Federal Rules Regarding E-mtb - Page 3- Mtbr.com
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 401 to 463 of 463
  1. #401
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,427
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    When the author is capable of actually making actual changes to have policy align with his views it's not an "opinion piece". If you want to get mad at someone over that comment get mad at the editor for allowing the stock title template to be used.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk





    And there you go jumping to conclusions again. SMH.
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  2. #402
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ruthabagah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    205
    Quote Originally Posted by life behind bars View Post
    And there you go jumping to conclusions again. SMH.
    William Perry Pendley serves as the Bureau of Land Management’s Deputy Director for Policy and Programs, exercising authority of the director.

    I translated this in English so that you can re-read it. And stop syh while reading that might help for comprehension. Actually, never mind, its you, just carry on.

  3. #403
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    323
    Quote Originally Posted by ruthabagah View Post
    Interesting BLM news From:

    "William Perry Pendley serves as the Bureau of Land Management’s Deputy Director for Policy and Programs, exercising authority of the director."

    https://www.deseret.com/opinion/2019...ore-accessible
    "Who knows, maybe my son will be willing to saddle up with his old man and tempt those high-mountain passes again. I hope so — and I hope to see you all out there with us."

    This right here is why eBikes are capable of breaking down the doors to places regular bikes never would. When old people in comfortable high power jobs want to use them, there is no net incentive to siding with the anti-wheel people. This deserves it's own thread.

    Also this:
    "In Tuesday’s meeting, BLM Park Ranger Gary Keeling said the BLM hasn’t “really advertised” that trails are open to e-bikes, but when someone asks, they tell them e-bikes of any class are allowed."
    https://www.summitdaily.com/news/ste...-e-bike-rules/

    And this:
    "That's a good segue into what we're doing over in Hale Lake, that we will make special designations where e-bikes can operate," she said.

    As for any changes in regulations, Canfield said the USFS would only be looking at the lowest classifications, the pedal assist, "because with the other, you start getting up to 28 mph and that could cause problems. It almost is a mini motorcycle.".

    She expects the USDA to be under some pressure to review the e-bike rules, she said.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.rui...amp/2488069001

  4. #404
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,892
    Quote Originally Posted by life behind bars View Post
    And there you go jumping to conclusions again. SMH.
    And what "conclusion" did I jump to?

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk

  5. #405
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    3

  6. #406
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    396
    I have noticed that the bow hunters in Utah were out in force this year with e*fat bikes. Even though some horse folks might not like ebikes, many hunters that might side with the horses are also game to the ebike. [see what I did there]

  7. #407
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    348
    I am no lawyer, far from it-but the suit seems to make a point about passing this rule to allow eMTBs without public knowledge or comment period...at least the national forest ruling was given that public notice and time to comment and each land manager to respond?

  8. #408
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,892
    Quote Originally Posted by stiksandstones View Post
    I am no lawyer, far from it-but the suit seems to make a point about passing this rule to allow eMTBs without public knowledge or comment period...at least the national forest ruling was given that public notice and time to comment and each land manager to respond?
    From what I read you are correct. Which essentially does nothing to block access if that area is dead set on it. It would effectively just delay it.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk
    Last edited by tuckerjt07; 01-08-2020 at 05:12 PM.

  9. #409
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    323
    Forest Service officially looking into expanding eBike access in areas they are currently banned:
    https://www.fs.fed.us/visit/e-bikes

  10. #410
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,427
    Quote Originally Posted by figofspee View Post
    Forest Service officially looking into expanding eBike access in areas they are currently banned:
    https://www.fs.fed.us/visit/e-bikes




    and the entire order is being challenged in the courts.
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  11. #411
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    323
    Which lawsuit are you referring to?

  12. #412
    SS Pusher Man
    Reputation: mtnbikej's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    7,543
    https://www.bicycleretailer.com/indu...t#.Xf4veEdKi00

    Park Service disbands e-bike advisory group over secret lobbying concerns

    WASHINGTON (BRAIN) — The National Park Service, facing a lawsuit from conservation groups for allowing e-bikes on non-motorized trails, disbanded a bike-industry group that has been accused of secret lobbying for that access.

