderness, but a few years ago mountain bikers weren't even a thought, and now we are being welcomed. Attitudes can change.

    As far as legal action goes. I was also surprised to learn that even though the motorized users sued the forest service over the travel plan. They are still working together. Seems there are no hard feelings or personal grievances involved.

  152. #152
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BumpityBump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,038
    Quote Originally Posted by Curmy
    Bad trails are build because there not enough good ones.
    I don't buy that. I have witnessed a lot of illegal trails in areas where there were already many other existing opportunities to ride. It may be true in some cases, but it also seems that some have a passion for the illegal building of the trail in and of itself. They are often poorly laid out with no thought to effective erosion control or sustainability. Illegal trails also perpetuate the stigma against mountain bikers and make the battle for continued access to existing trails that much more difficult. It's just bad form.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shelbak73
    In the last few years I've stepped back from the battle to lift the ban on bikes. Simply put, I don't trust mountain bikers, or at least a small percentage of them. I've seen, first hand, new, unauthorized, poorly thought out, unsustainable trails cut into our national forest land. I've seen first hand how a few people, who have become bored with trails on national forest land, have set about reconstructing them, adding features to increase their "air-time", and removing other features that obstruct their "flow". I don't think this attitude would change no matter what the areas designation. This in mind, I can't, in good conscience, work to overturn the ban on bikes. I will however continue to fight against any new Wilderness designations that would ban bikes from lands we've been already been riding.

    My .02 cents
    Good Post

  153. #153
    Delirious Tuck
    Reputation: thefriar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,434
    The cost of biking and horseback riding makes both sports have natural barriers to entry, which should inherently limit the number of users from that group in a wilderness, or any park setting.

    # for # research, peer reviewed, credible sources, have shown mountain bikes and hikers are on par in terms of impacts.

    The interesting thing to note however is that there are far far more hikers in the world because most people already own a pair of shoes and not a mountain bike (at the cheapest end of the scale you can hike in walmart sneakers and you can ride trail on a walmart bike, but the costs between the two are still pretty significant in % terms) . I'm sure if we compared the annual sales of hiking, walking, and trail running shoes to mountain bikes, there'd be far more shoes sold per year.

    The superior number of hikers alone, impacts of an individual biker equal to an individuals hikers, will mean hiking is a larger impact, regardless of how far a bike travels.

    If you know mtbers are out there creating illegal trails, then close them and stop them. Don't complain about it. Enlist those people to help improve the greater trail system and do it so its sustainable and satisfactory to ALL user groups.

    I have an axe to grind with ALL trail users. Advocacy, with in the MTB community and outside, and sustainable trails eliminate 99% of our problems.

  154. #154
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,729
    Quote Originally Posted by robinlikethebird
    It nice that you called Vandeman cook but I do not think that word means what you think it means( like to make food/ or the wacko in the surf line up) .I have heard alot of slander tossed around about Vandeman , I would be more that willing to read something about these dissagrements that you have with him
    i built a mt. bike trail in a wasteland underneath a freeway for Seattle City Parks, i named it Tqalu, which means "To have a sense about you", which is the closest word to biking in Okanogan Salish. This guy emailed me and had the nerve to say that the spirits of my ancestors would be upset at my actions as it was an affront to nature.

    This is not only irrational, but it was an insult on the most extreme level.

    Quote Originally Posted by OldSkool123
    I would argue that most people that have posted in this thread would not (could not) ride the trails that they are "fighting" for. How many of the posters have actually moved dirt in the last year? Until you get out and contribute to your local community, stfu, and stop picketing for more trails.
    Go ahead and try that argument with me, i dare you. Actually i've been quite successful in assembling and organizing folks to work with the Forest Service, and from my efforts we should have over a hundred mt. bikers show up for 2 upcoming work party days.

    So i think people like you typify the core reason why the Wilderness Ban exists, pure and simple selfishness. Put a squirt gun to the head of most conservation types, after all the hyperbole and outright distortion about protecting the environment, the truth would come out that they want to see as little people as possible on the trails, period.
    .~...|\
    ...~.|.\
    ..~..|..\
    .~...|...\
    ~....|....\
    ...~.|.....\
    ....~|____\
    _____||_________
    .\....FAILBOAT..../

  155. #155
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,729
    Quote Originally Posted by thefriar
    I have an axe to grind with ALL trail users. Advocacy, with in the MTB community and outside, and sustainable trails eliminate 99% of our problems.
    Here here.
    .~...|\
    ...~.|.\
    ..~..|..\
    .~...|...\
    ~....|....\
    ...~.|.....\
    ....~|____\
    _____||_________
    .\....FAILBOAT..../

  156. #156
    Tre1nt
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    418
    IMBA's Government Affairs Director Jenn Dice is testifying before a Congressional committee on a Colorado Wilderness bill today. In fact, it's being broadcast live online at this very moment.

