Thread: Bozeman Area Help Save the Trails!!!

There are currently numerous threats to the trails in the Bozeman area. Now is the time to take action.

What can you do?

1) Join IMBA. We don't have enough members in MT.

2) Visit bozemanbiketalk.com and go the Advocacy - Save the Trails forum.

3) Send me a PM with your email address. I will invite you to join a google group that sends you automatic email updates with all the info you need.

Threats:

1) Day limits. Hyalite will be off limits to bikes 2 days a week next year and certain trails in the Bridgers 1 day a week. This is just the beginning. These groups want at least a 4 day a week closure.

2) Hyalite Porcupine Buffalo Horn Wilderness Study Area - if this proposal is passed, it will close all biking in Hyalite and all biking in the Gallatin Range east of the Gallatin River down to Big Sky.

3) A massive wilderness bill proposed by the Alliance for the Wild Rockies. This is proposing 20.5 million acres of new wilderness. It would close all biking in the Gallatin Range from S. Cottonwood to Madison Campground in Yellowstone. As well as massive amounts of wilderness in 4 western states.

4) Bike closure on entire Continental Divide Trail.

Here are some photos of the potentially closed trails. Please help, we don't want to be the last generation to be able to experience riding on these world class trails:

Hyalite Peak:







Blackmore to S Cottonwood









Spanish Creek to Ennis Lake:







Please act now and help us save the trails from what I think is a well funded very vocal minority.

Thank you for your time.

just a bit of optimism in the face of what you are seeing from the USFS --

they aren't going to be enforcing the closures, they're depending on your fear of fines to do the enforcement for them.

so even if their "closures" pass, it won't matter much from a rider's perspective. it will matter from a user group vs user group perspective, but that's all pissing and moaning.

UC -

I heard that they would have something like 1.5 people to enforce closures for the entire state. So essentially it would be nearly impossible to get caught BUT

the potential for user conflict is huge in areas like Hyalite. I could really do without getting in a fight every time I go out to ride. Or getting in a conflict with a gun wielding horsemen.

Yeah that's a problem -- but over here we have good relations with the backcountry horsemen, both politically and practically. I would say that in my backcountry alpine rides, I encounter horsemen on 75% of the time (per-ride basis) and the interactions always are positive.

This closure was steamrolled by a bunch of yuppie pseudo-environmentalists who really --at the bottom of things-- simply want to tell others what to do. They want that more than they really want to achieve protected lands. The protections are not threatened by MTB access, especially given that backcountry horses do a lot more damage than any MTB.

The only real threat from MTB access is from the freeride/shuttle monkey crowd who may demand paved roads and easier access. But even that seems really far-fetched.

In other words, if you live in Bozo or Mizzou, and you ride MTBs and you like to ride them in the backcountry, you should be against "development" and yuppification, because that's what causes trail user conflict -- an influx of yuppie assholes. They think that moving to Montana with their big fat "nest egg" lets them order people around so that they can have their fantasy "wilderness experience" where they see nobody and they find no evidence of others using the trails or land. Obviously they're engaged in fantasy. Obviously they are the problem. So why isn't it obvious that "development" and "growth" threaten our trails and access to them?

Here's the real kicker: I would bet $100 that most of those who oppose MTB use in backcountry terrain DO NOT USE THAT TERRAIN THEMSELVES. EVER. In other words, they are engaged in a pattern of imagining the worst, no matter what is the reality.

I am in 100% agreeance with you and those people piss me off to no end. I probably rode 40+ times in the Hyalite area this summer and had exactly zero conflicts. In fact most people are happy to see you biking up trails that is a hard hike for them. It's usually nothing but words of encouragement. So it is very frustrating to be potentially kicked out of an area by people that don't even use it.

Here is a link to a good article by Bill Schneider I believe of Falcon Publishing:

http://www.newwest.net/topic/article...lite/C146/L41/

Originally Posted by uncle crud

-- an influx of yuppie assholes.

