Wilderness Designation Would Ban Bikes on Wasatch Crest- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 59 of 59
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    113

    No good Wilderness Designation Would Ban Bikes on Wasatch Crest

    "Save Our Canyons is currently in the process of drafting a plan to present before Congress that would seek Wilderness designation for the Wasatch effectively banning bikes on such lands."

    Full article via Park City Mountain Biking

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    396
    Highly disturbing.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: KRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,055
    I hate how one group's desire to save an area from bad things like development and strip mining effects good things like mountain biking. The Wilderness Act needs a rework to include non-destructive, human powered recreation like mountain bikes.

    Fight this.
    I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth...
    Isaiah 58:14

    www.stuckinthespokes.com

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: cobi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,854
    From the comments section.... would it really ban bikes or is there just bad information going around?


    Robert DeBirk says:
    November 30, 2015 at 4:36 pm
    Hey Alex,

    I’m on staff with Save Our Canyons. SOC has never proposed closing the Wasatch Crest trail. I’m not sure where you’re getting this information, but there’s absolutely no truth to the claim that we are working to close the Wasatch Crest trail or other mountian bike trails in the Wasatch. In fact, SOC has been a proud partner with mountain bikers for years and we’ve worked successfully to get IMBA support for our proposals.

    I think we’d all agree that the Wasatch is worthy of additional protections, what SOC has proposed is establishing a national monument to protect both the lands and the uses (climbing, biking, hiking, hunting, fishing, skiing, bc skiing, snowshoeing, etc…) that are part of our quality of life, and our responsibility to future generations.

    Our Wasatch National Monument proposal does include additional wilderness areas, but in no way do these these impact mtn biking. In fact, with regard to this proposal we’ve supported the removal of small areas of existing wilderness to ensure Mountain biking is allowed along the BST (where some wilderness exists along the preferred alignment). SOC has demonstrated a willingness to work with all users of the Wasatch for decades and are happy to meet with anyone. Please contact us if you would like to sit, discuss this further and look over some maps together.

    In the meantime, we’d love to write a guest post for you detailing our proposal so that you’re readers can have the correct information regarding SOC’s Wasatch National Monument proposal.

    Thanks!
    Rob

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    396
    This could be an interesting development if the bill goes forward... Potential to OPEN wilderness areas to bikes.

    Are Mountain Bikers About to Get Their Day in the Wilderness? | Outside Online

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    685
    It's a Wasatch National Monument proposal:
    Wasatch National Monument | Save Our Canyons

    One of the reasons I would be for this is to further combat resorts from expanding their winter operations into backcountry terrain... ex. one wasatch, additional lifts, infrastructure, mc mansions etc.

    but.... I also see the ripple effects of this potentially creating a lot of additional red tape for other user groups....mtb trail advocacy, motorized use, and just overall more rules and restrictions during summer recreation.

    Sure Save Our Canyons is saying now that mountain bikers won't be affected but next time you go to get a trail built could be even more of a royal PITA. Sure it won't ban bikes from the already built trails but it could allow for some serious rules and the "cracking of the whip" against mountain bikers and new trails or those already "off the radar trails".

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    685
    After looking at the map if you look closely (along with the national monument) there are quite a few proposed wilderness areas which will affect the future of mountain bike and motorized use in those areas...bright green=proposed

    https://saveourcanyons.files.wordpre...ap_small-3.jpg

  8. #8
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,986
    Quote Originally Posted by dmar123 View Post
    After looking at the map if you look closely (along with the national monument) there are quite a few proposed wilderness areas which will affect the future of mountain bike and motorized use in those areas...bright green=proposed

    https://saveourcanyons.files.wordpre...ap_small-3.jpg
    Thanks for posting this map. Looks like a lot of trail milage will be off limits to cycling.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    685
    If you are following any of the comments from the OP's link to the Park City article here's a quote from the Angry Singlespeeder...

    "The Angry Singlespeeder says:
    December 1, 2015 at 1:49 am

    The mere suggestion that Park City has some of the least sustainable trails in the west completely negates any validity John has to say. Based on that statement it’s blatantly clear he’s either got an axe to grind or knows nothing about trail building. Not only are Park City trails among the most sustainable in the entire country, but they are also provide an economic engine that most mountain towns would kill for. But of course, in today’s world of hyperactive eco-zealotry, nobody cares about people trying to make a living in mountain towns. Park City trails experience among the most recreational traffic of any mountain town in America, and the trails hold up incredibly well.

    Until the blanket ban on bikes in federal Wilderness is overturned, don’t expect any support from mountain bikers when it comes to any kind of federal protection, National Monument or otherwise. The real tragedy here is that mountain bikers are among the most devoted and committed stewards of the environment, donating far many more hours per year of volunteer labor than any other user group. The federal ban on bikes forces us into a corner, making us reject what we want to embrace. Mountain bikers are not the enemy, and it’s about time other user groups traditionally opposed to mountain biking wake up and realize it."


    amen.... amen.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jmmUT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,372
    Quote Originally Posted by dmar123 View Post

    "The Angry Singlespeeder says:
    December 1, 2015 at 1:49 am


    Until the blanket ban on bikes in federal Wilderness is overturned, don’t expect any support from mountain bikers when it comes to any kind of federal protection, National Monument or otherwise.

    A.S.S. Does not speak for me in this statement. And I would prefer they not claim to. If they are speaking about specific groups like IMBA or something, or themselves, they should say that.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: TahoeBC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    6,098
    Everyone had come to an agreement on a National Monument status for the Idaho White Clouds, then in the last minute mountain bikers were thrown under the table and it was designated Wilderness.

    Don't think for a minute this group would not do the same in order to get what it wants if the feds decide they don't want to deal with the extra headaches involved with a Monument status.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,611
    Quote Originally Posted by TahoeBC View Post
    Everyone had come to an agreement on a National Monument status for the Idaho White Clouds, then in the last minute mountain bikers were thrown under the table and it was designated Wilderness.

    Don't think for a minute this group would not do the same in order to get what it wants if the feds decide they don't want to deal with the extra headaches involved with a Monument status.
    This ^^^^^

    Also, don't expect IMBA to lift a finger against this. They are stooges.

    I've seen this movie already. Environmental groups make a proposal that clearly limits mountain biking, but they try to argue that it really won't go down that way, so that the mountain bike community stands down. All along, the Mentals have no intention of letting MTBs continue riding in "their" areas. At the last minute the MTBs are thrown under the bus, and there is no appeal process, it is a done deal.

  13. #13
    Frame Building Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,489
    You know, the whole debate has always confused me. If you're up on the Crest, it's a cluster**** of ski lifts, access roads and associated stuff on both sides, with towns and cities visible in all directions. It's pretty developed. I am baffled why a couple more lifts would matter in the grand scheme of things.

    Given the track record of wilderness advocacy groups for screwing over outdoor recreation of many kinds (especially bikes) I'd happily vote for Vail resorts to build to their heart's content up their rather than see it go to some sort of BS "protected" status that basically just keeps people out.