    http://resources.edgeboss.net/wmedia...324_080313.asx

  157. #157
    Bite Me.
    Reputation: cutthroat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    4,531
    You guys are on the wrong track - the hiker/equestrian coalition will ensure that mountain bikers are never allowed in wilderness areas. In my view the only way to rock the boat is to become more extreme than the wilderness advocates themselves.
    It is undisputed that hikers and horses cause significant damage to the wilderness areas these groups purport to defend. Therefore, all horses and humans should be BANNED from all wilderness areas to protect the Earth from harm. Trails are not natural and are scars on the land, overnight camping is not natural and disrupts wildlife, horse crap and human waste pollute pristine headwaters, bright nylon tents and clothing disrupt visual landscapes, horses are non-native invasive species that bring flies and invasive weeds into wilderness areas, humans trample fragile ecosystems. Thus, if wilderness advocates truly want to protect these pristine environments in their natural state - humans and horses have no place there. Conundrum Hot Springs outside Aspen in the Maroon Creek Wilderness is so overused that the headwaters of the creek are being polluted with human coliform bacteria and the camp areas are barren compacted dirt.
    Watch how the Sierra Club folks wilt and suddenly defend their ecological damage when it's their precious use rights that are being challenged - it will only take about 5 minutes before you are called an extremist for advocating the very arguments they throw at us - it's useless politically but enjoyable to watch.
    When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. ~H.G. Wells

  158. #158
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by cutthroat
    You guys are on the wrong track - the hiker/equestrian coalition will ensure that mountain bikers are never allowed in wilderness areas. In my view the only way to rock the boat is to become more extreme than the wilderness advocates themselves.
    It is undisputed that hikers and horses cause significant damage to the wilderness areas these groups purport to defend. Therefore, all horses and humans should be BANNED from all wilderness areas to protect the Earth from harm. Trails are not natural and are scars on the land, overnight camping is not natural and disrupts wildlife, horse crap and human waste pollute pristine headwaters, bright nylon tents and clothing disrupt visual landscapes, horses are non-native invasive species that bring flies and invasive weeds into wilderness areas, humans trample fragile ecosystems. Thus, if wilderness advocates truly want to protect these pristine environments in their natural state - humans and horses have no place there. Conundrum Hot Springs outside Aspen in the Maroon Creek Wilderness is so overused that the headwaters of the creek are being polluted with human coliform bacteria and the camp areas are barren compacted dirt.
    Watch how the Sierra Club folks wilt and suddenly defend their ecological damage when it's their precious use rights that are being challenged - it will only take about 5 minutes before you are called an extremist for advocating the very arguments they throw at us - it's useless politically but enjoyable to watch.
    Oooof. I think this is a non-starter for a variety of reasons; not the least of which is getting laughed out of the room. I think there is more evidence to support bikes than there is a complete ban on human visitation.

  159. #159
    Over the Hill
    Reputation: dstepper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,768
    Quote Originally Posted by Shelbak73
    In the last few years I've stepped back from the battle to lift the ban on bikes. Simply put, I don't trust mountain bikers, or at least a small percentage of them. I've seen, first hand, new, unauthorized, poorly thought out, unsustainable trails cut into our national forest land. I've seen first hand how a few people, who have become bored with trails on national forest land, have set about reconstructing them, adding features to increase their "air-time", and removing other features that obstruct their "flow". I don't think this attitude would change no matter what the areas designation. This in mind, I can't, in good conscience, work to overturn the ban on bikes. I will however continue to fight against any new Wilderness designations that would ban bikes from lands we've been already been riding.

    My .02 cents
    Nearly the same can be said about hikers. A popular local hike in my area So-Cal is Baden-Powell it is has wilderness designation. The section from Vincent Gap to the peak has 38 switchbacks and nearly everyone of them has steep unsustainable shortcuts cut by hikers.

    This pointing fingers at other users groups is worthless and serves no purpose except dividing groups that have more in common than not.

    Dean

  160. #160
    Bite Me.
    Reputation: cutthroat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    4,531
    Quote Originally Posted by Ride Wilderness
    Oooof. I think this is a non-starter for a variety of reasons; not the least of which is getting laughed out of the room. I think there is more evidence to support bikes than there is a complete ban on human visitation.
    As I said, it's useless politically, but I just love watching the wilderness advocates sqirm when you bring up how destructive humans are. It's one of their favorite nostrums. I think a better starting point might be to see if various anti-wilderness groups would start challenging horses in wilderness - do what the Sierra Club does, divide and conquer
    When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. ~H.G. Wells

  161. #161
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    190
    Same for a trail I hiked in the Bob Marshall Wilderness last year.

  162. #162
    mtbr member
    Reputation: robinlikethebird's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    129

    [email protected]#k it i'm over

    You know I have been thinking about it and reading some articles about the impacts of hiking and mountain biking, and I have changed my mine.

    Lets open the gates, let the bikes in, in fact let the motocycles and ATV. Lets tear it up and have no regrets,


    People have been right, it is only selfish that i do not want bikes into the wilderness. The same way that it is selfish that people want their bikes in. The faster that we get to cherry stem in the wilderness into smaller sections, the sooner it will not be able to support the ecosystems that are there now. The earth is changing no matter what we have crossed the line and I am almost convinced there is not turning back. Our wilderness is going down, just like the oceans and the ice sheets.

    So lets get it while we can, I'm going to ride the BEST trail out there PCT !!

  163. #163
    Bite Me.
    Reputation: cutthroat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    4,531
    Quote Originally Posted by robinlikethebird
    People have been right, it is only selfish that i do not want bikes into the wilderness. The same way that it is selfish that people want their bikes in.
    That is absolutely correct - the idea that Wilderness designation is to protect wilderness is a myth - it's all about which preferred segments of society get to use it. If horses were banned I guarantee that the equestrian lobby would would never again support wilderness designation. If hikers were banned, all the hiking groups would never support wilderness. It IS all about selfishness and who does and does not get access to the land - "wilderness values" are only a secondary consideration, and all the science showing how hikers and horses damage the wilderness will be ignored if it threatens their access.
    When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. ~H.G. Wells

  164. #164
    M_S
    M_S is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,409
    I think there are a lot of misconceptions in this thread about the nature of Wilderness, capital W, especially its legal underpinnings.