Welcome to the New Bozeman(started about 1990). Full of people with too much money and time on their hands constantly bitching for their own special wants.


pnut- PM sent

Makes it hard to give support to wilderness when they want to lock out bikes. Which is too bad I would love to see these areas permanently shut down to extraction industries, sustainable logging being the exception.

the reference to the freeride\shuttle monkeys hits home, I like to DH but I can see how the extreme nature of these groups would be a detriment to advocating responsible use. The whole ban the skateborder mentality sucks but was also brought on by punk kids who didn't know when to keep their attitude in check.

Originally Posted by SuperChief

Makes it hard to give support to wilderness when they want to lock out bikes. Which is too bad I would love to see these areas permanently shut down to extraction industries, sustainable logging being the exception.

Home run! The real goal of most who want "wilderness" designation is to prevent house/ski "resort" construction, roads, and extraction that is damaging.

Healthy timber extraction is not bad long-term, but it has to happen in a smart way and given the way that corporate clear-cut has become the standard, the wiser and renewable style of timber extraction now has become astronomically expensive by comparison. It can be done by pack teams, or by helicopter. Both methods are costly, the pack teams because of time requirements, and the helicopter for the obvious expense of chopper time and fuel.

Instead of trying to see common ground, the Nouveau Mountain Town Yuppie simply wants to order people around, because he/she "has money" and in his/her mind, that means he/she has "power."

Sadly, it works out to be accurate unless user groups make a gigantic racket, and/or sue the USFS.

The 1964 Wilderness Act was an interesting land use control ideology that no longer makes sense. Cyclists are now caught in the line of fire of this Act and those who push it for narrow, short-sighted interests. And this is coming from someone who is strongly interested in conservation.

Time for a rethinking of how we protect and manage public lands in the US.

That link to an article I posted is by a member of the Wilderness advocates who has decided that perhaps it is time for a wilderness lite - which would allow bicycles. His thinking is that it would be easier to unite people to push for conservation, if they didn't alienate certain user groups with Wilderness. Judging by some of the comments however, most of his peers are not that supportive of his view.

Hopefully we can get some bikers together and start at least a small racket!

If anyone PM's me after today, I might not be able to get back to you until Monday. But I will get back to you.

pnut - If you engage with the USFS on this, here are some points that are relevant. Whether you decide to raise any of them is a strategic choice, but I think each one has merit.

1. The reason to restrict bicycles has to do with "mechanized travel" and therefore the emphasis is on "mechanical" assistance. Originally "mechanized travel" meant gas-powered devices like cars, trucks, jeeps, motorcycles. Logically it has been expanded to include 3- and 4-wheeled ATVs. Illogically it has been expanded to include bicycles. What it should be limited to is MOTORIZED travel.

2. Mechanical assistance is integral to most peoples' use of wilderness, even if they travel with a light eco-footprint. For example, the following are "mechanical" devices that the USFS does not regulate -- cooking stoves, backpacks, snowshoes, orthopedic appliances (braces, etc), snowboard bindings, ski bindings, hiking poles/staffs, ski poles, rock climbing and mountaineering hardware, tents, knives, guns, rope arrays including pulleys. It makes no sense to allow so many types of mechanically assisted recreation, yet label bicycles as improper mechanized assistance.,

3. While backcountry horsemen have the "grandfather" advantage of preceding the USFS and National Park and National Recreation Area designations, and therefore are allowed in all "wilderness" without exception, they cause much more impact in total and per capita. A single horseman will displace more soil and rock than a single MTB. This is physically true and provable; IMBA has details on this. Most backcountry horsemen will agree to this if you get them to speak candidly on relative impacts.

Good points UC. Thank you for that. I'll keep this thread posted with any progress we might make.

I know we got some more biking Bozemanites on this board. Join up!

in the Hyalite Porcupine Buffalo Horn Wilderness Study Area

Originally Posted by pnut

Good points UC. Thank you for that. I'll keep this thread posted with any progress we might make.

I know we got some more biking Bozemanites on this board. Join up!

Hell yeah, you're welcome. I still haven't done much riding over on your side of the divide, and I don't want to lose the chance to do so legally... although I doubt the legality will be much of a hurdle for me, I like to ride backcountry with at least one other person, and most of my riding friends are talking about respecting the closures!