    -Walt

  14. #14
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,986
    You can donate the the STC. www.sustainabletrailscoalition.org

    We are working to change things so a new wilderness area would not abolish off road cycling.

    I'd be happy to answer questions. I am on the board of the STC.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  15. #15
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,986
    Quote Originally Posted by honkinunit View Post
    This ^^^^^

    Also, don't expect IMBA to lift a finger against this. They are stooges.

    I've seen this movie already. Environmental groups make a proposal that clearly limits mountain biking, but they try to argue that it really won't go down that way, so that the mountain bike community stands down. All along, the Mentals have no intention of letting MTBs continue riding in "their" areas. At the last minute the MTBs are thrown under the bus, and there is no appeal process, it is a done deal.
    This exact deal went down where I live and recently in Idaho as well.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    595
    This is a Camel's Nose situation. Don't think it's not a big deal.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    396
    Has the potential to be a huge deal. SOC doesn't even list bikes as being banned in wilderness areas on their site. Certainly seems like critical information that is 'convenient' to leave out...

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    685

    Not sure how all this lobby/politics stuff works, but is there a place or person we can contact to be actively involved or way to stay up to date with this proposal??

    -thanks!

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    113

    Caution;  Merge;  Workers Ahead!

    Quote Originally Posted by dmar123 View Post

    Not sure how all this lobby/politics stuff works, but is there a place or person we can contact to be actively involved or way to stay up to date with this proposal??

    -thanks!
    I'm the editor of parkcitymountainbike.com and will be making continual updates to the site as more information is made available. Additionally, the PCMTB Facebook Page is continually updated in regards to MTB advocacy issues here in the Wasatch and beyond.

    In the meantime, pay close attention to the Mountain Accord process as that is the driving force behind these designations. Below are the contacts for both Mountain Accord & Save Our Canyons, let them know that as long as bikes are not allowed in Wilderness, Wilderness not an acceptable solution in the Wasatch.

    Carl Fisher, Save Our Canyons - (801) 539-5333 / [email protected]
    Rob DeBirk, Save Our Canyons - [email protected]

    Mountain Accord Contact Page

    Additionally, the Sustainable Trails Coalition has been doing great work in the fight for Wilderness access at a congressional level in DC. Even if it's just a couple bucks, any money you can throw their way will go towards additional bike access here and beyond.

    Sustainable Trails Coalition

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    6,987
    Where to the human-powered winter recreation folks stand on this? Wasatch Backcountry Alliance | Human-powered Winter Recreation Community
    Seems like a concerted effort with all those who are concerned with access would be more effective in a fight to preserve access as well as maintaining the integrity of the terrain of the Wasatch.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    685
    ^^thanks for the links!

    Heres another link to a video of the Accord folks speaking at SJ Quinney College of Law. If you want to know exactly what all this stuff is about then watch the video. On Wednesday, Nov. 17, Mountain Accord Program Director Laynee Jones, and Executive Committee Members Nathan Rafferty (Ski Utah) and Carl Fisher (Save Our Canyons) spoke to students, faculty and community members at the S.J. Quinney College of Law.

    After watching it seems that this is a pretty big deal. Also it made me realize even more that mountain biking had virtually zero presence here. I don't think they mentioned mountain biking once during the video.

    Mountain Accord » Accord Leaders Speak at SJ Quinney College of Law

    some key discussion points

    1st 25:00 - Mountain Accord Overview
    26:24- Summer Use Wilderness Proposal
    32:55-Climate Change
    35:50-Congress Legislation, National Monument, New Wilderness
    40:03-Constraints,Boundries, Bucket Proposal
    57:57- One Wasatch, Ski Link

  22. #22
    YRG
    YRG is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    345
    Quote Originally Posted by a.d.85 View Post
    I'm the editor of parkcitymountainbike.com and will be making continual updates to the site as more information is made available. Additionally, the PCMTB Facebook Page is continually updated in regards to MTB advocacy issues here in the Wasatch and beyond.

    In the meantime, pay close attention to the Mountain Accord process as that is the driving force behind these designations. Below are the contacts for both Mountain Accord & Save Our Canyons, let them know that as long as bikes are not allowed in Wilderness, Wilderness not an acceptable solution in the Wasatch.
    Mountain bikers should support wilderness. While I agree that a ban of bikes in wilderness is not ideal, wilderness is still worth having. I want new bike trails. I want better bike trails. I also want well developed trails where mountain bikes are NOT allowed. We also need a lot of space where bikes should not go. We don't have to ride everywhere. I support Save Our Canyons. There is way more I agree with than disagree. All mountain bikers should support non biking trails. We should volunteer our time and our money and help a managed use model that takes care of many user groups. Let's ditch the combat approach and support areas of non biking. If we do that, we can get better trails for bikes. Ask someone you know who understands trails why this is true.
    Let me say this one more time:
    ALL MOUNTAIN BIKERS SHOULD SUPPORT NON BIKING TRAILS!
    It is the right thing to do.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    113
    Support Wilderness at what cost? Until we're sanctioned to only mtb specific flow trails and bike parks? I don't know about you, but that is not why I ride. Yea, those trails are fun and all, but the ability to escape into the woods and get lost in the mountains on your bike away from all the bureaucracy and ******** of everyday life is what keeps me, and I'm sure many others, coming back for more. I'm 100% in support of protecting land and keeping places wild, but not when a select group of users gets to decide who's able to play within the boundaries based on personal bias and fear mongering.

    This isn't just vigilante rhetoric. More and more backcountry trails, just like the Crest are being taken away while riders are given yet another dumbed down "flow trail" to take their place, which we're supposed to regard as progress. It's happened in Montana, all over the west coast, this summer in Idaho, and don't think for a second it won't happen here if no one speaks up.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,611
    Quote Originally Posted by YRG View Post
    Mountain bikers should support wilderness. While I agree that a ban of bikes in wilderness is not ideal, wilderness is still worth having. I want new bike trails. I want better bike trails. I also want well developed trails where mountain bikes are NOT allowed. We also need a lot of space where bikes should not go. We don't have to ride everywhere. I support Save Our Canyons. There is way more I agree with than disagree. All mountain bikers should support non biking trails. We should volunteer our time and our money and help a managed use model that takes care of many user groups. Let's ditch the combat approach and support areas of non biking. If we do that, we can get better trails for bikes. Ask someone you know who understands trails why this is true.
    Let me say this one more time:
    ALL MOUNTAIN BIKERS SHOULD SUPPORT NON BIKING TRAILS!
    It is the right thing to do.

    Sorry. You are deluded. The people behind proposals like this want bikes restricted to roads, period.