    Certainly, there is also this misconception among many Wilderness advocates. Or at least, the organizers of these groups may be intentionally misleading people to garner support. It happens in every matter of policy.

    But Wilderness is not, and has never been, areas inherently completely unaffected by human's. There is precedent for almost every sort of use by human's on Wilderness, though of course it is almost always contested. Look up Hetch-Hetchy for the most extreme example. Though it is relevant directly to National Park Lands, it gives you a good idea of the inherent flexibility of many land designations.

    While Wilderness is the least flexible land designation in the US, it does not mean there is no wiggle room. Most Wilderness areas have exceptions built into their originating acts. For example, the use of helicopters in the Bob Marshall Wilderness, or the creation of backup reservoirs in the Rattlesnake for the city of Missoula.

    The Act itself states that Wilderness should be in areas "untrammeled" by humans. That's a nebulous word at best, but it essentially means that wilderness is not limited (in character?) by human actions.

    Combined with the inherent power of land managers to decide Wilderness uses, perhaps a reasonable legislative approach would be to, instead of fighting new wilderness, include bicycles as an exception in the creation of new Wilderness areas where appropriate. The precedent is certainly there. This would at least maintain what is currently rideable, while still entering more lands into protection.

  165. #165
    mtbr member
    Reputation: robinlikethebird's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    129
    Quote Originally Posted by M_S
    Combined with the inherent power of land managers to decide Wilderness uses, perhaps a reasonable legislative approach would be to, instead of fighting new wilderness, include bicycles as an exception in the creation of new Wilderness areas where appropriate. The precedent is certainly there. This would at least maintain what is currently rideable, while still entering more lands into protection.

    IF done right I could get on board with this for new wilderness, especially if there is not going to be and more wilderness made.

    Have a ranger the will enforce bad decisions not just for bikers, but for all user groups.

    Have Trails that are sustainable designed for for all user groups, and permits that allow certain amount of users in during a certain time. something similar to what is used in the back country for the Whitney area.

  166. #166
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,729
    Quote Originally Posted by cutthroat
    As I said, it's useless politically, but I just love watching the wilderness advocates sqirm when you bring up how destructive humans are. It's one of their favorite nostrums. I think a better starting point might be to see if various anti-wilderness groups would start challenging horses in wilderness - do what the Sierra Club does, divide and conquer
    i loved reading your diatribe, it was very entertaining! Here locally you hike up some local Wilderness faves on a sunny day and it's a super-highway of assorted folk on the i-phones, taking pictures, and tromping around all over hells' half acre. i think the backcountry hiker who ventures past the 3 or so mile barrier that your general run of the mill hiker would journey past, is the person who will honestly stick to the rational of not wanting bikers since we have the benefit of accessing well deeper into the forest.
    But the movement or speed of the bike has been used here as a negative. Scaring up the walkers, i think the fact that a biker and hiker will share each others space for such a signifigantly less amount of time is something that is never highlighted.
    Maybe in some ways that's bad as there is little time to share stories about how nice it is to be out in the mountains...
    .~...|\
    ...~.|.\
    ..~..|..\
    .~...|...\
    ~....|....\
    ...~.|.....\
    ....~|____\
    _____||_________
    .\....FAILBOAT..../

  167. #167
    Over the Hill
    Reputation: dstepper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,768
    I don't want to ride Whittney, I don't want to ride out to Half Dome or any other area that is extremely popular. What I would like to ride is some of the old abandoned flumes and railroad grades, logging, mining roads in the so called Wilderness Roadless areas. I know of areas like near Inner Basin in Flagstaff that is a two lane road off limits to bikes because of Wilderness designation.

    Dean

  168. #168
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,729
    Quote Originally Posted by cutthroat
    That is absolutely correct - the idea that Wilderness designation is to protect wilderness is a myth - it's all about which preferred segments of society get to use it. If horses were banned I guarantee that the equestrian lobby would would never again support wilderness designation. If hikers were banned, all the hiking groups would never support wilderness. It IS all about selfishness and who does and does not get access to the land - "wilderness values" are only a secondary consideration, and all the science showing how hikers and horses damage the wilderness will be ignored if it threatens their access.
    i know for a fact that the Backcountry Horsemen in NE Washington State do no support the Wilderness Designation for some of the popular riding areas they ride. Primary reason is taking away the chainsaws to clear trail. They prefer to have some of the Roadless Areas managed as they are.

    i'm happy to note that a group of mt. bikers i've assembled will actually be collaborating together with the Backcountry Horsemen for trail work this summer.

    Beyond all the petty arguments, when the dust clears, and common sense and reason is all that remain. i'll go back to what The Friar pointed out, and ask folk what they do to help make a difference in our community.


    If you know mtbers are out there creating illegal trails, then close them and stop them. Don't complain about it. Enlist those people to help improve the greater trail system and do it so its sustainable and satisfactory to ALL user groups.



    Horse groups, hiker groups, moto groups and even mt. bike groups change from region to region. But there are alot of groups doing alot of thing right for the forest, a whole lot more than what they do wrong. It's a shame we all from time to time stand on opposite sides of issues we mostly have common ground on.