    The Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility and a coalition of conservation groups are suing to restore a ban on e-bikes on NPS non-motorized trails. According to the suit, the E-bike Partner & Agency Group's meetings with the staff of Interior Secretary David Bernhardt and Deputy NPS Director P. Daniel Smith violated the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which requires transparency to prevent secret lobbying.

    "This e-bike call will conclude our 'Partner and Agency' calls. ... This is to ensure that we avoid any conflict with the Federal Advisory Committee Act," said an email from an NPS official to colleagues dated Oct. 9 and obtained by PEER through the Freedom of Information Act.

    In another email obtained by PEER, a U.S. Forest Service official expressed concern about the meetings because they were not open and didn't include anyone outside e-bike and mountain bike advocates.

    The lawsuit, filed earlier this month, contends the group did not give public notice of its meetings. PEER said the group included only e-bike and mountain biking advocates.

    The International Mountain Bicycling Association initially said it participated in quarterly interagency and partner e-bike meetings. It later clarified that those meetings were with the E-bike Partner & Agency Group.

    "As a nonprofit educational organization representing mountain bikers, not the bicycle industry, IMBA engages with the federal government on many levels," IMBA said in a statement to BRAIN. "IMBA was an invited participant in quarterly interagency and partner e-bike meetings. IMBA participated to represent and protect access for traditional, non-motorized mountain bikes, to be an educational resource, and to advocate for the importance of public process and independent management of e-MTBs.

    "IMBA's e-MTB position emphasizes the need for e-MTBs to be managed separately from traditional mountain bikes and encourages a public process to determine where e-MTB access is appropriate."

    PeopleForBikes issued a statement to BRAIN, saying it has worked with policymakers for several years on e-bike access.

    "PeopleForBikes took the lead in 2014 to educate federal, state, and local policymakers on the e-bikes and the manner in which they are addressed in a variety of policy sectors. An important objective of this work is to synchronize terms and policies across government entities so that access rules are easy for everyone to understand. Federal land management agencies are critical to this evolution, as many of the best biking experiences in the U.S. are on federal public lands.

    "Since September 2017, PeopleForBikes has provided education and outreach on electric bicycles to land managers and nonprofit partners ultimately charged with understanding and/or managing their use. These stakeholder groups expressed interest and knowledge gaps in e-bike demographics; sales data; use patterns; research and statistics; and policies across states, localities, and agencies. Our groups met to share knowledge around these topics. We were joined by numerous nonprofit organizations who provided their opinions and expertise on recreation management specific to e-bike use."

    The Adventure Cycling Association also was part of the E-bike Partner & Agency Group but would not comment on the lawsuit or the group's disbanding.

    An NPS spokesperson said the service disagrees with the lawsuit's premise and didn't respond to a request to comment on dissolving the e-bike group.

    The lawsuit filed in District of Columbia District Court claims that the Park Service violated its own regulations that may not be set aside by administrative fiat; improperly evaded legally required environmental reviews; and came from an official, Smith, who lacked the authority to issue such an order.

    In August, the Department of Interior ruled all classes of e-bikes will be regulated as traditional pedal bicycles on non-motorized federal lands, which includes the NPS and Bureau of Land Management. That decision allows agencies to regulate e-bikes as they see fit, just like with traditional bikes.

    Co-plaintiffs are Wilderness Watch, Marin Conservation League, Environmental Action Committee of West Marin, Save Our Seashore, and three impacted individuals.

    This is the second lawsuit against allowing e-bikes on non-motorized trails in the past two months. A group of trail and forest advocates sued the U.S. Forest Service in October for allowing Class 1 e-bikes on non-motorized trails in the Tahoe National Forest in California without first conducting a public study. While the Department of Interior oversees the NPS, the Department of Agriculture has jurisdiction over the forest service.

    Class 1 e-bikes are pedal assist only with no throttle and have a maximum powered speed of 20 mph.
    Bicycles don’t have motors or batteries.:nono:

    Ebikes are not bicycles :nono:

  13. #413
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    323
    Quote Originally Posted by mtnbikej View Post
    https://www.bicycleretailer.com/indu...t#.Xf4veEdKi00

    Park Service disbands e-bike advisory group over secret lobbying concerns

    WASHINGTON (BRAIN) — The National Park Service, facing a lawsuit from conservation groups for allowing e-bikes on non-motorized trails, disbanded a bike-industry group that has been accused of secret lobbying for that access.