    Exhibit A: Boulder, Colorado. People think Boulder is some kind of cycling mecca, but the reality is that mountain bikes have use of less than 5% of the city and county owned open space trails. A few years ago a new management plan for the area along the foothills was rolled out. In it, there was finally a route to ride from the city of Boulder to the few, lame trails south of town. There was no question anywhere in the process that this route would be part of the plan, UNTIL the final draft, which was submitted and approved over the vehement howls of every cyclist and every cycling organization in the county. It didn't matter. The hikers and equestrians won, mountain bikers got nothing.

    The same thing has happened over and over, and it will happen again here. Then a little more area will be declared "Wilderness", and a little more, and a little more. Wake up.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    113

    Wink Save Our Trails Sticker

    @dmar123

    I hope you don't mind, but I ran with your concept

    Proudly display your trail love while supporting the Sustainable Trails Coalition. All proceeds from sticker purchases will be donated directly to STC in support of the fight to end the blanket ban on bicycles in Wilderness.

    Save Our Trails Sticker
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Wilderness Designation Would Ban Bikes on Wasatch Crest-soc-7-2-5.jpg  


  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jmmUT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,372
    Quote Originally Posted by honkinunit View Post
    Sorry. You are deluded. The people behind proposals like this want bikes restricted to roads, period.
    They aren't "deluded". They have an opposing opinion to yours, which people can have for lots of good, non-deluded reasons. Don't use inflammatory rhetoric. It's not helpful. That especially goes for the other poster who called SOC "Mentals".

  27. #27
    YRG
    YRG is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    345
    Quote Originally Posted by a.d.85 View Post
    Support Wilderness at what cost? Until we're sanctioned to only mtb specific flow trails and bike parks? I don't know about you, but that is not why I ride. Yea, those trails are fun and all, but the ability to escape into the woods and get lost in the mountains on your bike away from all the bureaucracy and ******** of everyday life is what keeps me, and I'm sure many others, coming back for more. I'm 100% in support of protecting land and keeping places wild, but not when a select group of users gets to decide who's able to play within the boundaries based on personal bias and fear mongering.

    This isn't just vigilante rhetoric. More and more backcountry trails, just like the Crest are being taken away while riders are given yet another dumbed down "flow trail" to take their place, which we're supposed to regard as progress. It's happened in Montana, all over the west coast, this summer in Idaho, and don't think for a second it won't happen here if no one speaks up.
    Dumbed down flow? Sounds almost like a conspiracy theory.
    How many times did you ride in the white clouds in Idaho before the closure? The guys I was working with out there thought it was funny that no one rode it until they talked about closing it. Suddenly it was seeing more bike traffic in a season than the last ten years combined. Everyone gets all worked up about something nobody used. What do you know about Idaho's mountain biking? The trail closure is such a very small part of the picture. Trails should close to bikes. Trails should close to hikers. Trails should close to everybody. They should also be opening to everyone as well. There is too many of us now to continue this old model.

    As mountain bikers, we should understand (and care about) how annoying we are to other trail users. We should also be aware of the threat we pose to other users safety. Add to these facts an increasing user base, better mountain bikes, and our self entitled mind set and we have a problem that is not solved by Letting bikes on more trails.

    We should work to make things better for all users not just ourselves at others expense.
    That doesn't mean some dumbed down flow trails - that just lacks imagination and creativity

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    113

    Wtf?

    YRG -

    First off, I have to ask - would you be in favor of designating the Wasatch Crest trail as Wilderness? If so then why or why not?

    Additionally, I have a hard time seeing where you're coming from as you seem to be contradicting yourself. You claim that no one hardly rode the BWC, yet they needed to be shut down because "there is too many of us now to continue this old model". You state that trails should be closing to everybody, yet they should be opening to everybody. Can you name one trail that hasn't been built in the last 5 years that has been re-opened to bikes? These aren't temporary closures we're talking about - they're permanent, and last time I checked, no one was making more land. Also, have you heard that joke about the hiker who does trail maintenance? Neither have I, because they don't exist.

    You say that mountain bikers are "annoying to other trail users". Well, maybe so, but hikers are annoying, bad drivers are annoying, arguing about this sh-- instead of riding bikes is annoying. However, the fact that some people may find something annoying doesn't give them free range to just shut it out. While we might complain about them, you don't see bikers organizing to ban hikers and horses from trails.

    You claim that we pose a threat to other peoples safety, but the trails we are talking about aren't high-traffic DH/FR routes. The type of rider who goes out on a Wilderness adventure is likely doing so on a hardtail or XC/adventure oriented bike setting out on a 15+ mile ride; not ripping chairlift laps in full-faces plowing through family's on a leisurely hike.

    We're not working to make anything better at "others' expense". If anything, others are working to make things better for themselves at our expense.

    Have you read or familiarized yourself with what STC is proposing? We're not even asking that bikes be included on all trails as you say we are, but surely you'd agree that a blanket ban on bikes with no scientific argument to back it up is just ludicrous and only hurts conservation efforts.

    And since you ask, I was fortunate enough to get up to Idaho and ride BWC last summer. This was truly a special place that offered some of the most remote, backcountry style riding anywhere in the US. To claim that people didn't ride these trails just isn't true. Search Frog Lake Loop, Castle Peak or Big Boulder & Little Boulder trails and you'll find all sorts of trip reports. They didn't see high traffic because they were out in the middle of nowhere - unaccessible to most in a weekend, not because people didn't want to ride them. As a counter to your claim, on our 20 mile loop, we saw only two other backpackers the whole day. I'd hardly say that their encounter with two mountain bikers had much of an impact on their wilderness experience.

    Attached are a few photos from our trip. It's heartbreaking to think I might never be able to get back there on a bicycle again...
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Wilderness Designation Would Ban Bikes on Wasatch Crest-p1091401.jpg  

    Wilderness Designation Would Ban Bikes on Wasatch Crest-p1091402.jpg  

    Wilderness Designation Would Ban Bikes on Wasatch Crest-p1101425.jpg  

    Wilderness Designation Would Ban Bikes on Wasatch Crest-p1101467.jpg  

    Wilderness Designation Would Ban Bikes on Wasatch Crest-p1101550.jpg  


  29. #29
    YRG
    YRG is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    345
    Quote Originally Posted by a.d.85 View Post
    YRG -

    First off, I have to ask - would you be in favor of designating the Wasatch Crest trail as Wilderness? If so then why or why not?
    No, not really. I don't see how it deserves a wilderness designation.