    The concept of being aware of our impact as mt. bikers is completely valid. But time and again that impact has been distorted. Let's not put the blinders on and say there are not challenges, but are they not challenges we cannot put effort into? Well i guess if you didn't have people working so hard to fight for access, maybe they COULD spend more time to invest back into the mt. bike community...
    .~...|\
    ...~.|.\
    ..~..|..\
    .~...|...\
    ~....|....\
    ...~.|.....\
    ....~|____\
    _____||_________
    .\....FAILBOAT..../

  169. #169
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Broccoli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,762
    Quote Originally Posted by BumpityBump
    I don't buy that.
    I am not selling.

    Illegal trails can be managed. End of story. It is not a valid excuse to keep cycling out. All user groups do illegal activities.

  170. #170
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Broccoli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,762
    Quote Originally Posted by robinlikethebird
    Lets open the gates, let the bikes in, in fact let the motocycles and ATV. Lets tear it up and have no regrets,
    That's extremism - just like your previous posts. Nobody is suggesting tearing everything up - only properly managed low impact recreational use with no arbitrary restrictions.

    If you have a Rubicon-style trail running through some wilderness area it can be managed to keep the impact low. It does not mean that you can tear up everything around on your 4x4 and it does not mean that you need to build such trails everywhere.

  171. #171
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    190
    "i'm happy to note that a group of mt. bikers i've assembled will actually be collaborating together with the Backcountry Horsemen for trail work this summer."

    Our group will be doing the same. It seems to me the extremists ruin it for everyone, with all of their negative propaganda. I know conflicts happen, but personally I've never experienced it on the trail, only on forums.

  172. #172
    JmZ
    JmZ is offline
    Reformed Lurker
    Reputation: JmZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,029

    Design and management

    Quote Originally Posted by pureslop
    One constructive idea I have not heard proposed yet: Could fully rigid (no suspension) be a useful compromise in Wilderness Areas? Seems to me it would be a natural speed control devise. The one thing most folks can't get past in the "court of public opinion" is the downhill speed of mountain bikes. Meeting one going 40mph around a blind corner is hardly a wilderness experience. And speeds are only getting faster.
    I've helped to design and build trail. I've seen where a bike club turned down sharing an existing hiking/horse trail because it was a trail that wasn't built to good standards, and it was long, flat and wide, the only way it would have been fun would have been by riding it FAST.

    And you CAN design a trail to have a certain speed and flow. IMBA addresses this in their training materials, and some of the professional trailbuilders deal with this every time they build a trail.

    Most trails may have some faster sections, but the idea of a 40mph blind corner that I've seen repeatedly - how real is it?!? If I want a section that is FAST then I need to build it properly. That means the proper sight lines, a good flow to the trail, and enough room to still be in control without slamming the brakes. Most trails I've been on have an average a lot closer to walking or running speed, not the speed of a major road.

    JmZ
    JmZ

    From one flat land to another.

    Advocate as if your ride depends on it...

  173. #173
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    545
    Quote Originally Posted by Curmy
    Bad trails are build because there not enough good ones. That is what happens when you summarily exclude a very large group of legitimate users from proper recreational opportunities.
    Several of the trails of which I was speaking of are within a mile of, or within the 350 mile network of trails here in Park City, Utah. These 350+ miles of legitimate trails have been built, and will continue to be built by and for Hikers, Equestrians, Cross country skiers and Mountain bikers.(the mountain trails foundation.) Other then the moto crowd, what user group has been "summarily" excluded from these trails?

    From your quote...."because there are not enough good ones." What is your definition of "Good"? Does it match my definition of "Good"? Or Skookums? Or Robinlikethebirds?

    Ok, so you've made a "Good" trail, or you've modified an old trail to make it "Good". How long will It remain "Good"? Your trail now becomes subject to the "law of diminishing returns". Simply put: you have ridden your "Good" trail for a few years, you know every bump, jump and turn so well that you could do it with one hand, blind folded. In other words, it's lost it's thrill, then what?

  174. #174
    mtbr member
    Reputation: robinlikethebird's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    129

    mmmm...

    Quote Originally Posted by Shelbak73

    From your quote...."because there are not enough good ones." What is your definition of "Good"? Does it match my definition of "Good"? Or Skookums? Or Robinlikethebirds?

    Ok, so you've made a "Good" trail, or you've modified an old trail to make it "Good". How long will It remain "Good"? Your trail now becomes subject to the "law of diminishing returns". Simply put: you have ridden your "Good" trail for a few years, you know every bump, jump and turn so well that you could do it with one hand, blind folded. In other words, it's lost it's thrill, then what?

    I see what your saying, Does this compare, maybe it is like a wife or husband, where at first they are super sexy throwing out new things at you and you might not know what is coming next..Then things start to get a little boring and you know how they are going to act when you go a little to fast or you try to go around the back and get thrown over.

    Well that is not what i was talking about when I meant good. I was talking about well built trails that are not going to completely erode, and are built with longevity in mind.

  175. #175
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BumpityBump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,038
    Quote Originally Posted by Curmy
    I am not selling.

    Illegal trails can be managed. End of story. It is not a valid excuse to keep cycling out. All user groups do illegal activities.

    Good, because you would make a poor salesman and did not address my point wherein I disagreed with the origin of illegal trails, not whether they could be managed.

    If you are saying it is acceptable to build illegal trails because they can be managed, well I guess we have a different perspective on personal stewardship and also on the word "managed".