    The Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility and a coalition of conservation groups are suing to restore a ban on e-bikes on NPS non-motorized trails......

    .......This is the second lawsuit against allowing e-bikes on non-motorized trails in the past two months. A group of trail and forest advocates sued the U.S. Forest Service in October for allowing Class 1 e-bikes on non-motorized trails in the Tahoe National Forest in California without first conducting a public study. While the Department of Interior oversees the NPS, the Department of Agriculture has jurisdiction over the forest service.
    .
    We have had 2 lawsuits so far. One directed at the trails in Tahoe and one directed at trails in National Parks.

    The BCHA lawsuit directed at the Forest Service is good for eBike access as it forces their hands to change the laws Nationally rather then in small pockets.

    The PEER lawsuit is directed at singletrack trails in the NPS, or .0000001 percent of the singletrack affected by the DOI order. This lawsuit highlights how pathetic bike access is in our National Parks.

  14. #414
    slow
    Reputation: sgltrak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    6,397
    Quote Originally Posted by figofspee View Post
    The BCHA lawsuit directed at the Forest Service is good for eBike access as it forces their hands to change the laws Nationally rather then in small pockets.
    Could one other possible result of this lawsuit be the loss of all bike access in some areas if the land agency decides that prohibiting all bikes would be easier than trying to discern the difference between eBikes and non-eBikes?

  15. #415
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    323
    Quote Originally Posted by sgltrak View Post
    Could one other possible result of this lawsuit be the loss of all bike access in some areas if the land agency decides that prohibiting all bikes would be easier than trying to discern the difference between eBikes and non-eBikes?
    The Agency is the Tahoe National Forest. You could ask them what the outcome might be, as they are a better source of information about their intent then I am. They took down the part of the website that showed what trails they determined riding an eBike acceptable.

  16. #416
    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ SuperModerator
    Reputation: Klurejr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    7,025
    Quote Originally Posted by sgltrak View Post
    Could one other possible result of this lawsuit be the loss of all bike access in some areas if the land agency decides that prohibiting all bikes would be easier than trying to discern the difference between eBikes and non-eBikes?
    yes, that is one possible result.

    for now though all we can do is speculate.
    Ride Bikes, Drink Craft Beer, Repeat.

    Know these before you post:
    MTBR Posting Guidelines

  17. #417
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,892
    Quote Originally Posted by sgltrak View Post
    Could one other possible result of this lawsuit be the loss of all bike access in some areas if the land agency decides that prohibiting all bikes would be easier than trying to discern the difference between eBikes and non-eBikes?
    It would be a highly unlikely result.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk

  18. #418
    beater
    Reputation: evasive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,556
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    It would be a highly unlikely result.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk
    Your perspective in Arkansas is very different from mine in Montana.

  19. #419
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,892
    Quote Originally Posted by evasive View Post
    Your perspective in Arkansas is very different from mine in Montana.
    Local perspective has little to nothing to do with it if you are talking about the suit against Tahoe.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk

  20. #420
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    323
    https://www.governor.nh.gov/news-med...10-e-bikes.htm

    Concord, NH – Today, Governor Chris Sununu issued the following statement after signing on to a letter with Governor Doug Ducey of Arizona regarding the classification of E-Bikes by the National Forest Service:

    "E-Bikes are an invaluable tool to ensure that individuals of all abilities are able to access and enjoy the Granite State's great outdoors," said Governor Chris Sununu. "I urge the National Forest Service to reconsider the classification of E-Bikes as motor vehicles in an effort to expand opportunity and access to all that New Hampshire has to offer."