    Quote Originally Posted by a.d.85 View Post
    Additionally, I have a hard time seeing where you're coming from as you seem to be contradicting yourself. You claim that no one hardly rode the BWC, yet they needed to be shut down because "there is too many of us now to continue this old model".
    Sorry for the confusion. The old model is the one that doesn't work in high use areas (Wasatch). The closure in Idaho definitely was not due to high use, nor do I agree it was needed or helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by a.d.85 View Post

    You state that trails should be closing to everybody, yet they should be opening to everybody. Can you name one trail that hasn't been built in the last 5 years that has been re-opened to bikes? These aren't temporary closures we're talking about - they're permanent, and last time I checked, no one was making more land. Also, have you heard that joke about the hiker who does trail maintenance? Neither have I, because they don't exist.
    I am advocating for a managed use the separates user groups in high use areas. In a place like Park City, that could mean restricting users on existing trails. Close spiro to hikers, horses. Mountain bikes do better separated from other users. They also benefit from directional trails.
    Quote Originally Posted by a.d.85 View Post
    You say that mountain bikers are "annoying to other trail users". Well, maybe so, but hikers are annoying, bad drivers are annoying, arguing about this sh-- instead of riding bikes is annoying. However, the fact that some people may find something annoying doesn't give them free range to just shut it out. While we might complain about them, you don't see bikers organizing to ban hikers and horses from trails.
    Annoying is the wrong word to focus on. We (mountain bikers) are scary and dangerous. Even on hardtails and XC bikes
    Quote Originally Posted by a.d.85 View Post

    You claim that we pose a threat to other peoples safety, but the trails we are talking about aren't high-traffic DH/FR routes. The type of rider who goes out on a Wilderness adventure is likely doing so on a hardtail or XC/adventure oriented bike setting out on a 15+ mile ride; not ripping chairlift laps in full-faces plowing through family's on a leisurely hike.
    Xc bikes are faster and more capable than the Dh bikes of ten years ago. My hardtail rips the backcountry.
    Quote Originally Posted by a.d.85 View Post
    We're not working to make anything better at "others' expense". If anything, others are working to make things better for themselves at our expense.

    Have you read or familiarized yourself with what STC is proposing? We're not even asking that bikes be included on all trails as you say we are, but surely you'd agree that a blanket ban on bikes with no scientific argument to back it up is just ludicrous and only hurts conservation efforts.
    I do agree, except ludicrous seems a little over the top
    Quote Originally Posted by a.d.85 View Post
    And since you ask, I was fortunate enough to get up to Idaho and ride BWC last summer. This was truly a special place that offered some of the most remote, backcountry style riding anywhere in the US. To claim that people didn't ride these trails just isn't true. Search Frog Lake Loop, Castle Peak or Big Boulder & Little Boulder trails and you'll find all sorts of trip reports. They didn't see high traffic because they were out in the middle of nowhere - unaccessible to most in a weekend, not because people didn't want to ride them. As a counter to your claim, on our 20 mile loop, we saw only two other backpackers the whole day. I'd hardly say that their encounter with two mountain bikers had much of an impact on their wilderness experience.
    I agree with you. I should have said the area was not ridden much. It is an amazing place.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,611
    Quote Originally Posted by jmmorath View Post
    They aren't "deluded". They have an opposing opinion to yours, which people can have for lots of good, non-deluded reasons. Don't use inflammatory rhetoric. It's not helpful. That especially goes for the other poster who called SOC "Mentals".
    Nope. The poster has been deluded into thinking that if we just give up a little bit, the Mentals will magically "give" us some nice dedicated trails to match.

    Let me tell you how that works, using my Boulder example again. Instead of getting the promised access from the city of Boulder to the south trails, a scenic singletrack that would keep riders from having to drive to the trails, they gave mountain bikes a 40 acre piece of dirt with 75 feet of elevation change on the east side to ride in circles on (sharing with anyone who wants to walk on it, of course, yielding to them, of course, even though it is called the "Bike" park) that has a nice view of the county jail and a trailer park. THIS, my friend, is what they call "compromise".

    Ask anyone who rides a dirt bike how "compromise" has worked out for them over the past 30 years. MTB's are EXACTLY like a motorcycle in the eyes of these people.

    Yes, they are mental. These people use the same rhetoric that radical fundamentalist religious zealots use, and in fact, when they engage in one of these "battles", they are tickling the same part of the brain a Jihadist does when they raise their rifles and chant. Stopping YOU from riding your bike where they don't want to see you *is* their religion. That, my friend, is warped, and mental.

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    685
    ^ha nice a.d. 85... that sticker should get some peoples attention!

    I went up to the White Clouds last summer as well, not because I wanted to "get it" before they shut it down but because the place looked awesome...I knew that it was up for a wilderness proposal but after reading some of the posts on mtbr it looked as if it was going to remain open to bikes....then I got back from my trip and BOOM! wilderness, no more bikes.

    I rode with a group of locals up there and let me tell you they were very passionate about their trails and ride them often! For many it was a huge loss, and I'm sure it has impacted their way of life.

    Its a shame, because the town of Stanely and the White Clouds was one of the best experiences I've had on a mountain bike, and after riding there this summer I was looking forward to returning back up there. Guess not. There are NO/ZERO/ZIP/ZILCH other trails in that area that will even come close to offering the same experience.

    The problem I have with wilderness designations as it stands now is a scenario exactly like the White Clouds...where you have existing trails that bikers have been maintaining and riding for years and then all the sudden wilderness comes along and they get the boot FOR NO GOOD REASON. While at the same time hikers and horses get to continue to use the very same trails. It makes no sense. Its hypocritical.

    Theres plenty of times where I'm out on a mountain bike ride and horses and hikers annoy/scare me, does that give us the right to kick everyone off the trail??

    Yes we need wilderness but not when it forces bikers off of existing trails, and then other user groups get to continue to use the very same trails.

    The bike ban in wilderness needs to be overturned.

    It would be interesting to see the reaction of other user groups if Wilderness designations also kicked out hikers and equestrians.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    6,987
    Quote Originally Posted by dmar123 View Post
    Its a shame, because the town of Stanely and the White Clouds was one of the best experiences I've had on a mountain bike, and after riding there this summer I was looking forward to returning back up there. Guess not. There are NO/ZERO/ZIP/ZILCH other trails in that area that will even come close to offering the same experience..
    This is not entirely true. I've ridden just about all the trails in the White Clouds, beginning in the late 1990s. The closure is a bummer for sure but let's not make a mountain out of a molehill and promote the idea that they shut the area entirely down to bikes. Big Boulder-L. Boulder, Big Casino-L. Casino, and the over-rated Fisher-Williams are still open. The White Clouds do not represent all the riding in the area. There are still lots of places to go.

    Quote Originally Posted by dmar123 View Post
    The problem I have with wilderness designations as it stands now is a scenario exactly like the White Clouds...where you have existing trails that bikers have been maintaining and riding for years and then all the sudden wilderness comes along and they get the boot FOR NO GOOD REASON. While at the same time hikers and horses get to continue to use the very same trails. It makes no sense. Its hypocritical.

    Yes we need wilderness but not when it forces bikers off of existing trails, and then other user groups get to continue to use the very same trails.

    The bike ban in wilderness needs to be overturned.