    I don't disagree that all user groups conduct illegal activities. But, saying that it's okay for everyone because of that is a moot argument in my book.

  176. #176
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Broccoli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,762
    Quote Originally Posted by BumpityBump
    Good, because you would make a poor salesman and did not address my point wherein I disagreed with the origin of illegal trails, not whether they could be managed.
    Your "point" was both irrelevant and incorrect.

    Quote Originally Posted by BumpityBump
    If you are saying it is acceptable to build illegal trails because they can be managed, well I guess we have a different perspective on personal stewardship and also on the word "managed".
    I have no idea where did you read that it is acceptable to do illegal things.

    Quote Originally Posted by BumpityBump
    I don't disagree that all user groups conduct illegal activities. But, saying that it's okay for everyone because of that is a moot argument in my book.
    Nobody has suggested that it is ok. I have suggested that it can be dealt with, and that it is far from a valid reason to exclude a particular group of users - by your own admission all user groups have similar problems.

  177. #177
    Arriving Somewhere
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    121
    Quote Originally Posted by M_S
    While it is true that the interpretation of the term mechanized bans bicycles from Wilderness, those advocating legal recourse to force a different interpretation clearly have no real understanding of the legal precedent which would apply.

    While this issue specifically has not been litigated, the general area of administrative discretion has been very well established by the courts. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) are extremely well defined laws by the courts. Courts have established that all an agency needs to do in order to avoid a ruling declaring its decision is arbitrary and capricious (look it up) is to establish that its decision is reasonable. The point being; courts have left a lot of leeway for agencies to determine what is appropriate, as long as they are within the bounds of the relevant guiding statutes (in this case, mostly the Wilderness Act). District courts have left up to agencies decisions regarding public lands which, frankly, are far more important than mountain biking (sorry, it's true).

    IMBA knows this. But apparently the RideWilderness does not. Anyways, here's the short, easy version: A change in interpretation must come from within the agencies, It will not be imposed by courts. You can argue that the agency decision is somewhat inconsistent by saying, perhaps that skis are a form of mechanization. However it is simply not so out of line with the Act as to warrant court action.

    I potentially support limited bicycle access in some Wilderness areas, however it has to be done the right way. And for the most part, I support the use of alternative designations such as Recreation Areas where appropriate. This is more applicable to some lands which do not necessarily meet Wilderness criteria but are worth protecting to a large degree. But that is another debate.
    What makes you think the APA was followed when the rule change was made circa 1980? I have seen no evidence of such. That is, it was the very essence of "arbitrary and capricious" action, and thus, invalid.

  178. #178
    Log off and go ride!
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,622
    Wilderness existed prior to the 1964 Act. The Forest Service had been setting "Wild Areas" since 1920. They were administrative classifications, not required by law, and mountain bikes were not specifically banned. The 1964 Act made the existing Wild Areas into legally defined Wilderness.

    The 1964 Act was first written and proposed in 1955, but had zero support in Congress from either party. Even the environmental industry was split with many lukewarm to the proposed law initially.

    Now, in California, we are seeing new areas proposed for Wilderness, not because they have any scenic or primitive values, but solely because they contain trails popular with mountain bikers. The California Wilderness Coalition hates mountain bikes (well, they hate anyone that is not a member of their organization, but that is another story). They also propose removing roads, even state highways, relocating entire towns, and restricting access to all for any purpose (presumably excluding themselves). The enemy is well entrenched and well funded.

  179. #179
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Broccoli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,762
    Quote Originally Posted by dave54
    and restricting access to all for any purpose (presumably excluding themselves).
    No presumably - specifically. That is exactly the whole point with those pseudo-ecology blowhards: they presume to be superior to everybody else and do not want anybody enjoying our planet not on their terms, science and facts be damned.

    I have seen people with that mindset at power in the good old Soviet Union. Nothing is new - they just found a different topic to preach.

  180. #180
    Log off and go ride!
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,622
    Quote Originally Posted by Curmy
    ...I have seen people with that mindset at power in the good old Soviet Union. Nothing is new - they just found a different topic to preach.
    True. when the Soviet Union collapsed, so did the so-called world peace movement (AKA global communism movement). The leaders of that organization migrated to the environmental industry. Greenpeace Europe in the 90's was all the players from the European Communist movement. Likewise in the U.S., sierra club had an infusion of radical lefties, wilderness society, et al.

    That is why all those organizations are called 'watermelons' -- green on the outside, red on the inside. They all still have a socialist agenda, they just keep it hidden under a green smoke screen.

  181. #181
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,027
    Quote Originally Posted by m3rb
    What makes you think the APA was followed when the rule change was made circa 1980? I have seen no evidence of such. That is, it was the very essence of "arbitrary and capricious" action, and thus, invalid.
    1984? Just trying to keep us on the same timeline.

    This quote and the previous one made me think. What was the method the the FS followed to change the categorization of bikes to mechanized? Was the FS prodded by an outside special interest group? How did this group wield such influence? How could this be done again? Hang gliding was eliminated, now kiteboarding on skis is on the chopping block. This new sport is targeted by anti access groups. How can this elimination process be used by bicyclists to bring about change? This process is not litigation is it? Has each category of user been litigated from wilderness, or has it been through enviro lobbying?
    I don't know what trail we're on, but at least it's getting dark

  182. #182
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Blurr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,334
    Quote Originally Posted by robinlikethebird
    IF done right I could get on board with this for new wilderness, especially if there is not going to be and more wilderness made.

