Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 315
  1. #51
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    8,318
    I'm increasingly curious how Mike Simpson feels about this bill. He claimed that Boulder-White Clouds wasn't a proxy fight for bicycles in Wilderness, and that that discussion should be separate, but he never claimed to support fixing the misinterpretation of 1984 so far as I've seen, either. Now is his chance; where's the House version?

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Missoula, MT
    Posts
    22,462
    Poach it.
    What enforcement do they have?
    No longer stuck.

    Quote Originally Posted by stuckathuntermtn View Post
    Just an uneducated guess.

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    8,318
    Was that part of your argument when you wrote to Steve Daines or did you focus on the name-calling for that?

    Meanwhile at the adults' table, for all those worried about some political gamesmanship, consider this angle: as-written, the law is extremely reasonable and makes explicit something that most people think is already part of the Wilderness Act (ask a disinterested observer and see). It lets local officials decide whether or not bikes and chainsaws are appropriate in specific locations.

    So if this is part of some larger argument over states' rights and turning federal land over to more local government then the most likely strategy is not some Trojan horse or trick within this bill but rather "lose the battle to win the war." If this very modest reform can't get approval then the argument for local control is strengthened.

    The same applies to the other side: anyone who wants to strengthen support for the Wilderness Act should "lose" this battle in order to secure the absolute support of bikers for federal lands and expansion of Wilderness going forward. Think Lee's up to something? Call his bluff and pass the bill as-written so he can't use it as a wedge issue for the rest of his career.
    Last edited by jono; 08-07-2016 at 06:41 AM.

  4. #54
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Mt. Baker
    Posts
    1,754
    There have been serveral studies that show mountian bikes cause a hell of a lot less trail erosian than horses and even hikers. I donth have time to dig them up right now, but those studies are what allowed mountain bikes to be used in the new Lake Whatcom Reconviances wich was created in order to protect the water shed and the drinking water for Bellingham. Now its an amazing addition to the trial network.

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Where the sheets have no stains
    Posts
    22,069
    I keep hearing about how the good the riding in in B-ham. May have to visit some folks and see for myself.

    Good to hear that there are some progressive communities.
    I have been in this State for 30 years and I am willing to admit that I am part of the problem.

    "Happiest years of my life were earning < $8.00 and hour, collecting unemployment every spring and fall, no car, no debt and no responsibilities. 1984-1990 Park City UT"

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,572
    Quote Originally Posted by tone capone View Post
    Sounds like a logical bill to me, which certainly means there is no chance of it passing. In the Stanley Idaho area recently... The only bigger travesty than the White Cloud closure is the current idea of "destination" type riding designated to take the place of such irreplaceable historical riding areas. Sure I love some of the trails around this area, and there is nowhere I'd rather be in the spring and early summer than in these foothills... But, summer is long, hot and dusty here, I want to follow the greenery, the cool air, and the flowers up into the mountains.

    Comparing what they are trying to pass off as destination trails up around Stanley now to what was lost in the White Clouds is like comparing a Midwest ski area to Jackson Hole. Yeah, there's plenty of places left to ride a bike... If you like dirt roads, hot dusty trails, horseflies, dead, dying, and burnt up forest, all the people concentrated to a few trails, seeing the actual mountains from dozens of miles away, etc.

    And absolutely, many of the trails in the area are still fun and worth doing if you are a local or are in the area earlier in the early summer or in the fall, but certainly not worth planning a summer vacation around. Forgive me for still being a bit emotional about the loss of the greatest alpine adventure riding in the lower 48, and for not enjoying recreating in lower and mid elevation shitholes all summer and being thrilled about it.

    I just hate the idea that for no good logical reason that anyone can explain, mountain biking is now basically considered a criminal activity anywhere near actual mountains. And that's not even getting into the illogic of increasingly concentrated use.

    That's all I have to say anymore though, I realize it's hopeless and the elitist do gooders have won and we will continue to lose more access, it's just not worth getting worked up about one way or the other anymore, it just sucks. I hate people.
    Try riding Germania, Casino, Big/Little Boulder, Potato Mtn. Still lots of good mountain riding in the Stanley area. It'll keep you from being so depressing.

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Park City
    Posts
    493
    Call me a simpleton, but I consider the old-school wilderness areas sacrosanct. I don't want to be on an approach and hear someone grinding gears or the squealing of brakes.

    For newer wilderness areas bikes should be grandfathered in if the area was traditionally used by bikes before the designation.

    Horses? I hate 'em! Massive erosion, shit and flies all over the place, they usually haul people into the wild places that can't make it up a flight of stairs. But I've thought long and hard about the issue -while hiking in wilderness areas- and realize that traditional uses of WA should not be banned. If we start throwing stones at each other, everything will be banned.

