Boulder-White Clouds Wilderness - When is access axed?

[jono]

That's good to hear. Nice to know any picking and choosing with respect to the interpretation is hobby driven rather than from a profit motive.

[BobbyBill]

Unlike horses, burros, mules or llamas, your bicycle is a form of modern mechanized transportation.

So your position against allowing bikes is more about bikes being against some sort of Wilderness sensibility rather than demonstrable trail impacts?

[TahoeBC]

Unlike horses, burros, mules or llamas, your bicycle is a form of modern mechanized transportation.

Lucky for your primitive ski equipment is not a form of modern mechanized transportation

From Wild snow

How does the Dynafit tech binding work?
Dynafit engineers could present a three-day seminar on Dynafit bindings. I’ll be brief. To function both as touring and fixed-heel skiing machines, most randonnee bindings have a heel and toe unit mounted on a rigid connector, such as a plate or bar (sometimes called a “frame”). Instead of being a “frame binding,” Dynafit and all other tech bindings use the boot as the connecting device, by building toe and heel connectors into the boot. This eliminates weight and parts. What’s more, Dynafit figured out a way to blend the walking pivot at the toe with the safety release mechanism, thus eliminating more weight. Vertical safety release is accomplished by the boot heel pulling a triangular metal fitting up though two springy prongs (known as the “heel pins”). Sideways (lateral) release is accomplished by the heel piece on the ski rotating under tension, while the small ball/socket joints on the boot toe pop “out of joint.”

[GeezerSteve]

You're missing the point. Modern mountaineering boots are the product of high tech materials and designs, but that does not metamorphose walking into a form of mechanized transport.

So your position against allowing bikes is more about bikes being against some sort of Wilderness sensibility rather than demonstrable trail impacts?

Well, my position is the enforce the Wilderness Act per a reasonable interpretation consistent with its original intent, i.e., to preserve the primeval nature of wilderness in a manner even where it trumps human priorities. Protected wilderness provides a frame of reference of a world where humans have not significantly altered the landscape or the operation of nature within that wild landscape. Congress decided in 1964 that such protection included a ban of mechanized transport, which IMV is a very logical place to draw the line.

[jono]

I said this early on, but now that it's been demonstrated: the discussion never goes anywhere. The Wilderness Act is about excluding people so that other people can feel more alone; its fundamental contradiction is baked in from the outset unless you can establish classes of people in order to justify who is excluded and who isn't.

Bikes are the most democratic means of transport, requiring less physical effort and time than walking and less money than livestock, and therefore they might bring the most people into the wilderness. Bikes present the greatest threat to the existing elite and garner all the fear and revulsion that goes with that.

We can discuss it again and again but the net result is the same: if you want to hike you will interpret the whole thing to your best advantage and if you want to bike you'll see it the other way. There are certain things each group tends to ignore, like the difference between seeing a bike on your hiking trail vs. another hiker or the fact that bike wheels make really nice trails and present the lowest environmental impact per user. These things seem like they should be obvious, but they're only obvious to those who do them and most people don't. Big Steve is ok with commercial operations despite their being mentioned specifically in a clearly derogatory way by the Wilderness Act, but bikes seem bad to him so it should be obvious they don't belong in his Wilderness. It's a typical viewpoint for a non-biker, and if that's going to be the interpretation of the Act going forward then it's time for bikes (and probably skis, kites and any other form of conveyance) to join the Blue Ribbon Coalition and bargain for their own spaces rather than begging for the hikers to be nice and share. It's not about sharing, so that's a pretty ridiculous expectation. Or we can get congress to recognize that "modern" bikes have been ridden in wilderness for twice as long as the Wilderness Act has been around and should be grandfathered in like horses. Either way, let's get on with it.

[GeezerSteve]

The Wilderness Act is about excluding people so that other people

That is utter bullshit. The Wilderness Act does not exclude bicyclists, every one of whom are free to explore Wilderness Areas by foot or on skis.

If you want your MTB advocacy to go anywhere, I suggest you stop constantly playing the victim card.

[jono]

You're missing the point. Modern mountaineering boots are the product of high tech materials and designs, but that does not metamorphose walking into a form of mechanized transport.

A cursory glance at a bike from 1914 and you might notice that high tech materials and designs are the only difference there, too. Gears, spring, shocks and people riding them out into the woods to get their pictures taken with the big trees are not new.