  21. #421
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    8,341
    Quote Originally Posted by figofspee View Post
    https://www.governor.nh.gov/news-med...10-e-bikes.htm

    Concord, NH – Today, Governor Chris Sununu issued the following statement after signing on to a letter with Governor Doug Ducey of Arizona regarding the classification of E-Bikes by the National Forest Service:

    "E-Bikes are an invaluable tool to ensure that individuals of all abilities are able to access and enjoy the Granite State's great outdoors," said Governor Chris Sununu. "I urge the National Forest Service to reconsider the classification of E-Bikes as motor vehicles in an effort to expand opportunity and access to all that New Hampshire has to offer."
    Considering the near total absence of MTB trails in most the WMNF this really isn't much to get excited about. Kinda like being getting permission to use a motorboat in Death Valley.
    Sinister Bikes
    Wraith Bicycles
    Sunday River Mtn Bike Park
    NEMBA
    Wachusett Brewing Co.

  22. #422
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,892
    Quote Originally Posted by slapheadmofo View Post
    Considering the near total absence of MTB trails in most the WMNF this really isn't much to get excited about. Kinda like being getting permission to use a motorboat in Death Valley.
    You realize his request isn't limited to a single forest right?

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk

  23. #423
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    5,454
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    You realize his request isn't limited to a single forest right?

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk
    It's NH, so yes Slap is correct. A few other NF lands exist in NH. mostly small with really steep hiking trails.

  24. #424
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,892
    Quote Originally Posted by leeboh View Post
    It's NH, so yes Slap is correct. A few other NF lands exist in NH. mostly small with really steep hiking trails.
    It's not just NH. It's NH's governor, along with AZ's, asking for a policy change on a national level.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk

  25. #425
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    323
    https://www.governor.nh.gov/news-med...sist-bikes.pdf

    PDF of the govenors asking for the Forest Service to change the rules on a national level, for those who didn't follow through and read the letter before commenting.

  26. #426
    beater
    Reputation: evasive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,556
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    Local perspective has little to nothing to do with it if you are talking about the suit against Tahoe.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk
    It does if you’re trying to predict how that ball might bounce, which you are. My perspective is shaped by considerable experience with the USFS and the Backcountry Horsemen- which as I said, is likely to be different than yours.

  27. #427
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,892
    Quote Originally Posted by evasive View Post
    It does if you’re trying to predict how that ball might bounce, which you are. My perspective is shaped by considerable experience with the USFS and the Backcountry Horsemen- which as I said, is likely to be different than yours.
    I'm not predicting which way the ball will bounce. In fact I can comfortably make the statement without predicting the outcome of the suit due to what it's about. In the case of Tahoe the suit is not about access but rather process. It is also a localized issue. Neither one of those things lends to any measurable form of impact on a macro level. The only potential thing would be more due dillegence in the public commenting phase.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk

  28. #428
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: Harryman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,733
    Watching my local forest district spending years jumping through hoops and countless dollars in response to a lawsuit about not going through NEPAs for trail use for trails that were grandfathered in when the properties BECAME USFS land a hundred+ years ago, don't underestimate the power of lawsuits to delay implementing pretty much anything.

  29. #429
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,892
    Quote Originally Posted by Harryman View Post
    Watching my local forest district spending years jumping through hoops and countless dollars in response to a lawsuit about not going through NEPAs for trail use for trails that were grandfathered in when the properties BECAME USFS land a hundred+ years ago, don't underestimate the power of lawsuits to delay implementing pretty much anything.
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    From what I read you are correct. Which essentially does nothing to block access if that area is dead set on it. It would effectively just delay it.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk
    Not underestimating it all.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk

  30. #430
    bipedal
    Reputation: levity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    655
    Quote Originally Posted by slapheadmofo View Post
    ... Kinda like being getting permission to use a motorboat in Death Valley.
    Badwater, DVNP, March 2005

    Federal Rules Regarding E-mtb-dvnp-march-2005.jpeg

    but no eBoats allowed, only human powered craft

  31. #431
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    323
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    I'm not predicting which way the ball will bounce. In fact I can comfortably make the statement without predicting the outcome of the suit due to what it's about. In the case of Tahoe the suit is not about access but rather process. It is also a localized issue. Neither one of those things lends to any measurable form of impact on a macro level. The only potential thing would be more due dillegence in the public commenting phase.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk
    This will have an effect on a macro level, just not what the BCHA are hoping for. This lawsuit will speed up the process of the USFS equating eBikes with regular bikes on a national level so that groups like the BCHA cannot sue local Forest Agencies anymore. This lawsuit also inspires the USFS to expand access to all three eBikes classes, partially to spite the the BCHA and partially to protect against any future lawsuits. The only long term real change on a local level is that I would expect either covert or overt retaliation against horsepeople from the TNF. The BCHA cut off their nose to spite their face on this one.