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Wasatch
    Posts
    6,256
    Quote Originally Posted by itsnowjoke View Post
    Call me a simpleton, but I consider the old-school wilderness areas sacrosanct. I don't want to be on an approach and hear someone grinding gears or the squealing of brakes.

    For newer wilderness areas bikes should be grandfathered in if the area was traditionally used by bikes before the designation.

    Horses? I hate 'em! Massive erosion, shit and flies all over the place, they usually haul people into the wild places that can't make it up a flight of stairs. But I've thought long and hard about the issue -while hiking in wilderness areas- and realize that traditional uses of WA should not be banned. If we start throwing stones at each other, everything will be banned.
    How is the horse traditional? It's an A-rab import.

    Does traditional only mean things that you fossils saw when you went to the talkies?

    Does it mean everything that used wilderness-designated lands when the act was initially passed? That would include all sorts of weird shit.

    All permitted activities on wilderness act protected lands prior to 1980 seem very traditional to me, because that only includes stuff that was going on well before my birth.

    What's your definition of traditional, ossified time share owner?

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Park City
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by Sirshredalot View Post
    How is the horse traditional? It's an A-rab import.

    Does traditional only mean things that you fossils saw when you went to the talkies?

    Does it mean everything that used wilderness-designated lands when the act was initially passed? That would include all sorts of weird shit.

    All permitted activities on wilderness act protected lands prior to 1980 seem very traditional to me, because that only includes stuff that was going on well before my birth.

    What's your definition of traditional, ossified time share owner?
    Umm...I was thinking specifically of horses. If the climbers start hating on the horse folk, then the horse folk start hating on the climbers, & so on and so forth. A slippery slope.

    Ossified? Hardly. Time share owner? Sure, why not. But...no.

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    idaho panhandle!
    Posts
    9,952
    Quote Originally Posted by Sirshredalot View Post
    How is the horse traditional? It's an A-rab ?
    Thats interesting, everything I have read says the Spaniards brought them to the "new world" in the late 15th century. What other information have you read/observed? Curious.

  11. #61
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    8,318
    Quote Originally Posted by itsnowjoke View Post
    If the climbers start hating on the horse folk, then the horse folk start hating on the climbers, & so on and so forth. A slippery slope.
    The WA prohibits motorized (duh) mechanized (anything that draws power from a non-living source is pretty succinct) and mechanical advantage. Since bikes were banned a lot of people have taken to imagining that mechanical advantage includes bike gears and oar-locks and such people are wrong: those use mechanical disadvantage. Climbers are actually the ones who ever user mechanical advantage. The whole argument is just nonsense to gain control of the narrative.
    Last edited by jono; 08-07-2016 at 06:24 PM.

  12. #62
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Wasatch
    Posts
    6,256
    Quote Originally Posted by 2FUNKY View Post
    Thats interesting, everything I have read says the Spaniards brought them to the "new world" in the late 15th century. What other information have you read/observed? Curious.
    The horse was domesticated in the Middle East and brought to Europe via the tribes of e.g. Scythia. It was then brought to North America by European colonists.

    Traditionally, there were no domesticated horses in North America, and certainly none existed in the Edenic wilds untrammeled by man that many Wilderness to be.

  13. #63
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    in your second home, doing heroin
    Posts
    14,690
    Quote Originally Posted by itsnowjoke View Post
    Call me a simpleton, but I consider the old-school wilderness areas sacrosanct.
    Amazing how few generations that took.

    The brainwashing I mean.


    Again, it's fascinating that so much else in the world stays beautiful and natural without an american Wilderness designation with bicycle exclusion policies.

    I don't know how they do it.


    You guys know you can hunt in wilderness areas right? What do you think is a noisier incursion on natural habitat? My chain rattling a little for a few seconds, or a thirty aught ringing out and quite literally interfering with the day of some wildlife?
    Besides the comet that killed the dinosaurs nothing has destroyed a species faster than entitled white people.-ajp

  14. #64
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    8,318
    Old school Wilderness areas have airstrips, commercial grazing and mining operations. So you gotta draw the line somewhere.

  15. #65
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    cb, co
    Posts
    5,035
    Quote Originally Posted by the_eleven View Post
    Please explain how allowing mountain bikes into wilderness areas preserves natural habitat and ecosystems?
    .
    That's easy. On a longer trail, the hiker becomes a backpacker. So they crush some grass under their tent, start a campfire, attract animals with the smell of food, and literally leave shit after the morning cup of coffee. The biker- they can cover the distance, so they're home in bed. Overall, it's pretty clear which has more impact.

  16. #66
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Missoula, MT
    Posts
    22,462
    Yup.
    Oh, and guy, you're a simpleton. (What? You said call you a simpleton.)
    No longer stuck.

    Quote Originally Posted by stuckathuntermtn View Post
    Just an uneducated guess.