    Have a ranger the will enforce bad decisions not just for bikers, but for all user groups.

    Have Trails that are sustainable designed for for all user groups, and permits that allow certain amount of users in during a certain time. something similar to what is used in the back country for the Whitney area.

    Interesting concept to require permits for people to enjoy something they already own.

  183. #183
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Broccoli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,762
    Quote Originally Posted by Blurr
    Interesting concept to require permits for people to enjoy something they already own.
    Nah, that part is fine with me. If you are a part owner of a vacation house - you will arrange when you use it with other owners, wouldn't you? Problem will be if you get treated unfairly and unequally, for no good reason.. Which is what happens to us here.

  184. #184
    mtbr member
    Reputation: robinlikethebird's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    129

    here we go again

    Yes it is interesting, There would be no accountability if there was not a permit system, There would be no way to regulate users and there impact on the land.

    What is is also interesting that our goverment sells our NF land to private companies to turn a profit off of us IE.. Logging, Natural gas and so on and so-forth..these companies reap the benefits of our precious resource and what do we get ...nothing.

    IMHO permitting is the only way that I Would get behind any thing that would allow bike into a wilderness setting. From many people that i have talked to the do not want bikes into these areas that for them it takes away from there experience of wild, when they see a bike fly by or that they have to jump off the trail because of a bike. Now i know that these are not all bikers that will act like this, but I feel that we need to take responsibility for every one in our community and not turn it into a us and them. Because it is not an us and them, but us all.

    I think that it is shitty for the biking comminity when we get cut out of the deals and new wilderness is made in areas that have trails and bikers have been ridding for a while.
    But all in we are in a spot that we need to protect our wild place from our selves. in our lifetime it is a non renewable resource, by cherrysteming trails into wilderness we our changing our wild spaces
    For me Ed Abbey says it best

    Wilderness. The word itself is music... the word suggest the past and the unknown, the womb of the earth from which we all emerged. it means something lost and something still present, something remote and at the same time intimate, something buried in our blood and nerves, something beyond us and without limit...But the love of the wilderness is more than hunger for what is beyond reach; it is also an expression of loyalty to the earth. the earth which bore us and sustains us the only home we shall ever know, the only paradise that we ever need....Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit. and as vital to our lives as water and good bread. A civilization which destroys what little remains of the wild, the spore, the original, is cutting itself off from its origins and betraying the principle of civilization itself.

  185. #185
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Blurr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,334
    Quote Originally Posted by robinlikethebird
    Yes it is interesting, There would be no accountability if there was not a permit system, There would be no way to regulate users and there impact on the land.
    Yea uhm the horror of not being able to track peoples every move.

    What is is also interesting that our goverment sells our NF land to private companies to turn a profit off of us IE.. Logging, Natural gas and so on and so-forth..these companies reap the benefits of our precious resource and what do we get ...nothing.
    uhm you get cas, gold, and other ways to live imagine that.

    IMHO permitting is the only way that I Would get behind any thing that would allow bike into a wilderness setting. From many people that i have talked to the do not want bikes into these areas that for them it takes away from there experience of wild, when they see a bike fly by or that they have to jump off the trail because of a bike. Now i know that these are not all bikers that will act like this, but I feel that we need to take responsibility for every one in our community and not turn it into a us and them. Because it is not an us and them, but us all.
    Plenty of socialist countries to move to where the citizens have a tight rope around them, I suggest you move to them and leave america to those of us who understand and crave freedom.


    I think that it is shitty for the biking comminity when we get cut out of the deals and new wilderness is made in areas that have trails and bikers have been ridding for a while.
    But all in we are in a spot that we need to protect our wild place from our selves. in our lifetime it is a non renewable resource, by cherrysteming trails into wilderness we our changing our wild spaces
    For me Ed Abbey says it best
    ar you kidding me ? It is a renewable recourse get this PLANTS GROW BACK, its absolutely amazing!!! the other real amazing thing about nature is how quickly it changes itself, note mudslides, volcano's fires or what have ya.

    Wilderness. The word itself is music... the word suggest the past and the unknown, the womb of the earth from which we all emerged. it means something lost and something still present, something remote and at the same time intimate, something buried in our blood and nerves, something beyond us and without limit...But the love of the wilderness is more than hunger for what is beyond reach; it is also an expression of loyalty to the earth. the earth which bore us and sustains us the only home we shall ever know, the only paradise that we ever need....Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit. and as vital to our lives as water and good bread. A civilization which destroys what little remains of the wild, the spore, the original, is cutting itself off from its origins and betraying the principle of civilization itself.
    Have you actually spent any time in wilderness area's? They are rugged by enlarge unaccessable off the trail as their is so much deadfall even larger animals dislike such terrain. They are a fire hazard beyond that which not only effects the land if it should burn over onto other public and private land but it also is a legitimate health hazard to anyone with breathing problems.

    Bottom line, if you want some land that is unaccessable to other people feel free to purchase some on your own, and leave the communist BS out of the US.
    Thanks

  186. #186
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Blurr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,334
    Quote Originally Posted by Curmy
    Nah, that part is fine with me. If you are a part owner of a vacation house - you will arrange when you use it with other owners, wouldn't you? Problem will be if you get treated unfairly and unequally, for no good reason.. Which is what happens to us here.
    You are already charged Via your taxes, Forest Circus is funded from SS I believe. What part of PUBLIC LAND are ya'll haveing trouble understanding?