[Bunion 2020]

That is utter bullshit. The Wilderness Act does not exclude bicyclists, every one of whom are free to explore Wilderness Areas by foot or on skis.

The next fucker that says that to my face had better duck.

[jono]

That is utter bullshit. The Wilderness Act does not exclude bicyclists, every one of whom are free to explore Wilderness Areas by foot or on skis.

If you want your MTB advocacy to go anywhere, I suggest you stop constantly playing the victim card.

Mine was just a statement of reality, there's no need to apply a value judgement. It actually gets better than you'd think, though: I am also free to go with a wheelchair or, per the ADA, pretty much any variation of device I need in order to overcome a disability. Little known fact outside of the biking community, but a lot of us got into biking because of knee trouble. Usually the primary effect is pain when climbing down stairs or steep trails. It's why you don't see us taking you up on that 'just go there on foot' nonsense. But thanks to the ADA (and the recent congressional clarification that no WA can in any way block access), I am free to use my tandem-axle conveyance to descend the trails. So I don't really have as much of a dog in this fight as you might think.

[LightRanger]

That is utter bullshit. The Wilderness Act does not exclude bicyclists, every one of whom are free to explore Wilderness Areas by foot or on skis.

If you want your MTB advocacy to go anywhere, I suggest you stop constantly playing the victim card.

Word. Fallacy that jives with his suggestion that cyclists join the BRC. Newsflash: The motorized community and its Idaho GOP allies fucked the cycling community here. I mean, have you ever heard of a (modern) GOP delegation unanimously supporting a wilderness designation in partnership with motorized user groups? You had a broad-based coalition of enviro groups and human-powered recreationists pushing for a NM designation of 600,000 acres that would protect the land without resorting to an actual wilderness designation that excludes bikes. IMBA got outmaneuvered by forces who were willing to trade a much smaller protected area of 275,000 acres if it didn't close favored motorized areas. Enviro groups went with it because, well, it's wilderness. Capital W, with all the protections that come from congressional mandate and not presidential designation under the Antiquities Act. Cyclists didn't have enough juice to stop it. So, yeah, join the BRC. They care about you.

Lobbying dollars through the Sustainable Trails Coalition isn't a bad idea. It might have assisted in this instance. It might assist on future potential wilderness designations. It's technically possible, I suppose, to amend the WA or push for a change in agency policy, but I think that's unlikely.

Personally, I'd like there to be a "Wilderness B," because that's where my personal preferences line up. Currently NRA and NM designations are the best fit for that, absent further congressional action. But, seriously, "Bikes are the most democratic means of transport" is laughable.

[muted]

who are these kickstarter funds going to fund? what lawyers, using what strategies?

You are a lawyer and a mountain biker, can we give our money to you?

[jono]

. But, seriously, "Bikes are the most democratic means of transport" is laughable.

Think about it before you laugh. Look at the average investment involved to travel through 50 miles of wilderness by hikers and horses. I'm sure most of us here own a bike or six that seem competitive in cost, but that's nowhere near the minimum needed. There are outlying trails near me which are regularly ridden by people on ancient or Wal-mart level bikes. They wouldn't have time to go on foot and horses are laughable.

[GeezerSteve]

Nah. Most WA users are people of modest means.

LR makes valid points, although the "Wilderness B" designation thing will get strong resistance from many from whom you'll need support. There are other ways to do it.

The next fucker that says that to my face had better duck.

Nor will threats of violence help your cause.

[jono]

Word. Fallacy that jives with his suggestion that cyclists join the BRC. Newsflash: The motorized community and its Idaho GOP allies fucked the cycling community here.

I'm not a fan of the BRC in general, and it pains me to suggest joining them, but if it came to that I would rather share a trail with a motorcycle than be kicked off it by hikers. And that assumes that the BRC has no interest in representing multiple user groups, when of course the fact is they've successfully fought for and gained access for different uses every time they get the USFS to build new quad trails that aren't open to Jeeps while defending Jeep access on other roads. I'm a long way from being comfortable with that, but the devil we know isn't helping. You think somehow we weren't fucked by the Wilderness Society? At least the BRC didn't take any of our trails.

[jono]

Nah. Most WA users are people of modest means.

Only if you don't value their time.