    It would be interesting to see the reaction of other user groups if Wilderness designations also kicked out hikers and equestrians.
    Personally, I am in favor of wilderness. It bothers me that it doesn't include a human-powered activity like bikes when trekking poles, horses and saddles, or ski's are allowed but I can live with that. There should be places set aside for preservation and not every place should be our own version of a recreational Disneyland. What bothers me about the Wasatch Crest is it smacks of another land grab like what happened in Bozeman/Gallatins. In order to protect it from more ski lifts and ski area expansion just make it wilderness instead of getting all the parties together at the table and working out an amenable solution. There will still be helicopter skiing in the winter. The fact that there are helicopters buzzing around and dropping of skiers. What kind of wilderness is that?

    Does it makes sense to have Wilderness that borders on the backyards of houses? That's what exists in Sedona.

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: johnnyspoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    958
    Quote Originally Posted by rockman View Post
    This is not entirely true. I've ridden just about all the trails in the White Clouds, beginning in the late 1990s. The closure is a bummer for sure but let's not make a mountain out of a molehill and promote the idea that they shut the area entirely down to bikes. Big Boulder-L. Boulder, Big Casino-L. Casino, and the over-rated Fisher-Williams are still open. The White Clouds do not represent all the riding in the area. There are still lots of places to go.
    I was just going to say the same thing. It's still a great place to ride. The closure hurts for sure though. Also, at least some of the trails shown in the photos above are still open to mountain biking.
    I'm looking forward to regretting this.......

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    54
    This seems like a potentially big deal fro PC mountain biking. has anyone contacted Mountain Trails Foundation to see if they are on this? While not exclusively a mountain bike trail org, I presume they would not be in favor of the Crest Trail being cut off to bikes.

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    54
    It looks like some local organization who has the interests of mountain bikers in mind needs to be involved with this. Thoughts?

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    685
    Quote Originally Posted by johnnyspoke View Post
    I was just going to say the same thing. It's still a great place to ride. The closure hurts for sure though. Also, at least some of the trails shown in the photos above are still open to mountain biking.
    You can downplay it as much as you want, guess we'll have to disagree. We can debate all day about what trails are good and not....but Castle Peak/Antz basin/Chamberlain IMO is what made that place mtb destination worthy.

    Big/Little Casino is great, and yes Fisher-Williams is over-rated

    Don't see how by allowing mountain bikes to continue to use the same trails they always have turns it into a Disneyland.

    Kicking out mountain bikers does nothing to preserve our lands any further...its bs. If you truly want to make a noticeable impact then hikers and equestrians need to be banned too, let all the trails grow back over.

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation: johnnyspoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    958
    Quote Originally Posted by dmar123 View Post
    You can downplay it as much as you want, guess we'll have to disagree. We can debate all day about what trails are good and not....but Castle Peak/Antz basin/Chamberlain IMO is what made that place mtb destination worthy.

    Big/Little Casino is great, and yes Fisher-Williams is over-rated

    Don't see how by allowing mountain bikes to continue to use the same trails they always have turns it into a Disneyland.

    Kicking out mountain bikers does nothing to preserve our lands any further...its bs. If you truly want to make a noticeable impact then hikers and equestrians need to be banned too, let all the trails grow back over.
    I think we're mostly in agreement on this. I still think it's destination worthy though, considering it's only about 45 minutes away from Sun Valley. It takes longer than that just to get to the big boulder trailhead from Stanley.
    I'm looking forward to regretting this.......

  38. #38
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,986
    Quote Originally Posted by rockman View Post
    This is not entirely true. I've ridden just about all the trails in the White Clouds, beginning in the late 1990s. The closure is a bummer for sure but let's not make a mountain out of a molehill and promote the idea that they shut the area entirely down to bikes. Big Boulder-L. Boulder, Big Casino-L. Casino, and the over-rated Fisher-Williams are still open. The White Clouds do not represent all the riding in the area. There are still lots of places to go.

    Personally, I am in favor of wilderness. It bothers me that it doesn't include a human-powered activity like bikes when trekking poles, horses and saddles, or ski's are allowed but I can live with that. There should be places set aside for preservation and not every place should be our own version of a recreational Disneyland. What bothers me about the Wasatch Crest is it smacks of another land grab like what happened in Bozeman/Gallatins. In order to protect it from more ski lifts and ski area expansion just make it wilderness instead of getting all the parties together at the table and working out an amenable solution. There will still be helicopter skiing in the winter. The fact that there are helicopters buzzing around and dropping of skiers. What kind of wilderness is that?

    Does it makes sense to have Wilderness that borders on the backyards of houses? That's what exists in Sedona.
    So how do you feel about a wilderness designation knowing that ALL of the trails in the Ketchum area are currently under threat? While it isn't good to use absolutes for arguments sake there really are some fanatical wilderness supporters that will not stop until there is no longer mountain biking in the Ketchum area. Think I'm exaggerating or lying? Check this out:

    Wilderness Designation Would Ban Bikes on Wasatch Crest-idaho_sawtooth.jpg

    From this group:

    https://allianceforthewildrockies.org/maps/

    I too believe in the concept of "leave no trace". I enjoy mountain biking as well as backpacking. I think there should be some areas that mountain bikes do not go and I think this issue will take care of itself as many of the trails in Wilderness areas are in such bad shape that I would not enjoy riding the trails and neither would most. What the STC is advocating for is ending the blanket ban on cycling in the Wilderness. It will still be up to groups like the IMBA to advocate for access in individual areas. What the STC is pushing for is not turning the wilderness into a playground for cycling but to allow cycling where it already existed in new wilderness areas as they are designated. The distinction is difficult for many to understand but it is super important for everyone to understand it. It will make the wilderness act stronger by adding one of the largest and fastest growing outdoor recreation groups, off road cyclists.

    I came across this quote in the 1978 USFS manual - "Wilderness Management":

    "With regard to the first point, we must be concerned about the elitist overtones of biocentricity; are we endorsing a philosophy that offers access only to a privileged few at the expense of the majority.For example the recent Alpine Lakes Wilderness classification as another loss of opportunity for their interests. Whatever the specific merits of their claim, their concern over the failure of land management agencies to provide a broad spectrum of opportunities is one we cannot ignore if we value the long term preservation of wilderness”

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation: can't get right's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,295
    Quote Originally Posted by YRG View Post
    ALL MOUNTAIN BIKERS SHOULD SUPPORT NON BIKING TRAILS!
    It is the right thing to do.
    Uhmmm....why?

    Will hikers support bike only trails? Should we all support more equine only trails? What about the fatties who need a Texas Wheelchair (ATV) to get up the Mountain?

    I believe Walt has the best opinion I have read on this. "You know, the whole debate has always confused me. If you're up on the Crest, it's a cluster**** of ski lifts, access roads and associated stuff on both sides, with towns and cities visible in all directions. It's pretty developed. I am baffled why a couple more lifts would matter in the grand scheme of things."

    Wilderness should be wild, and while the Wasatch has it's share of it, I think it's too close to SLC/Utah County/Summit County. On any given day there are hundreds of thousands looking to recreate there. A wilderness designation removes a large portion of those people.
    I believe we need to do something, but wilderness is not the right answer... unless you are a hiker.