  32. #432
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,892
    Quote Originally Posted by figofspee View Post
    This will have an effect on a macro level, just not what the BCHA are hoping for. This lawsuit will speed up the process of the USFS equating eBikes with regular bikes on a national level so that groups like the BCHA cannot sue local Forest Agencies anymore. This lawsuit also inspires the USFS to expand access to all three eBikes classes, partially to spite the the BCHA and partially to protect against any future lawsuits. The only long term real change on a local level is that I would expect either covert or overt retaliation against horsepeople from the TNF. The BCHA cut off their nose to spite their face on this one.
    That's one possible outcome but it's not the most likely scenario.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk

  33. #433
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    323
    Suing people you rely on for permits, access, and infrastructure rarely works in your favor. It is an attack they won't soon forget, especially considering government workers don't like being bossed around by lowly citizens.

  34. #434
    Single(Pivot)and Happy
    Reputation: Boulder Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by figofspee View Post
    Suing people you rely on for permits, access, and infrastructure rarely works in your favor. It is an attack they won't soon forget, especially considering government workers don't like being bossed around by lowly citizens.
    This statement shows a complete lack of understanding of how advocacy works. It is not uncommon for mountain biking advocates to be siding with USFS in one courtroom and against USFS in another. If one is stupid enough to make this process personal, well, then you stupid people.
    The suspension of your bike sucks if it's different than mine. Really. It sucks. Big time.

  35. #435
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,892
    Quote Originally Posted by Boulder Pilot View Post
    This statement shows a complete lack of understanding of how advocacy works. It is not uncommon for mountain biking advocates to be siding with USFS in one courtroom and against USFS in another. If one is stupid enough to make this process personal, well, then it's illegal and a huge fiscal liability.(If from the USFS side)
    Fify

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk

  36. #436
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    323
    If one is stupid enough to make this process personal, well, then you stupid people.

    Oh the irony

  37. #437
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    8,341
    Quote Originally Posted by levity View Post
    Badwater, DVNP, March 2005

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DVNP March  2005.jpeg 
Views:	16 
Size:	40.0 KB 
ID:	1304201

    but no eBoats allowed, only human powered craft
    HA! I knew I should've looked into that better before using it as an example.

    Sinister Bikes
    Wraith Bicycles
    Sunday River Mtn Bike Park
    NEMBA
    Wachusett Brewing Co.

  38. #438
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    8,341
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    You realize his request isn't limited to a single forest right?

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk
    Yup.

    "in an effort to expand opportunity and access to all that New Hampshire has to offer".

    He definitely specifically mentioned NH though, to which I was responding. The WMNF is pretty much the only game in the state as for as NF goes. Not much for MTB trails for the most part, with a few notable exceptions.

    We've got a member on here who has played a key role in creating much of the good stuff up there. I'd be curious to get his take. Maybe e-bikers will organize and start building more, area could use it. Tough going terrain-wise though.
    Sinister Bikes
    Wraith Bicycles
    Sunday River Mtn Bike Park
    NEMBA
    Wachusett Brewing Co.

  39. #439
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,892
    Quote Originally Posted by slapheadmofo View Post
    Yup.

    "in an effort to expand opportunity and access to all that New Hampshire has to offer".

    He definitely specifically mentioned NH though, to which I was responding. The WMNF is pretty much the only game in the state as for as NF goes. Not much for MTB trails for the most part, with a few notable exceptions.

    We've got a member on here who has played a key role in creating much of the good stuff up there. I'd be curious to get his take. Maybe e-bikers will organize and start building more, area could use it. Tough going terrain-wise though.
    I recommend actually reading the entirety of the article and the linked material provided within it.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk

  40. #440
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    8,341
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    I recommend actually reading the entirety of the article and the linked material provided within it.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk
    I did.