[GeezerSteve]

Their time in the wilderness is highly valuable, but not in $$ terms. A big problem with this discussion is that some insist on imposing human priorities but the essence of wilderness is that natural conditions trump human priorities.

[Bunion 2020]

Sorry Steve but as soon as the first human put a tread through untrammeled Wilderness it became something less.

There are some true Wild places left (even in the lwr 48) but what the WS and others call Wilderness is anything but.

The rest is semantics put forth by a bunch of elitist fucks to make themselves seem more pure.

[LightRanger]

Think about it before you laugh. Look at the average investment involved to travel through 50 miles of wilderness by hikers

Shoes?

I personally haven't seen any Walmart level bikes on fifty mile trail rides in areas that have wilderness values. And, you're assuming no time spent perfecting skills to ride technical trails (especially on our stipulated shitty bikes), etc. Not to mention that you also seem to be assuming that covering more ground in the same amount of time is intrinsically better than covering fewer miles. Say, versus an out and back of lower mileage to get to a given spot. (Edit: Steve said the same thing two posts above. What's the difference between 50 miles on a bike versus 20 on foot?)

It's a stretch man.

And, I understand (and share many of) your frustrations here, but the logic behind much of what you're saying is really reaching. Steve comes in here and presents, not even the other side of your arguments (because I get the sense that Steve isn't anti-bike and his last name isn't Vandeman), but just a different view. And he gets a bunch of dismissive sarcasm in response. I mean, that's fine, but it's just venting frustration--it doesn't actually further your goals. Donating to the STC might. Trying to really understand other peoples' views of trail cyclists, acknowledging there actually may be some legitimacy to them, and then trying to accommodate them, might help too. Sure, you're not going to accommodate everybody, but there are a ton of people out there who want additional protections for prized public land, but don't want to exclude bikes. But sarcastic dismissal doesn't help you.

Also, again, I'd rather light money on fire than give to the BRC.

[jono]

As ever, the most important of human priorities is controlling the other humans.

[panchosdad]

Word. Fallacy that jives with his suggestion that cyclists join the BRC. Newsflash: The motorized community and its Idaho GOP allies fucked the cycling community here. I mean, have you ever heard of a (modern) GOP delegation unanimously supporting a wilderness designation in partnership with motorized user groups? You had a broad-based coalition of enviro groups and human-powered recreationists pushing for a NM designation of 600,000 acres that would protect the land without resorting to an actual wilderness designation that excludes bikes. IMBA got outmaneuvered by forces who were willing to trade a much smaller protected area of 275,000 acres if it didn't close favored motorized areas. Enviro groups went with it because, well, it's wilderness. Capital W, with all the protections that come from congressional mandate and not presidential designation under the Antiquities Act. Cyclists didn't have enough juice to stop it. So, yeah, join the BRC. They care about you.

LR gets it exactly right here. And in fact the BRC did help to get the BWC trails closed. Simpson, Risch and the BRC concocted this plan, and the Wilderness groups abandoned the Monument plan they had earlier agreed to and jumped on board.

Edit - Which now that I read it again is pretty much what LR said.

[LightRanger]

As ever, the most important of human priorities is controlling the other humans.

Keep up the non sequitors. They're totally persuasive.

In the meantime here's some interesting reading:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/2xhfd10ess...Y_SYM.PDF?dl=0
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/...al%20Final.pdf
http://lawschool.unm.edu/nrj/volumes...ams-McCool.pdf

[toast2266]

Well, my position is the enforce the Wilderness Act per a reasonable interpretation consistent with its original intent, i.e., to preserve the primeval nature of wilderness in a manner even where it trumps human priorities. Protected wilderness provides a frame of reference of a world where humans have not significantly altered the landscape or the operation of nature within that wild landscape. Congress decided in 1964 that such protection included a ban of mechanized transport, which IMV is a very logical place to draw the line.

Wilderness designation is a pretty good way to not preserve the primeval nature of an area. There's plenty of evidence showing that areas get far more use after being designated Wilderness than they ever did when they were just some random patch of forest out in the middle of nowhere. Wilderness is big business, and there's no shortage of people exploiting it for their profit.

[GeezerSteve]

Sorry Steve but as soon as the first human put a tread through untrammeled Wilderness it became something less.

Most trails in WAs started as animal trails. Most of my 700+ days traveling in WAs have been off trail.