Good luck to you and the rest of the Bozos, and remember -- sometimes, you really do have to sue the USFS. Seriously. I was involved in some timber-related litigation about 1.5 years ago and the stuff I learned in the course of that lawsuit taught me a lot about the USFS and how likely it is to do what is in everyone's best interest. They tend to side with money, not what's right.

Except when they get sued, and then they start feeling REAL pressure.

Originally Posted by uncle crud

Hell yeah, you're welcome. I still haven't done much riding over on your side of the divide, and I don't want to lose the chance to do so legally... although I doubt the legality will be much of a hurdle for me, I like to ride backcountry with at least one other person, and most of my riding friends are talking about respecting the closures!

Good luck to you and the rest of the Bozos, and remember -- sometimes, you really do have to sue the USFS. Seriously. I was involved in some timber-related litigation about 1.5 years ago and the stuff I learned in the course of that lawsuit taught me a lot about the USFS and how likely it is to do what is in everyone's best interest. They tend to side with money, not what's right.

Except when they get sued, and then they start feeling REAL pressure.

UC, could you possibly elaborate a little more on this FS lawsuit you were involved in? I'm just curious what lessons might be drawn from your dealings with that chicken shit organization (funny I worked for it for quite a while, maybe that is where the animosity comes from...). Lawsuits do seem to be the only thing that works with the FS. Environmentalists have been applying the tactic for years to hold up or stop logging sales (among other activities). The court system is the only way to maintain the status quo, unfortunatly.

Pnut- pm sent. There is a active mb crowd on the other side of the hill also (Livetown), everyone needs to be rallied about this. Good thread!

hick--

Basically the lawsuit was to compel them to follow THEIR OWN INTERNAL GUIDELINES for timber "harvesting" in sensitive ecosystems. Without the lawsuit, they were planning on turning a blind eye to the destruction of lots of habitat, both arboreal habitat and the aquatic impact of clearcuts and the topsoil erosion and over-siltation of trout streams. They wrote reports that "concluded" they had complied with their own guidelines but when we examined the reports it was plain that they'd just drawn conclusions and hadn't really done any analysis.

That's pretty much standard for them. This wasn't the first or only lawsuit that the entity I helped had filed, and it won't be the last. The lead attorney has litigated this stuff all around the PNW. It's pretty much their method to do whatever the fuck they want unless they're sued. Sure they will have a lot of "public affairs" bread and circus, they'll take public comment, etc. But they never do anything about the public's commentary.

The 9th Circuit US Court of Appeals handed down a decision within the last 9-12 months that talked about the USFS trail network and recreation planning process, and how they are basically using a charade when they take public comment but then do nothing to follow the comments. That opinion would probably be useful for pnut & co.

Originally Posted by uncle crud

Yeah that's a problem -- but over here we have good relations with the backcountry horsemen, both politically and practically. I would say that in my backcountry alpine rides, I encounter horsemen on 75% of the time (per-ride basis) and the interactions always are positive.

This closure was steamrolled by a bunch of yuppie pseudo-environmentalists who really --at the bottom of things-- simply want to tell others what to do. They want that more than they really want to achieve protected lands. The protections are not threatened by MTB access, especially given that backcountry horses do a lot more damage than any MTB.

The only real threat from MTB access is from the freeride/shuttle monkey crowd who may demand paved roads and easier access. But even that seems really far-fetched.

In other words, if you live in Bozo or Mizzou, and you ride MTBs and you like to ride them in the backcountry, you should be against "development" and yuppification, because that's what causes trail user conflict -- an influx of yuppie assholes. They think that moving to Montana with their big fat "nest egg" lets them order people around so that they can have their fantasy "wilderness experience" where they see nobody and they find no evidence of others using the trails or land. Obviously they're engaged in fantasy. Obviously they are the problem. So why isn't it obvious that "development" and "growth" threaten our trails and access to them?

Here's the real kicker: I would bet $100 that most of those who oppose MTB use in backcountry terrain DO NOT USE THAT TERRAIN THEMSELVES. EVER. In other words, they are engaged in a pattern of imagining the worst, no matter what is the reality.

thank you

Tell Paulie he needs a shirt.

check out the new website --

http://www.montanamountainbikealliance.com/

you can join and sign up to receive email alerts when action is required.