    My comments were clearly, obviously and specifically regarding the WMNF and NH and stand true. Nothing more nothing less. Relax.
    Sinister Bikes
    Wraith Bicycles
    Sunday River Mtn Bike Park
    NEMBA
    Wachusett Brewing Co.

  41. #441
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,892
    Quote Originally Posted by slapheadmofo View Post
    I did.

    My comments were clearly, obviously and specifically regarding the WMNF and NH and stand true. Nothing more nothing less. Relax.
    I find it kind of odd that you'd say it's nothing to get excited about when I can think of over 100 miles off the top of my head that it would effect and you single out a national forest, out of how many, that has no real mountain bike trail network.

    It's actually a huge deal that could potentially effect thousands of miles of trail all throughout the country.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk

  42. #442
    beater
    Reputation: evasive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,556
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    I'm not predicting which way the ball will bounce. In fact I can comfortably make the statement without predicting the outcome of the suit due to what it's about. In the case of Tahoe the suit is not about access but rather process. It is also a localized issue. Neither one of those things lends to any measurable form of impact on a macro level. The only potential thing would be more due dillegence in the public commenting phase.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk
    These types of land use questions almost always come down to process, and precedent can be important in USFS decision making.

  43. #443
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,892
    Quote Originally Posted by evasive View Post
    These types of land use questions almost always come down to process, and precedent can be important in USFS decision making.
    Precedent is important. However, again, in this case the precedent being set is not going to ultimately impact access. It has the potential to impact the speed at which decisions are ultimately made but that's where the scope of influence ends.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk

  44. #444
    beater
    Reputation: evasive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,556
    Quote Originally Posted by figofspee View Post
    Suing people you rely on for permits, access, and infrastructure rarely works in your favor. It is an attack they won't soon forget, especially considering government workers don't like being bossed around by lowly citizens.
    I’m not sure I’d you’re basing this on experience, but from my own this is entirely wrong. Agency staff see that as a routine part of their job ever since the environmental NGO community started going after NEPA processes. They may not be thrilled about it, but they expect it. There aren’t a lot of projects that don’t get litigated in some regions. Sometimes a lawsuit (or threat of one) from another side helps them steer the ship down the middle, too.

    Believe it or not, it’s not unheard of for agency staff to welcome some lawsuits that can budge management decision making in favorable directions.

  45. #445
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    8,341
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    you single out a national forest, out of how many, that has no real mountain bike trail network.
    I find it odd that no matter how clearly something is stated and explained to you, you seem completely unable to comprehend it.

    Go play e-lawyer with someone else; you bore me.
    Sinister Bikes
    Wraith Bicycles
    Sunday River Mtn Bike Park
    NEMBA
    Wachusett Brewing Co.

  46. #446
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,892
    Quote Originally Posted by slapheadmofo View Post
    I find it odd that no matter how clearly something is stated and explained to you, you seem completely unable to comprehend it.

    Go play e-lawyer with someone else; you bore me.
    The fact that you're now cherry picking and consciously ignoring the part where you erroneously called it no big deal just leads more credence to the fact, that no, you did not read all the material before posting.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk

  47. #447
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    8,341
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    The fact that you're now cherry picking and consciously ignoring the part where you erroneously called it no big deal just leads more credence to the fact, that no, you did not read all the material before posting.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk
    I cherry picked from the beginning, and made it perfectly clear that that was exactly what I was doing. No one else has any trouble understanding that aside from you.

    Maybe you think it's a big deal, I don't.

    Derrr.....
    Sinister Bikes
    Wraith Bicycles
    Sunday River Mtn Bike Park
    NEMBA
    Wachusett Brewing Co.

  48. #448
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,892
    Quote Originally Posted by slapheadmofo View Post
    I cherry picked from the beginning, and made it perfectly clear that that was exactly what I was doing. No one else has any trouble understanding that aside from you.

    Maybe you think it's a big deal, I don't.