There are some true Wild places left (even in the lwr 48) but what the WS and others call Wilderness is anything but.

I concur that that the Act has been used to protect some non-wild places and that some WAs have been drawn to broadly to include areas that IMV do not fit within the Act's original contemplation, e.g., the redrawing of the GPWA to include the Green Mountain lookout. But, IME, those are exceptions -- certainly in WA.

Yes, indeed, there are some truly wild places in the lower 48, e.g., in WA: nearly all of the NCNP/Stephen Mather Wilderness (Pickets, Blum/Berdeen/Hagan/Bacon, Red/Ragged, Isolation Traverse), most of the ALWA, most of the Pasayten, most of Glacier Peak WA, virtually all of Olympic and Buckhorn WAs, most of the Eagle Cap. Last week we spent 8 days in the Beartooth-Absaroka WA and everything we encountered within the WA was pretty wild.

The rest is semantics put forth by a bunch of elitist fucks to make themselves seem more pure.

Sad that you see it that way and I think you're just wrong on the facts. The WAs in WA were advocated by sincere people who sought to stop the exploitation and abuse of public wild lands, e.g., Ira Spring, Harvey Manning.

[jono]

I personally haven't seen any Walmart level bikes on fifty mile trail rides in areas that have wilderness values. And, you're assuming no time spent perfecting skills to ride technical trails (especially on our stipulated shitty bikes), etc. Not to mention that you also seem to be assuming that covering more ground in the same amount of time is intrinsically better than covering fewer miles. Say, versus an out and back of lower mileage to get to a given spot. (Edit: Steve said the same thing two posts above. What's the difference between 50 miles on a bike versus 20 on foot?)

It's a stretch man.

And, I understand (and share many of) your frustrations here, but the logic behind much of what you're saying is really reaching. Steve comes in here and presents, not even the other side of your arguments (because I get the sense that Steve isn't anti-bike and his last name isn't Vandeman), but just a different view. And he gets a bunch of dismissive sarcasm in response. I mean, that's fine, but it's just venting frustration--it doesn't actually further your goals. Donating to the STC might. Trying to really understand other peoples' views of trail cyclists, acknowledging there actually may be some legitimacy to them, and then trying to accommodate them, might help too. Sure, you're not going to accommodate everybody, but there are a ton of people out there who want additional protections for prized public land, but don't want to exclude bikes. But sarcastic dismissal doesn't help you.

Also, again, I'd rather light money on fire than give to the BRC.

What you haven't seen indicates you haven't been where I've been. Not surprising, also not relevant. Not all the trails someone wants to "protect" are all that technical, but this one happens to be longer than what most people can hike in a day.

Steve's a good guy and I'm giving him shit for his little hypocrisies cause this is TGR. Doesn't mean I'm gonna ask Mike Simpson why he hates Idaho. But I probably should.

ETA: Difference between 20 miles and 50 miles is often whether or not you reach anything worth seeing; hence more overnight backpacking vs. riding it in one day.

[GeezerSteve]

There's plenty of evidence showing that areas get far more use after being designated Wilderness than they ever did when they were just some random patch of forest out in the middle of nowhere.

Huh? Show me your alleged "plenty of evidence." Actually, the evidence proves the converse, e.g., The Enchantments before the designation of the ALWA designation was overrun, trashed and full of human feces. The ALWA designation gave the USFS the power to impose quotas. The Pasayten WA and much of Glacier Peak WA was overrun before WA designation.

Indeed, AFAIK all of WA's WAs are less crowded now then before they achieved designated WA status, partly because there are significantly fewer backpackers now than there were in the 1970s and 1980s.

Wilderness is big business, and there's no shortage of people exploiting it for their profit.

WTF? What profit are you talking about? A highly successful outfitter might clear $30,000/yr., although most struggle to break even. No, WAs are not big business. Will you agree that old growth loggers made a bit more before designations of WA prohibited their continual rape of ancient forests? And if WA were big business, why does the biz lobby consistently fight new WA designations? And "no shortage of people. . .?" WTF? At the peak of the season, I doubt that the Stephen Mather Wilderness ever has more than 10 guides working within its 2,000,000 acres. Are you talking about hunting outfitters in non-NP WAs? They'd still be there without the WA designation, likely in bigger numbers and certainly less subject to regulation.