  187. #187
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Broccoli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,762
    Quote Originally Posted by Blurr
    I suggest you move to them and leave america to those of us who understand and crave freedom.
    I do not think that the freedom to trash and trample things is real freedom. There is nothing socialist about organizing a fair and non-discriminatory sharing of limited common resources. The problem that we had been discussing here is that it is not fair and non-discriminatory, not that it is disorganized.

    You do not expect to be able to park your car anywhere the heck you like in your town? You do not expect to be able to throw your garbage into a common corridor in your apartment building. You do not expect your neighbors to go take a dump on their front lawn. That is not freedom, that's bullsh.t.

    There is nothing wrong with reasonable access limitation to a few of the most popular trails. Keyword here being "reasonable".

    Communism my butt. Some of my earliest memories are KGB agents looking in our flat for illegal literature my parents had been distributing - lucky they had been tipped. You, with all your rethorics, have NO CLUE what you are talking about.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blurr
    You are already charged Via your taxes, Forest Circus is funded from SS I believe. What part of PUBLIC LAND are ya'll haveing trouble understanding?
    What part of the "republic", "organized society" and the "rule of law" does not fit into you? Do you get similarly riled up when you get a parking ticket?

  188. #188
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Blurr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,334
    Quote Originally Posted by Curmy
    I do not think that the freedom to trash and trample things is real freedom. There is nothing socialist about organizing a fair and non-discriminatory sharing of limited common resources. The problem that we had been discussing here is that it is not fair and non-discriminatory, not that it is disorganized.

    You do not expect to be able to park your car anywhere the heck you like in your town? You do not expect to be able to throw your garbage into a common corridor in your apartment building. You do not expect your neighbors to go take a dump on their front lawn. That is not freedom, that's bullsh.t.

    There is nothing wrong with reasonable access limitation to a few of the most popular trails. Keyword here being "reasonable".
    Pemitting is not reasonable and is nothing more than a way to generate revenue, which again, you are already taxed for and adding extra taxes are unconstitutional, the government gets away with it all the time as people are so busy trying to justify why the govenrment should have more money and control and less freedom in their own life.


    Communism my butt. Some of my earliest memories are KGB agents looking in our flat for illegal literature my parents had been distributing - lucky they had been tipped. You, with all your rethorics, have NO CLUE what you are talking about.
    I am half serbian sure bout that?

    What part of the "republic", "organized society" and the "rule of law" does not fit into you? Do you get similarly riled up when you get a parking ticket?
    The rule of law argument is always used by those seeking to perpetuate more control over an already civilized society.
    Now just so we shut down your limited argument that I love people to perpetuate against those of freedom, I have no problem with roads and trails on said lands, providing everyone is indeed allowed access. That woudl be reasonable, unreasonable would be permitting and monitoring people and denying them access,

  189. #189
    mtbr member
    Reputation: robinlikethebird's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    129
    [QUOTE=Blurr]Pemitting is not reasonable and is nothing more than a way to generate revenue"

    Permits do not mean that you have to pay..there are other means for permitting then just to raise money.

    And i could be wrong , but is permitting the american thing to do. Why should we have to pay taxes for any of this if any thing that seems to me to be a socialist idea?

    And just to give me some ideas could you name some of those socialist countries the i should move to.

  190. #190
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Blurr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,334
    [QUOTE=robinlikethebird]
    Quote Originally Posted by Blurr
    Pemitting is not reasonable and is nothing more than a way to generate revenue"

    Permits do not mean that you have to pay..there are other means for permitting then just to raise money.
    so the point of permitting would be what then, so everyone has a flashy sticker and feels like they belong?

    And i could be wrong , but is permitting the american thing to do. Why should we have to pay taxes for any of this if any thing that seems to me to be a socialist idea?
    Ya may want to read how this country was founded and why, you may also want to read their thoughts on the entire constitutional process. It had everything to do with Limiting the powers of the government and expanding the powers of the people, not the other way around.


    And just to give me some ideas could you name some of those socialist countries the i should move to.
    Do some traveling and decide on your own.

  191. #191
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Broccoli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,762
    Quote Originally Posted by Blurr
    I am half serbian sure bout that?
    Yes, I am reasonably sure by now, after reading your posts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blurr
    Now just so we shut down your limited argument that I love people to perpetuate against those of freedom, I have no problem with roads and trails on said lands, providing everyone is indeed allowed access. That woudl be reasonable, unreasonable would be permitting and monitoring people and denying them access,
    You are not even in the zip code of basic logic. Have your ever obtained a trail permit? What was so unreasonable about that, beside the fact that it is not granted to cyclists? Had you been monitored by DHS agents there?

    Its public PROPERTY. Of course it should be regulated and managed. You are a bad property owner if you just let it rot and get trashed by every wanker from the street. The only question is how we do that so that everybody gets a fair piece.

  192. #192
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Blurr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,334
    [QUOTE=Curmy]


    You are not even in the zip code of basic logic. Have your ever obtained a trail permit? What was so unreasonable about that, beside the fact that it is not granted to cyclists? Had you been monitored by DHS agents there?
    because there is zero reason to have a permit at all that's why.