    Derrr.....
    Uh huh

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk

  49. #449
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: Harryman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,733
    Quote Originally Posted by figofspee View Post
    This will have an effect on a macro level, just not what the BCHA are hoping for. This lawsuit will speed up the process of the USFS equating eBikes with regular bikes on a national level so that groups like the BCHA cannot sue local Forest Agencies anymore. This lawsuit also inspires the USFS to expand access to all three eBikes classes, partially to spite the the BCHA and partially to protect against any future lawsuits. The only long term real change on a local level is that I would expect either covert or overt retaliation against horsepeople from the TNF. The BCHA cut off their nose to spite their face on this one.
    We've had local trail systems shut down and a million bucks spent to reroute them over a multi year process in response to just the threat of a lawsuit in our local USFS district. If you think that having a national level decision will end lawsuits at the local level about that decision, you're dreaming.

  50. #450
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    323
    The TNF was violating national law by allowing eBikes on nonmotorized trails. The foundation of the lawsuit against the TNF is that they can't do that. If the National law is changed to allow eBikes the same rights as bicycles, then the threat of lawsuit diminishes greatly. One need only look at the amount of lawsuits (zero) directed at land managers of the BLM who are currently allowing ebikes on nonmotorized trails (many) and you will see the logic of the Forest Service in allowing eBikes on nonmotorized trails Nationwide. The fact that the lawsuit comes from a user group that, despite being the most dangerous and most destructive, enjoys ninety something percent access to the Forest, won't go unnoticed. Regardless of the individuals agreement with the context of the lawsuit, nobody in the Forest Service wants excessive lawsuits that will shrink the Forest Service's already puny resources.

  51. #451
    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ SuperModerator
    Reputation: Klurejr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    7,025
    I am not sure about what it is like in other parts of the country, but in California BLM land already has a huge amount of Motorized vehicle access in the form of OHV use, Motorcycles, Side by Sides, Buggies, trucks, etc. I spent a big part of my Teens riding Dirt Bikes on BLM single track.

    The national Forrest's in my area are very different, there are some limited areas of single track for motorcycles, but most of the access for OHV is on Dirt Roads.

    It makes sense that none of the groups who would typically file suit for environmental reasons have not engaged for eBike use on BLM land. But that could change.

    I don't think we will see the same with regard for National Forrest.

    The very idea of "one size fits all" rules working for every single trail system is bonkers to me.
    Ride Bikes, Drink Craft Beer, Repeat.

    Know these before you post:
    MTBR Posting Guidelines

  52. #452
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    323
    The typical groups that sue for environmental reasons haven't sued individual national park offices about their allowing ebikes on the same infrastructure as bicycles, and very few have signed into the PEER lawsuit. If they plan to ramp up the lawsuits for the USFS, they are setting a terrible precedent by ignoring National Parks.

  53. #453
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,986
    Quote Originally Posted by figofspee View Post
    The typical groups that sue for environmental reasons haven't sued individual national park offices about their allowing ebikes on the same infrastructure as bicycles, and very few have signed into the PEER lawsuit. If they plan to ramp up the lawsuits for the USFS, they are setting a terrible precedent by ignoring National Parks.
    Mostly because the number of trails that allow bikes on them in the NPS is so small as to be inconsequential.

    The one “trail” that DOES allow bikes that I’ve seen is a glorified rail trail.

    I doubt there are any actual dirt mountain bike trails in an actual National Park. Sure, there are lands managed by the National Park Service that allow them, but they aren’t NPs.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Death from Below.

  54. #454
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    323
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    Mostly because the number of trails that allow bikes on them in the NPS is so small as to be inconsequential.

    The one “trail” that DOES allow bikes that I’ve seen is a glorified rail trail.

    I doubt there are any actual dirt mountain bike trails in an actual National Park. Sure, there are lands managed by the National Park Service that allow them, but they aren’t NPs.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    https://www.bicycling.com/rides/a200...rks-hell-yeah/

    There is few trails that are affected, but if they allow eBikes on even one piece of nonmotorized singletrack in the National Park, then they are setting a precedent. The National Parks are a much easier avenue for environmental outrage than BLM and even USFS and that is why PEER most likely chose that route. The problem is that the wealthy older folks are both the biggest consumers of eBikes and the biggest donors to these environ'mental' organizations. The Sierra Club is completely absent in this discussion because it won't move the needle donation wise in a positive donation. PEER misrepresents the Order's position as allowing ebikes on all national park trails in an attempt to drum up outrage:

    "The Code of Federal Regulations indicate that motorized vehicles shall not be used in certain circumstances," he said. "And so in order for that to be changed, the Park Service does need to go through the rule-making process to make those changes. With regard to using e-Bikes on many trails in the National Park System, we think that's a bad idea. We're concerned that once the camel's nose is under the tent that we may see the entire camel inside one day, and so we're very concerned that these processes be followed and that a wide array of public input is sought and listened to.