  40. #40
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,986
    Quote Originally Posted by can't get right View Post
    Uhmmm....why?

    Will hikers support bike only trails? Should we all support more equine only trails? What about the fatties who need a Texas Wheelchair (ATV) to get up the Mountain?

    I believe Walt has the best opinion I have read on this. "You know, the whole debate has always confused me. If you're up on the Crest, it's a cluster**** of ski lifts, access roads and associated stuff on both sides, with towns and cities visible in all directions. It's pretty developed. I am baffled why a couple more lifts would matter in the grand scheme of things."

    Wilderness should be wild, and while the Wasatch has it's share of it, I think it's too close to SLC/Utah County/Summit County. On any given day there are hundreds of thousands looking to recreate there. A wilderness designation removes a large portion of those people.
    I believe we need to do something, but wilderness is not the right answer... unless you are a hiker.
    Or a backcountry skier. Wilderness won't stop that heli ride to the top of the ridge and won't stop anyone from skiing down.

    Off road cyclists are again the marginalized group that gets pushed out. Our concerns don't matter to the rad skiing bros. They don't hate us. They just don't care about our access.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    6,987
    If it's a National Monument instead of Wilderness it won't block mtb access, no? I thought that was what SavetheCanyons was pushing for.

    And yes, the backcountry skiers are the ones fight ski area expansion the hardest. I can't say I blame them. You have to get up at 3 am and hit dawn patrol to get to the good stuff to beat the hordes. It will only get worse as chair lifts access areas that formerly took an hour or two skin track approach.

  42. #42
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,986
    Save Our Canyons NM designation adds five new wilderness areas according to the SOC map.

    (Already posted on this thread I believe)


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  43. #43
    formerly shabadu
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    961
    Quote Originally Posted by Davey Simon View Post
    Or a backcountry skier. Wilderness won't stop that heli ride to the top of the ridge and won't stop anyone from skiing down.
    Yes it would. Helicopters can't land in Wilderness areas. However, if I paid for a hell drop to the Wasatch Crest I feel like I would have other concerns.

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    6,987
    Quote Originally Posted by Davey Simon View Post
    Save Our Canyons NM designation adds five new wilderness areas according to the SOC map.

    (Already posted on this thread I believe)


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    yes, you are correct. In looking at the map again it does appear that trails will be lost in the proposed wilderness parcels within the national monument boundary. But, and it's a big but, how many of those trails are actually bikeable? Details are fuzzy in this whole thread. How many trails are lost? How many miles? Proposed new trails?

    For example, Grandeur Peak is in proposed wilderness. How many of you actually ride it? I've heard it's do-able but oh so barely. The descent is supposed to be extremely technical; 3300’ in 2 mi; 27%. That begs the question: if it can be ridden - and is - by a very small handful of folks, should it remain not wilderness, essentially for them?

  45. #45
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,986
    Quote Originally Posted by rockman View Post
    yes, you are correct. In looking at the map again it does appear that trails will be lost in the proposed wilderness parcels within the national monument boundary. But, and it's a big but, how many of those trails are actually bikeable? Details are fuzzy in this whole thread. How many trails are lost? How many miles? Proposed new trails?

    For example, Grandeur Peak is in proposed wilderness. How many of you actually ride it? I've heard it's do-able but oh so barely. The descent is supposed to be extremely technical; 3300’ in 2 mi; 27%. That begs the question: if it can be ridden - and is - by a very small handful of folks, should it remain not wilderness, essentially for them?
    Sure my quip about heli skiing is a little unrealistic. But usually these wilderness areas become the playground of the very wealthy.

    Save Our Canyons does not bother to detail the numbers of acres that will be wilderness. They don't bother to mention how many miles of trail there will be in the new wilderness areas. They don't bother to mention how many miles of trails will be lost to off road cycling. They don't even list off road cycling as a prohibited activity on their web page!

    Also Grandure Peak is hard. Sure. Should it be closed to cycling forever? What about the other 4 wilderness areas on the SOC map? How many miles of trail are going to be lost forever? SOC hasn't even looked into the issue because they don't care.

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    6,987
    Quote Originally Posted by Davey Simon View Post
    Sure my quip about heli skiing is a little unrealistic. But usually these wilderness areas become the playground of the very wealthy.

    Save Our Canyons does not bother to detail the numbers of acres that will be wilderness. They don't bother to mention how many miles of trail there will be in the new wilderness areas. They don't bother to mention how many miles of trails will be lost to off road cycling. They don't even list off road cycling as a prohibited activity on their web page!

    Also Grandure Peak is hard. Sure. Should it be closed to cycling forever? What about the other 4 wilderness areas on the SOC map? How many miles of trail are going to be lost forever? SOC hasn't even looked into the issue because they don't care.
    Well, ok then. I want to hear from the folks who do care. How many miles of trails that are bikeable will be lost forever? I'm not certain that the Wasatch Trail is one of them. Details are fuzzy from both sides.

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SLCpowderhound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by Davey Simon View Post
    Sure my quip about heli skiing is a little unrealistic. But usually these wilderness areas become the playground of the very wealthy.

    Save Our Canyons does not bother to detail the numbers of acres that will be wilderness. They don't bother to mention how many miles of trail there will be in the new wilderness areas. They don't bother to mention how many miles of trails will be lost to off road cycling. They don't even list off road cycling as a prohibited activity on their web page!

    Also Grandure Peak is hard. Sure. Should it be closed to cycling forever? What about the other 4 wilderness areas on the SOC map? How many miles of trail are going to be lost forever? SOC hasn't even looked into the issue because they don't care.
    Saying that the wilderness is the playground of the very wealthy couldn't be further from the truth. In fact I would argue that it is the exact opposite...do you know why most people backcountry ski? Because a day lift ticket is well over $100 and a season pass can easily breach $1000, whereas a BC setup cost less than that and can be used forever. Sure some people ride horses in wilderness areas, but how many have you seen in the Wasatch? hardly any.

    Also, saying that grandeur peak is rideable is complete lunacy. 27% grade? do you have any idea what that looks like? If it were paved it would be unrideable. You could hardly drive a car up that incline. I have never even thought about riding that. It is a hiking trail, bikes should not ever, ever be there. Ever. Anyone who has hiked that trail would back me on this.

    Also, looking at the map what current MTB trails would be closed? Crest? nope. Upper Millcreek trails? nope. Pipeline? nope. Mill D? nope. In fact none of the Mountain bike trails that are in Millcreek, BCC and LCC would be closed. Remind me why I should be against it again?

    As for the comment about why we (as cyclists) be FOR hiking only trails. We should support them whole-heartedly. The reason is the same as why DH riders should support directional specific trails. Have you ridden Spiro before and after Armstrong was put in? Each time I would climb that I always thought I was going to get mowed over, now everyone climbs up Armstrong leaving it (more) open to rip. Likewise, the more hiking specific trails we have, the more likely someone who hikes will use it instead of a multi-use trail. Not suggesting that we need to get rid of the hikers, but it would alleviate some of the traffic on those trails.

