Losing the backcountry- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 12 of 12
  1. #1
    beater
    Reputation: evasive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,726

    Losing the backcountry

    This is an excellent summary of how MTB access continues to dwindle. This is happening in real time here, and across the West.

    The loss is “offset” by designed trail networks built with the BLM/IMBA Guidelines for a Quality Trail Experience. That’s IMBA’s stated strategy- increase trail miles in densely populated areas, without having to fight the preservation community. Those trails are fun, and often conveniently located. But it’s not the same as a big backcountry ride.

    https://bedrockandparadox.com/2018/0...-the-elkhorns/

    If you can spare the time to comment on this, I’d appreciate it- the trails are in my backyard and viewshed. Links to USFS pages in the linked article.

  2. #2
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,450
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  3. #3
    beater
    Reputation: evasive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,726
    Quote Originally Posted by life behind bars View Post
    I apologize in advance for the tone, but I’m well aware of the STC. It would be unusual for a longtime poster and MTB advocate not to be. I agree with the STC’s approach to some degree. But the chorus advocating for their support is usually “give them money and they’ll fix it for us” that overlooks the need for informed and motivated participation on the ground in the forests and districts. And if the STC is ever successful in passing legislation, that need will be even greater. But in the case I linked, the STC is beside the point.

    The issue in this case isn’t limited to RWAs and USFS R1 management of them. The DEIS evaluates alternatives with some additional RWAs, yes. But the biggest issue is the travel planning that defines the ROS for large areas of this mountain range as primitive. That definition excludes mechanized (bike) travel. That’s a decision at the Forest level, so the STC’s efforts have zero relevance.

  4. #4
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,450
    Quote Originally Posted by evasive View Post
    so the STC’s efforts have zero relevance.



    The S.T.C. has begun to address some of these issues but the focus is currently on gaining wilderness access. That's more than the imba is doing for us. Local advocacy is woefully prepared for this battle and the B.R.C. isn't going to do anything for mountain bikes. Sooo, if I have to pick a horse to get me to the end. If you have something substantive to add I'm all ears, and this isn't posted in a fastidious or mean spirited manner at all. And fwiw, I did submit a comment supportive of a plan that is not exclusionary.
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  5. #5
    beater
    Reputation: evasive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,726
    Thanks for commenting. In our situation here, the issue is the presumption of wildlife (basically elk) impact from bikes, and USFS management that tends to side with preservationists. A complicating factor is that the Elkhorns have the only Wildlife Management Unit in the country. Nobody really knows that that means. It’s a decades-old congressional designation.

    What we’re seeing over and over again is a push to restrict MTB access in backcountry areas, with the idea that flow trail networks on the margins is adequate compensation and where bikes really belong. This will play out across the system as more forests update their plans. These are 30-year documents that define the management goals, so you can’t overstate the importance.

  6. #6
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,450
    Quote Originally Posted by evasive View Post
    These are 30-year documents that define the management goals, so you can’t overstate the importance.

    Agreed. Mountain Bikers seem to play nice with elk in every other N.F, including at least one that has approved new trail construction, surely that can be cited as an example of a cohesive, inclusive management strategy?
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  7. #7
    .......................
    Reputation: ionsmuse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    3,049
    Thanks for the shout out evasive. Buy you a beer some time?

    For those who are semi-local, and FS planning meeting in Helena is July 25th, 5-7pm at the Radisson.

    IMBA and bike parks are, unintentionally, growing mountain biking into two different sports, much like alpine skiing. I only have so much interest in "flow" (aka easy) trails.

  8. #8
    beater
    Reputation: evasive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,726
    Quote Originally Posted by life behind bars View Post
    Agreed. Mountain Bikers seem to play nice with elk in every other N.F, including at least one that has approved new trail construction, surely that can be cited as an example of a cohesive, inclusive management strategy?
    It can, but the wildlife advocates are pretty entrenched and have agency backgrounds. The reason our last forest plan prioritizes managing for elk is that it was actually written by one of them. Essentially they want as many elk as possible, and as few people as possible. Most everyone else understands that elk aren't displaced by people passing through, they're displaced by people shooting them. A single drive through Yellowstone demonstrates that nicely.

  9. #9
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,682
    I am just going to say this:
    fuuuucking greenies get in the way of all kinds of responsible backcountry recreation.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    55
    People associate IMBA with boring flow trails and nothing else which I think is unfair. They aren't focused on backcountry bike access like STC but it is a part of what they do, they are aware of the issues we have here and have promoted trail projects with burly trails. I'll leave more of that for a separate thread.

    Commenting on the forest plan is HUGE! There are straight up delusional comments submitted trying to keep bikes out of public land (see below). The greenies want Recommended Wilderness and WSA because they can kick out bikes without even convincing enough of Congress to designate it so. There are no lasting impacts on the land and anyone who has heard of the Boulder White Clouds knows the proof. Show me the people who are experiencing the wilderness in pre-industrial clothing and technology. It's a bicycle not a time machine.

    "emphasis upon Alternative D's notion of increased wilderness expansion. It is to be noted that both alternatives exclude non-conforming motorized and mechanized recreational uses from recommended wilderness areas (RWAs). This exclusion is extremely important, historically and socially, as one cannot realistically engage a wilderness experience while simultaneously experiencing industrial-era mechanized activity on the identical landscape."

    Two of the areas in HLCNF that could become RW are in WSA. The greenies have no incentive to release any parts of WSA if they think they can get them all into RW. The only logical step that will make them care and make your opinion close to equal is to release the WSA status.
    Support S.2206
    https://www.daines.senate.gov/imo/me...Sheet%20BD.pdf

  11. #11
    beer thief
    Reputation: radair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    4,901
    Commented in support of Alternatives A or E. You folks in Montana have been dealt a bad hand by your USFS reps. The loss of riding areas in the west is unacceptable.

    Thanks for posting and best wishes for a good outcome.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    247
    Evasive--i am spreading the word about this and trying to ask everyone to comment. One item that is of concern is the Montana Mountain Bike Association is asking people to support option C; which would only allow hike/horse in 2/3rds of the Elkhorns.
    here is a paragraph from their facebook post
    "This brief summary clearly points to alternative C as the bicycle friendly choice, and Montana Mountain Bike Alliance supports it. But the Helena-Lewis and Clark forest planners have devised a tradeoff for everyone to consider. They want to bolster the management of an “Elkhorns Core” area for wildlife management. This core area, in the northern 2/3 of the Elkhorn Range, would become off limits to all recreation except foot and horse travel. This management change would not affect recreational access in the southern portion of the Elkhorns, including the popular Muskrat Gulch trail."

Similar Threads

  1. Losing Weight, an effort to keep me healthy.
    By Mattlikestobike in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 160
    Last Post: 10-25-2011, 12:12 PM
  2. rear shock losing air really quick? 2009 FSR xc
    By shogiPIRATE in forum Specialized
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 03-07-2011, 02:07 PM
  3. Shocks losing air?
    By chainringX2 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-11-2011, 05:19 PM
  4. losing motivation
    By monkies in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 01-18-2011, 05:06 PM
  5. Fox Float losing air. Easy fix?
    By woodyak in forum Shocks and Suspension
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-18-2011, 07:17 AM

Members who have read this thread: 1

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.