    "I think the public in general, at least from my experience, would like to see some places on this Earth where there aren't motorized, mechanized, devices," Francis added. "In certain parks, conflicting uses is also a concern. Maybe in some urban parks e-Bikes might make sense. In Shenandoah National Park, in Great Smoky Mountains National Park, in the Blue Ridge Parkway, on backcountry trails, we think it's a bad idea. We have horseback riders and hikers, fallen trees, and reduced law enforcement staff, reduced capacity to handle accidents and injuries. There's a whole host of reasons why we think e-Bikes are inappropriate in many of our parks."


    The Environmental groups erroneously view the Order as affecting every trail in every national park. They are cool with eBikes on some nonmotorized singletrack though, which makes their opposition to the Order all the more ignorant.

  55. #455
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,892
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    I doubt there are any actual dirt mountain bike trails in an actual National Park. Sure, there are lands managed by the National Park Service that allow them, but they aren’t NPs.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Nope, Hot Springs National Park has one, dirt singletrack, under construction.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk

  56. #456
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,986
    The only property from that link that is actually an NP and will have (not yet) single track that will allow bikes is Cuyahoga.

    One (1) park.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Death from Below.

  57. #457
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,892
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    The only property from that link that is actually an NP and will have (not yet) single track that will allow bikes is Cuyahoga.

    One (1) park.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    That would be two parks at a minimum then.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk

  58. #458
    Cycologist
    Reputation: chazpat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    6,095
    I live two miles from a NPS managed park that allows mountain bikes, as Le Duke mentioned, it is not a National Park but rather a NPS National Recreation Area. We have 7 miles of mtb trail (hikers allowed) as well as another 3 miles of what I call "the flats", a wide crushed granite path along the river. The Park Service recently bought an old farm that backs up to another section of the park and the NPS has talked about creating a multiuse path through that section and the newly acquired parkland, though I doubt it would be mtb type trail at all. But I'll take it as it would allow me to connect "the flats" via bike lane to the new path to another bike lane on my road bike, connecting two of my standard road routes that are not safely connected at this time.
    This post is a natural product. Variances in spelling & grammar should be appreciated as part of its character & beauty.

  59. #459
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    323
    The number of National Parks that allow mountain bikers again isn't all that relevant, but here is more:

    https://www.active.com/mountain-biki...bikers/slide-4

  60. #460
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,986
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    That would be two parks at a minimum then.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk
    Which other National Park allows mountain bikes on single track?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Death from Below.

  61. #461
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,892
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    Which other National Park allows mountain bikes on single track?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    You skipped right past it. I've already posted it.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk

  62. #462
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,986
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    You skipped right past it. I've already posted it.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk
    I’m riding my rollers right now, reading this on my phone. Can you cut me a break and re-post that information? Thanks.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Death from Below.

  63. #463
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,892
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    I’m riding my rollers right now, reading this on my phone. Can you cut me a break and re-post that information? Thanks.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Hot Springs, it's been in the works for a while but just got officially greenlit. It links up two decent sized trail systems that were otherwise spit. Admittedly Hot Springs is weird due to it being an actual city and a park all at once.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Similar Threads

  1. State Rules regarding ebikes on Trails
    By Lemonaid in forum E-Bikes
    Replies: 72
    Last Post: 06-18-2019, 09:50 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-17-2016, 11:18 AM
  3. Rules? Rules? Who needs rules?
    By teamdicky in forum Singlespeed
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-25-2013, 12:53 PM
  4. Federal Trail Funding May Be Eliminated...
    By PscyclePath in forum Trail Building and Advocacy
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-18-2011, 11:26 AM
  5. Federal Law About Dating Beer
    By getagrip in forum Beer Forum
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 03-31-2011, 08:31 AM

Members who have read this thread: 297

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.