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,611
    Quote Originally Posted by SLCpowderhound View Post
    As for the comment about why we (as cyclists) be FOR hiking only trails. We should support them whole-heartedly. The reason is the same as why DH riders should support directional specific trails. Have you ridden Spiro before and after Armstrong was put in? Each time I would climb that I always thought I was going to get mowed over, now everyone climbs up Armstrong leaving it (more) open to rip. Likewise, the more hiking specific trails we have, the more likely someone who hikes will use it instead of a multi-use trail. Not suggesting that we need to get rid of the hikers, but it would alleviate some of the traffic on those trails.
    Experience shows the exact opposite of what you think would happen when hiker-only trails are created. They hike the hiker only trails, they *still* hike the multi-use trails, and now they start pushing to restrict bikes from the multi-use trails, too. The trails around Boulder, CO are 95% hiker only, but the hikers still clog the multi-use trails, and then complain about conflict and lobby to restrict bike use. Hell, they lobby to restrict bikes from the BIKE PATHS. They even go to the BIKE PARK, walk on the trails, and complain about conflict!

  49. #49
    YRG
    YRG is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    345
    Quote Originally Posted by honkinunit View Post
    Experience shows the exact opposite of what you think would happen when hiker-only trails are created. They hike the hiker only trails, they *still* hike the multi-use trails, and now they start pushing to restrict bikes from the multi-use trails, too. The trails around Boulder, CO are 95% hiker only, but the hikers still clog the multi-use trails, and then complain about conflict and lobby to restrict bike use. Hell, they lobby to restrict bikes from the BIKE PATHS. They even go to the BIKE PARK, walk on the trails, and complain about conflict!
    I think you are missing the point. Try looking at it from your own perspective.
    If a bike only trail is made for you, are you going to stop using the multi-use trails?
    How about if you have a ton of bike only trails, then will you stay off the multi-use? I would probably not, but I would tend to use the bike only trails much more.

    You are also making a great point that is not obvious, so let me clarify it. Your description of hikers sounds terrible. They sound like total a$$holes! My theory of people (away from the internet) is that we are basically good and kind. What would possibly get someone to see people as negative and unreasonable as you see hikers?
    Mountain bikes are a huge pain for hikers. We are a big buzz kill in places that are supposed to be serene. We scare people. When there are a fair number of us, we can really change the nature of what should be a nice walk.

    People who hike deserve to have trails (lot's of them) where mountain bikes are not allowed. Mountain bikers deserve to have trails (lot's of them) where hikers are not allowed.

    Having a lot of trails where everybody is allowed stops working well when usage increases. To get where we need to be, we have to take trails away from people. Meaning change multi use to managed use. The end result will be better for all, even though there would be less trails for each group. There is no other realistic option. Mountain bikes needs directional trails. We are unique in that regard.

    Every human should be able to walk trails without being molested by our mountain biking community. If we all better understood how negatively we often impact our brethren, it could be very helpful. Maybe we could see the value in volunteering our time to make some hiking only trails as well as biking only trails.

  50. #50
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,986
    Only on Chester The Molester Trail, dude.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,611
    Quote Originally Posted by YRG View Post
    I think you are missing the point. Try looking at it from your own perspective.
    If a bike only trail is made for you, are you going to stop using the multi-use trails?
    How about if you have a ton of bike only trails, then will you stay off the multi-use? I would probably not, but I would tend to use the bike only trails much more.

    You are also making a great point that is not obvious, so let me clarify it. Your description of hikers sounds terrible. They sound like total a$$holes! My theory of people (away from the internet) is that we are basically good and kind. What would possibly get someone to see people as negative and unreasonable as you see hikers?
    Mountain bikes are a huge pain for hikers. We are a big buzz kill in places that are supposed to be serene. We scare people. When there are a fair number of us, we can really change the nature of what should be a nice walk.

    People who hike deserve to have trails (lot's of them) where mountain bikes are not allowed. Mountain bikers deserve to have trails (lot's of them) where hikers are not allowed.

    Having a lot of trails where everybody is allowed stops working well when usage increases. To get where we need to be, we have to take trails away from people. Meaning change multi use to managed use. The end result will be better for all, even though there would be less trails for each group. There is no other realistic option. Mountain bikes needs directional trails. We are unique in that regard.

    Every human should be able to walk trails without being molested by our mountain biking community. If we all better understood how negatively we often impact our brethren, it could be very helpful. Maybe we could see the value in volunteering our time to make some hiking only trails as well as biking only trails.
    Where do I begin?

    "What would possibly get someone to see people as negative and unreasonable as you see hikers?"

    Umm, well, maybe attempting to share the trails with hikers for 30 years? I am in my mid-50s, and I am simply not the stereotypical rad DH guy blasting past hikers. I am more accommodating to hikers than 99.9% of mountain bikers. I get completely off of the trail or do "the lean" *every* time I encounter an oncoming hiker or equestrian. If I come up on a hiker from behind, I gently alert them, and wait for their reaction to decide what to do next.

    About 98% of the time everything is great. About 2% of the time, the reward for courtesy is either aggression(active or passive), verbal attacks, snide comments, just general assholiness. So 2% doesn't seem that bad, right? Try riding on the Front Range of CO where on a ride you might pass 2 or 300 hikers. Why ride somewhere like that, you ask? BECAUSE THAT'S ALL WE HAVE ANYMORE. *Every* trail in Boulder County is open to hikers. Not a single trail is bike only, not even the "Bike Park". We have no choice but to ride with hikers, for whom 95% of the trail mileage is hiker only, so they think *all* of the trail mileage should be hiker only. Period.

    "Molested"? Sh**t, the hikers here think they are being "molested" if they see a bike on the trail, period. That is the attitude. They believe they should have 100% of the trails, not just 95%, and they continually push their agenda to that end. They wouldn't even support building a parallel bike only trail out of the south end of Boulder so that cyclists wouldn't have to drive to the overflowing trailhead parking lots. Why? Because they didn't think it was "right" that they wouldn't be able to use the trail! You seem to think all we have to do is ask nicely and we'll magically get nice "managed" trails to ourselves, going in one direction or something? Seriously? The reality is that the Sierra Clubbers would like nothing more than for us to go away, and they do everything in their power to make that happen, like the situation that started this thread. If is hypocracy to the extreme on their part. True wilderness doesn't have hoards of hikers, but take a look at any wilderness trail in Indian Peaks west Boulder or any Colorado 14'er on any summer day. It looks like a stream of ants running up and down the mountain, and the erosion impacts are epic. Where are they on this issue? They don't even dare propose limits, because limits would result in negative impacts to, well, hikers.

    Mountain bikes don't "need" directional trails. Where the hell does that come from? Sure, some trails work better if they are directional, but that goes for equestrians and hikers, too.