    Its public PROPERTY. Of course it should be regulated and managed. You are a bad property owner if you just let it rot and get trashed by every wanker from the street. The only question is how we do that so that everybody gets a fair piece.
    Very simple by allowing access to the public in a variety of ways to accommodate said public. Be it ATVs, MTN bikes, horses, gliders what have you, if you want a structured trail system that is fine, provided it does allow realistic access for people to actually enjoy their sport.
    Now I have read your posts and you seem to be mostly for that, so for the benefit of other readers on here the best example I can give you with most of your logic is that credit card ad where the child gets a little boxed off area to ride her bike, cept its not actually big enough for her to ride.

  193. #193
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    545
    Keep talking Blurr. Your making the ultra-pro-Wilderness groups sound sane.
    You on the payroll of the Sierra Club or something? Working the counter-agent action there comrade?

  194. #194
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Blurr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,334
    Quote Originally Posted by Shelbak73
    Keep talking Blurr. Your making the ultra-pro-Wilderness groups sound sane.
    You on the payroll of the Sierra Club or something? Working the counter-agent action there comrade?
    Its called the principles America were founded on, ya might want to educate yourself on those mouth.

  195. #195
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Broccoli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,762
    Quote Originally Posted by Blurr
    Its called the principles America were founded on, ya might want to educate yourself on those mouth.
    Really? Making baseless assertions based on your personal preferences are the founding principles of U.S.A.?

    I thought it was the rule of the law, organized society and a reasonable compromise between individual freedoms and general welfare of the nation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blurr
    because there is zero reason to have a permit at all that's why.
    I take it you have never been to the zoo's that are some popular trails in California.

    Zero reason? Says who? Democratically elected representatives of the people of US - or some random interwebz dude?

    Quote Originally Posted by Shelbak73
    Keep talking Blurr. Your making the ultra-pro-Wilderness groups sound sane.
    No, nothing will make them sound sane.

  196. #196
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Blurr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,334
    Quote Originally Posted by Curmy
    Really? Making baseless assertions based on your personal preferences are the founding principles of U.S.A.?
    Everything about the foundation of this country is the limitation of the government while giving people the chance to exist and to find happyness, that is not done by oppressing your people and only allowing a special, select few access to something which they pay for, called public land.
    Lets start here
    http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm
    http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/
    http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

    I suggest you read it all.

    I thought it was the rule of the law, organized society and a reasonable compromise between individual freedoms and general welfare of the nation.
    Americans rebelled against the Rule of law when it became to oppressive, comprende?

    I take it you have never been to the zoo's that are some popular trails in California.
    yea thats it

    Zero reason? Says who? Democratically elected representatives of the people of US - or some random interwebz dude?
    America is a constitutional republic, not a democracy just an FYI their champ. Just because someone is elected does not make them royalty, nor because laws are passed does it make them right, or even American for that matter, but I sincerely doubt you really care, it seems you are just trolling for attention. so either bring up an actual argument, or carry on.

  197. #197
    eschewing obfuscation
    Reputation: 44gnats's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    319
    i ride 7-12 hr/week off road, on average; i race, typically, once a month. if i didn't work 60hrs/week, i would certainly ride more (this is my way of saying that i love to ride mnt. bikes).
    that said, i would give up every second of it for our nation to designate more lands as wilderness and to keep people and their mechanized toys out of it. in fact, when i am not working or riding, i am donating time and money to organizations like Wild South, aimed at this mission, among others.
    i find the bulk of posts on this thread to be angry, unscientific, selfish, manifest-destiny arguments which have little to no scientific basis. for crying out load: folks are quoting the most conservative members of congress from a newspaper (the washington times) widely known (to thinking people, at least) as tabloid-like. the whole thing makes me sad, frankly.
    i think david brower said it best:
    "we didn't inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children."
    "Bikes have wheels." -Noam Chomsky

  198. #198
    banned
    Reputation: cruso414's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,101
    Quote Originally Posted by 44gnats
    i ride 7-12 hr/week off road, on average; i race, typically, once a month. if i didn't work 60hrs/week, i would certainly ride more (this is my way of saying that i love to ride mnt. bikes).
    that said, i would give up every second of it for our nation to designate more lands as wilderness and to keep people and their mechanized toys out of it. in fact, when i am not working or riding, i am donating time and money to organizations like Wild South, aimed at this mission, among others.
    i find the bulk of posts on this thread to be angry, unscientific, selfish, manifest-destiny arguments which have little to no scientific basis. for crying out load: folks are quoting the most conservative members of congress from a newspaper (the washington times) widely known (to thinking people, at least) as tabloid-like. the whole thing makes me sad, frankly.
    i think david brower said it best:
    "we didn't inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children."
    I'm proud to say that I actually know this guy. Great post!

  199. #199
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Broccoli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,762
    Quote Originally Posted by Blurr
    Everything about the foundation of this country is the limitation of the government while giving people the chance to exist and to find happyness
    Did you actually read the constitution? Did you understand it? Do you understand what the "reality" is?

  200. #200
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Broccoli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,762
    Quote Originally Posted by 44gnats
    i find the bulk of posts on this thread to be angry, unscientific, selfish, manifest-destiny arguments which have little to no scientific basis.
    Actually, it is your post only that is unscientific and utterly selfish.

    Mechanized toys? I assume you hike naked, do not own a car and eat what you find there.

    Yes, we borrow the Earth from our children, and I am sure our children would like to be able to enjoy it, just like we do, not live in a walled off urban jungle.

    I want to take my sun for a ride on a nice singletrack. It does not diminish the value of that land in no way, or form, or shape. It is the sanctimonious asshats like you who are trying to take our land from us and from our children based on their misplaced anger and radical anti-human beliefs.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

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 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.