  17. #67
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Park City
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by stuckathuntermtn View Post
    Yup.
    Oh, and guy, you're a simpleton. (What? You said call you a simpleton.)
    Why thank you. At least someone's paying attention!

  18. #68
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Where the sheets have no stains
    Posts
    22,069
    Meh, you are entitled to an opinion and have expressed them here before.

    Like your arguments in favor of One Wasatch.
    I have been in this State for 30 years and I am willing to admit that I am part of the problem.

    "Happiest years of my life were earning < $8.00 and hour, collecting unemployment every spring and fall, no car, no debt and no responsibilities. 1984-1990 Park City UT"

  19. #69
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    I-70 West
    Posts
    4,684
    For you guys up north that lost access in the new wilderness areas , how many miles of new trails were built up to "replace" what was lost?
    Seems like some low hanging fruit, when cutting off historical access to create wilderness, would be to mandate a very favorable ratio of new trail development in immediately adjacent land. Not like there's a shortage of public land out there.
    Full disclosure: I'd like designated wilderness areas to stay just how they are.

  20. #70
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    8,318
    Quote Originally Posted by hatchgreenchile View Post
    Full disclosure: I'd like designated wilderness areas to stay just how they are.
    Me too. The point of clarifying the law is that they should stay just how they are even after they gain protection as part of the Wilderness system. Bike trails should stay bike trails, traditional uses should be respected as was the original intent of the Wilderness Act. These areas are unique and thus irreplaceable.

    Ideally, the number of Wilderness supporters should grow large enough to take on the idea that grandfathered mining claims somehow grant to right to haul mechanized equipment in and tear up the earth.

    If you live in a place where WA's are managed perfectly and never have any of these conflicts then you should be in communication with local land managers to keep it that way. It won't be hard, they're already inclined to agree with their past decisions. But up here where the Wilderness Act was invented it's become a travesty of hypocrisy as the only argument for the present system is that hikers don't want to witness others enjoying nature in a way that doesn't appeal to their personal tastes. This is completely meaningless in places where we rarely witness other humans at all.

  21. #71
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Not in the PRB
    Posts
    32,785
    I've never understood why using ski bindings is not "mechanized" travel but bikes are.
    "fuck off you asshat gaper shit for brains fucktard wanker." - Jesus Christ
    "She was tossing her bean salad with the vigor of a Drunken Pop princess so I walked out of the corner and said.... "need a hand?"" - Odin
    "everybody's got their hooks into you, fuck em....forge on motherfuckers, drag all those bitches across the goal line with you." - (not so) ill-advised strategy

  22. #72
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    8,318
    Bikes aren't mechanized and neither are bindings. Bikes were banned by a mistaken regulation and the attempt to redefine "mechanized" as including anything with mechanisms instead of anything that draws power from fossil fuels/batteries/water wheels etc came later to justify it.

    That point would be clearer if people hadn't forgotten what a motor was. The people who wrote the Wilderness Act did know and took care not to encourage the creation of 'powered but not motorized' vehicles that would have turned the ban on motorized equipment into a joke.

  23. #73
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    I-70 West
    Posts
    4,684
    Feel free to flame away....I would say that ski bindings don't offer any speed advantage, they just allow you to move skis forward . A hiker, horse, snowshoer, skinner all travel at about the same pace, a biker expending a similar amount of energy moves exponentially faster.

  24. #74
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Not in the PRB
    Posts
    32,785
    Quote Originally Posted by hatchgreenchile View Post
    Feel free to flame away....I would say that ski bindings don't offer any speed advantage, they just allow you to move skis forward . A hiker, horse, snowshoer, skinner all travel at about the same pace, a biker expending a similar amount of energy moves exponentially faster.
    I think I go a lot faster downhill on my ski bindings than hikers or snowshoers. And even on flats, what you're saying is not true. I have a much greater speed advantage over hikers or snowshoers who are postholing. Kick and glide.
    "fuck off you asshat gaper shit for brains fucktard wanker." - Jesus Christ
    "She was tossing her bean salad with the vigor of a Drunken Pop princess so I walked out of the corner and said.... "need a hand?"" - Odin
    "everybody's got their hooks into you, fuck em....forge on motherfuckers, drag all those bitches across the goal line with you." - (not so) ill-advised strategy

  25. #75
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    8,318
    None of which has any bearing on the Wilderness Act. Traditional uses of Wilderness include airplanes with engines, but the same CFR that banned possession of bikes banned hang gliders. Why not argue that a Cessna is faster than a hang glider?

    Average speed for a bicycle in a wilderness setting is only slightly faster than a brisk walk. People on this site in particular should know that travel in backcountry differs from front country in risk profile and motivation. This is not about building kickers and berms in pristine meadows.

Posting Permissions

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