    Stay tuned, because the clusterf**ck that is the Colorado Front Range is coming soon to a Utah trail near you, and if you like to ride an MTB, you can fully expect to eventually be limited to just a few trails, to be shared with thousands of hikers.

  52. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    396
    Sounds like hell. I've visited Boulder but never ridden there. Doubt I will be anytime soon.

    If that happened in salt lake I'd likely move. Scary times to be a singletrack lover.

  53. #53
    Frame Building Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,489
    In UT we do not really have the hiker animosity that the front range does. Just FYI. I have yet to have a negative interaction with another trail user here.

    You could not pay me to live in Boulder again.

    -Walt

  54. #54
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,986
    It sounds like Marin.

    94% of the narrow trails are off limits to bikes.

    356 miles of narrow trails, 30 are open to bikes.

    Where do the hikers mostly walk? The fire roads open to bikes usually 3-5 abreast blocking the entire road. Then they yell and scream if you don't grovel on your way past.

    Usually there is a parallel single track closed to bikes very close but the hikers never use it. Since they can't be social and walk next to each other. Then the bikes ruin the hikers party by being present on the fire road, which is the right/legal thing for the cyclists to do. In reality most of the hikers would be unaware that the cyclists were using the "illegal" trails, because they don't use them very often.

    Land managers often get unintended consequences to management practices.

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation: RooHarris's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,181

    Support the sustainable trails coalition - now!

    Quote Originally Posted by a.d.85 View Post
    @dmar123

    I hope you don't mind, but I ran with your concept

    Proudly display your trail love while supporting the Sustainable Trails Coalition. All proceeds from sticker purchases will be donated directly to STC in support of the fight to end the blanket ban on bicycles in Wilderness.

    Save Our Trails Sticker
    Done! I first began supporting the STC when The Boulder/White Clouds shut down all mountain biking due to Wilderness Designation. Having ridden in those mountains in 1994, I was hooked on their grandeur and felt the pain of their loss. In December, I met Jackson Ratcliffe at our club (Mendocino Coast Cyclists) meeting and was so impressed with his integrity as a representative of the STC enough to motion our club donate $500 to their cause. I have had numerous tread conversations with Davey Simon of the STC. Along with Jackson, these guys are in it for the long haul. Anyone who is interested in preserving our trails would be doing themselves a tremendous service by donating to the STC sooner than later. Everyday we lose more trails.

    I still favor Wilderness Designation to protect the wildness of the backcountry for the future generations from the Corporate Thieves ie: Koch Brothers etc. At one time, I was on the fence regarding the "No Bike " policy implemented into the Wilderness Act later in 1984. It was not until I lost access to the Boulder/White Clouds last year that I got off the fence to advocate for bikes in "selected" Wilderness areas proposed by the STC. My attitude has changed. My hopes for the Wasatch Mountains are that bikes are continued to be allowed. I have been assured that they would be by the SOC group, but true assurance doesn't come until the fatbiker sings...

    Please support the STC. These guys will go the extra mile when IMBA balked! IMBA has become too bureaucratically bloated to join ranks and until they change their policies under Mike Van Abel I will no longer be an active member.

    When it comes to IMBA : This is my opinion only and does not reflect those of the STC.

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    113

    Banned in the USA

    Even more reason to continue to watch how this progresses in the Wasatch - Banned in the USA on Pinkbike

  57. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    6,987
    Quote Originally Posted by RooHarris View Post
    Done! I first began supporting the STC when The Boulder/White Clouds shut down all mountain biking due to Wilderness Designation. Having ridden in those mountains in 1994, I was hooked on their grandeur and felt the pain of their loss. In December, I met Jackson Ratcliffe at our club (Mendocino Coast Cyclists) meeting and was so impressed with his integrity as a representative of the STC enough to motion our club donate $500 to their cause. I have had numerous tread conversations with Davey Simon of the STC. Along with Jackson, these guys are in it for the long haul. Anyone who is interested in preserving our trails would be doing themselves a tremendous service by donating to the STC sooner than later. Everyday we lose more trails.

    I still favor Wilderness Designation to protect the wildness of the backcountry for the future generations from the Corporate Thieves ie: Koch Brothers etc. At one time, I was on the fence regarding the "No Bike " policy implemented into the Wilderness Act later in 1984. It was not until I lost access to the Boulder/White Clouds last year that I got off the fence to advocate for bikes in "selected" Wilderness areas proposed by the STC. My attitude has changed. My hopes for the Wasatch Mountains are that bikes are continued to be allowed. I have been assured that they would be by the SOC group, but true assurance doesn't come until the fatbiker sings...

    Please support the STC. These guys will go the extra mile when IMBA balked! IMBA has become too bureaucratically bloated to join ranks and until they change their policies under Mike Van Abel I will no longer be an active member.

    When it comes to IMBA : This is my opinion only and does not reflect those of the STC.
    I too donate to STC and no longer support the local IMBA chapter but still donate to the trail fund. But get your facts straight. The Boulder White Clouds are not entirely closed to mtn biking by the wilderness designation. There are still some stellar trails left. Big Boulder-Little Boulder and L. Casino-B. Casino to name a few.

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    180
    Definitely some differing opinions. I'm not sure what to make of it myself. Be sure to read to the end; it's short.

    Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) introduces human-powered wilderness travel bill
    Could lead to more trail access for mountain bikers, but not all encouraged

    link

  59. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    685
    Read the article and the bill. Didn't see anything that would suggest a state takeover of public lands.

    Its pretty obvious that Ashley Korenblat and Jason Sumner dont approve of Mike Lees stance on public lands as I'm sure many dont, but does that mean we have to disagree with Lee's and the STC's Human-Powered Travel in Wilderness Areas Act as well?

    Human-Powered Travel in Wilderness Areas Act should not be associated with state take over and selling of public lands. To suggest that if we remove the blanket ban on bikes in the wilderness and give the federal land managers the authority to decide on human-powered travel on local Wilderness trails is somehow going to lead to lands being taken over by states and then sold for development when the states need cash is a lame argument and nothing more than an attempt to smear the STC's efforts.

    Anyways just got back from riding Teton Pass and its always refreshing to see groups of people working together and doing something right. Ya know its possible for mountain bikers and forest service to work together, its possible for the STC and IMBA to work together, tired of statements that pit these groups against each other and that cause division. Lets work together.

Similar Threads

  1. From AZ to UT with luv! Wasatch Crest Wow!
    By Evil Patrick in forum Arizona
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 12-04-2015, 07:53 AM
  2. Colville NF Potentail Wilderness Designation
    By Tomato4 in forum Washington
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 03-25-2015, 01:35 PM
  3. Getting a Wilderness designation changed to Non-Motorized access
    By dustyduke22 in forum Trail Building and Advocacy
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 10-02-2013, 09:03 PM
  4. Comments Needed to Oppose Wilderness Designation by July 19, 2013
    By sick4surf in forum New York - New Jersey
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-24-2013, 07:37 PM
  5. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-26-2012, 02:48 PM

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.