Wilderness access restrictions- Mtbr.com

View Poll Results: Should Wilderness prohibit all human contact?

Voters
6. You may not vote on this poll
  • Wilderness should bar all visitors & activities

    0 0%
  • Wilderness should only bar some visitors & activities.

    6 100.00%
Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    Wiseass in real life too!
    Reputation: JasonK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    79

    Wilderness access restrictions

    If Wilderness is to be preserved should it not be totally restricted? No people at all. No hikers or campers or bikers or equestrians or hunters.
    Last edited by JasonK; 11-05-2005 at 04:36 PM. Reason: removed extraneous verbage

  2. #2
    Don't worry, be happy!
    Reputation: formica's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    8,140
    are you from the Mike Vandeman school of thought?

    ...working to create a human free habitat....?

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,729
    Quote Originally Posted by formica
    are you from the Mike Vandeman school of thought?

    ...working to create a human free habitat....?
    Haha he just hasn't figured out yet that humans are critters too.
    .~...|\
    ...~.|.\
    ..~..|..\
    .~...|...\
    ~....|....\
    ...~.|.....\
    ....~|____\
    _____||_________
    .\....FAILBOAT..../

  4. #4
    Wiseass in real life too!
    Reputation: JasonK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    79
    Come on now. I'm actually playing the devil's advocate. If one were to truly protect a "wilderness" area then shouldn't all human conduct be prohibited? Otherwise all you have created is another national park, albeit more restrictive. I think that if the criteria for Wilderness were restrictive enough to "preserve" a wilderness area then there would be far less Wilderness advocates and far fewer places under consideration for Wilderness status.

    I can't help but notice that no one has voted in the poll. I think I gave fair options. After all, the second option is just how Wilderness status is handled now. Perhaps I went to far with the penalty portion.

  5. #5
    Don't worry, be happy!
    Reputation: formica's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    8,140
    I think you picked the wrong place to play devils advocate. Poor old mikey's been blazing your trail for you on bike discussion for years now.
    http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/

    Ode to a Usenet Kook

    Do you like my mountain-bike?
    Do you like it? Do you, Mike?

    I do not like your mountain-bike.
    Leave it home! Go for a hike!
    Too many gears! Enormous treads!
    You rip my favorite trails to shreds!
    You may not ride it here or there,
    You may not ride it anywhere!

    May I ride on single-track
    with all my gear in camelbak?

    You may not ride on single-track
    with mountain bike or camelbak
    And do not ride on fire-road,
    It cannot take the overload.
    You may not ride it here or there,
    You may not ride it anywhere!

    Where may I ride my new hardtail;
    The one that's made by Cannondale?

    You may not ride your new hardtail,
    be it Trek or Cannondale.
    You may not ride on single-track
    With mountain bike or camelbak.
    I do not like your mountain-bike.
    Leave it home! Go for a hike!

    Where may I ride my plush GT
    With seven cogs and chainrings three?

    You may not ride that plush GT,
    in habitat that's human-free
    It never will be allowed, you see
    I want to save the woods! (for ME)

    Stay off the trails for heaven's sakes,
    Your knobby tires are killing snakes.
    It's known to all biologists,
    And famous herpetologists.
    We do not like your mountain-bike!
    Leave it home! Go for a hike!
    You may not ride it here or there,
    You may not ride it anywhere!

    But, mikey, you don't understand
    Enlightened people manage land.

    So I will ride my mountain-bike,
    I'll go on wheels. You take a hike!
    And I will ride it here and there,
    And I will ride it everywhere.

    I will ride on single-track
    With fully-loaded Camelbak.
    And I will ride on fire-road,
    It isn't such a heavy load!

    I will ride that new hardtail;
    the one that's made by Cannondale,
    And I will ride my plush GT
    (There is no place that's "human-free")

    A little skill is all it takes
    To keep from killing whippersnakes.
    And we all know your PhD
    Is NOT in herpetology.
    ~trekkie dad

    --
    Last edited by formica; 11-05-2005 at 04:49 PM.

  6. #6

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,876
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonK
    Come on now. I'm actually playing the devil's advocate. If one were to truly protect a "wilderness" area then shouldn't all human conduct be prohibited? Otherwise all you have created is another national park, albeit more restrictive. I think that if the criteria for Wilderness were restrictive enough to "preserve" a wilderness area then there would be far less Wilderness advocates and far fewer places under consideration for Wilderness status.

    I can't help but notice that no one has voted in the poll. I think I gave fair options. After all, the second option is just how Wilderness status is handled now. Perhaps I went to far with the penalty portion.
    Jason, how many mountain bikes were around when the Wilderness rules were adopted? Wilderness designations were not set up to restrict human access, it was set up to protect impact. The impact of hikers, bikers, hunters etc is a long battle not to be ended soon. Wilderness is still public land, do you want to pay taxes for wilderness and not be able to walk on it? You are here on a MTB forum, not only do we want to gain access to public land but we want to protect trails that we have built, maintained and ridden from being designated as Wilderness. Why should we lose trails that we have put sweat equity into?

    You could never enforce a no human contact policy. If a rescue of a hiker was to happen on Wilderness land the rescuers by law can't even use a chain saw if it were required during rescue operations, never mind some type of vehicle to transport the victim out of the woods. Is this a realistic situation, probably not. The agency charged with careing for such a patient is going to do what they need to do.

    If you really want to see non-human Wilderness I suggest that this be a privately funded venture then close off the land to all. Just remember to pay the taxes on the land so that we can invest it in public lands. Oh, and make sure that the surveyors don't go on the land to determine the boundries.

  7. #7
    Wiseass in real life too!
    Reputation: JasonK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    79
    formica,
    I was not aware of Mike Vanderman until you mentioned him. Thanks for pointing out the amusing website.

    minkhiller, formica, and all interested parties.
    I'm sorry that I have not made my position very clear. I think something has been lost in the conversion to "internet-jabber". I do wish that people would honestly answer the poll. I would like to know what the MTBR masses think of Wilderness access restrictions.

    I don't think that Wilderness should restrict all human contact.
    I think that at the very least any non-motorized mechanisms should be admitted.
    I don't believe there is any place on this earth that humans haven't impacted and thats not necessarily a bad thing. It's also not necessarily a good thing. It just is.
    I think that nature is far more resiliant than people want to credit. Look at Yellowstone or Mt. St. Helens for example. Both recovering nicely.

    I had hoped that by advocating an extremist position I could illustrate the flaws in logic of certain pro-Wilderness anti-access opinions.

  8. #8

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,876
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonK
    formica,
    I was not aware of Mike Vanderman until you mentioned him. Thanks for pointing out the amusing website.

    minkhiller, formica, and all interested parties.
    I'm sorry that I have not made my position very clear. I think something has been lost in the conversion to "internet-jabber". I do wish that people would honestly answer the poll. I would like to know what the MTBR masses think of Wilderness access restrictions.

    I don't think that Wilderness should restrict all human contact.
    I think that at the very least any non-motorized mechanisms should be admitted.
    I don't believe there is any place on this earth that humans haven't impacted and thats not necessarily a bad thing. It's also not necessarily a good thing. It just is.
    I think that nature is far more resiliant than people want to credit. Look at Yellowstone or Mt. St. Helens for example. Both recovering nicely.

    I had hoped that by advocating an extremist position I could illustrate the flaws in logic of certain pro-Wilderness anti-access opinions.
    Point well taken Jason. The unfortunate thing is that we don't get more MTB'ers talking about it.

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.