More Potential Bad News for Mountain Bikers

[Rontele]

Get ready to call your Congressman to act out against de facto designations of Wilderness. From the folks at the Wilderness Society

House Conservation Champion Moves to Ensure Protections for Recommended Wilderness
Congressman Raul Grijalva (D – AZ), Chairman of the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, is focusing Congressional attention on the mismanagement of national forest lands that have been recommended for wilderness.

While the Forest Service Manual requires that Forest Service’s recommended wilderness be managed so as not to reduce wilderness potential or to compromise wilderness values, adherence to that policy is mixed at best. A Wilderness Society investigation of policies on the ground has shown that, in some national forests, motorized and mechanized use is permitted in recommended wilderness. These policies jeopardize the wilderness qualities of the over three million acres of officially recommended wilderness.

Chairman Grijalva, responding to The Wilderness Society’s work, is now circulating a draft letter among members of the House of Representatives. His letter, addressed to the Chief of the Forest Service, urges that the Forest Service issue national guidance to all forests that would prohibit non-compatible activities in areas of national forests recommended for wilderness designation.

You can help us to insure that the Forest Service implement this commonsense policy. Contact your Member of Congress and urge them to sign Congressman Grijalva’s letter. This letter will be sent to the Forest Service in 2010.

Contact:
Paul Spitler, The Wilderness Society, paul_spitler@tws.org, 202-833-2300

[bagtagley]

I'm gonna recommend a dirt jump park in Paul Spitler's backyard. That should make it legal, no?

[Rontele]

This is just another knee jerk reaction by "arm-chair" wilderness advocates without any foresight or thought of the consequences...

[Particle]

Geez, I'd rather have to ride around a few oil derricks in the desert under GW's admin that have the Obama tyranny just flat out take everything away from humans to preserve it. Yeah, I went there. GW's lack of environmental concerns was the one thing that pissed me off the most about him, but this political environment is even worse. IMHO.

[kidwoo]

Geez, I'd rather have to ride around a few oil derricks in the desert under GW's admin that have the Obama tyranny just flat out take everything away from humans to preserve it. Yeah, I went there. GW's lack of environmental concerns was the one thing that pissed me off the most about him, but this political environment is even worse. IMHO.

Then you haven't been paying attention. It's a few in congress that have been spearheading this constantly expanding wilderness crap for over a decade, barbara boxer being one of the more vocal ones that you normall year about (at least here). What they got out of it was a hugely compromised (thank jeebus) version of what they've been proposing in the last omnibus bill. But for the most part, a lot of the recommended areas were ignored, at least in CA.

But read what that article actually says. The guy is bitching about lack of regulation in RECOMMENDED wilderness. I really don't know what the hell he's talking about, because in my world recommended wilderness is not wilderness. Either way it's this guy you need to be focusing your ire on

Raul Grijalva (D-AZ)


Rontele: where did you pull that from?

[gravitylover]

So according to 31 thousand morons on facebook we should all be killed for riding on the roads and according to innumerable morons in gov't. we should be excluded from playing in the woods.

Maybe they'll build us a freeride park on the south lawn so they can monitor us more closely or maybe a dh run down capitol hill...

[Particle]

Yeah K I know I went OT, and it's way more congress than Obama that is pushing this crap. Still frustrating.

[spanghew]

Having lived in a couple different wilderness areas that could easily be penetrated on mountain bikes if they were allowed, I'm very happy to see the bikes excluded. I ride a mountain bike, have for years, love singletrack and getting into the outback on a bike . . . but I've never felt limited by wilderness, existing or proposed.

On the other hand, as someone who spends months in wilderness areas and watches the comings and goings of hikers and horse packers, my estimate of the damage the fast, easy access to these areas bicycles would allow would be immense. Too many people could get too far too fast. Areas now already heavily impacted because they're an easy day hike for everyone would suffer even more; areas now relatively unmolested because they're further than out-of-shape hikers or those intent on reaching other destinations, would become just more sacrifice zones.

There's little difference between opening an area to mountain bikes and building a road to them. The recreational stakes between walking to an area and riding a bike in a quarter the time is immense.

I think people who travel to an area to play, then go back home, have a much different iew of the outback than people who live in those remote areas . . . much like the different views of endless miles of desert between people who drive through it to get somewhere else and those who actually live there and watch the land every day (reference the eagerness some people have to donate much of the Mojave Desert to solar panels, versus the people who live there and insist LA generate its power closer to home, on their rooftops).

That said, despite the hysterical tone in the original post, most of these types of conflicts get sorted out through collaboration on a case-by-case basis. The ORV-ers get pissed, the granola people get pissed, the horsey people get pissed, but each group gets some of what they want, avoid some of what they fear, and the resource doesn't suffer the kind of damage or neglect any particular viewpoint might lead to.

It's unfortunate that the polarized sides resort to such hyperbolic rhetoric to rally the troops.

[uncle crud]

leave it to a troll named "ms ann thrope" to get it wrong.

it's about expanding wilderness, Annie.

it is Annie, isn't it?

because I need to eliminate the possibility that you are Mike Vandeman.

+++++++++

as to whether Obama is involved in this: don't be fucking naive. of course he is. he's the CEO of America, Inc. he either implicitly approves or tacitly approves. don't be naive.

[Conundrum]

Having lived in a couple different wilderness areas that could easily be penetrated on mountain bikes if they were allowed, I'm very happy to see the bikes excluded. I ride a mountain bike, have for years, love singletrack and getting into the outback on a bike . . . but I've never felt limited by wilderness, existing or proposed.

On the other hand, as someone who spends months in wilderness areas and watches the comings and goings of hikers and horse packers, my estimate of the damage the fast, easy access to these areas bicycles would allow would be immense. Too many people could get too far too fast. Areas now already heavily impacted because they're an easy day hike for everyone would suffer even more; areas now relatively unmolested because they're further than out-of-shape hikers or those intent on reaching other destinations, would become just more sacrifice zones.

There's little difference between opening an area to mountain bikes and building a road to them. The recreational stakes between walking to an area and riding a bike in a quarter the time is immense.

I think people who travel to an area to play, then go back home, have a much different iew of the outback than people who live in those remote areas . . . much like the different views of endless miles of desert between people who drive through it to get somewhere else and those who actually live there and watch the land every day (reference the eagerness some people have to donate much of the Mojave Desert to solar panels, versus the people who live there and insist LA generate its power closer to home, on their rooftops).

That said, despite the hysterical tone in the original post, most of these types of conflicts get sorted out through collaboration on a case-by-case basis. The ORV-ers get pissed, the granola people get pissed, the horsey people get pissed, but each group gets some of what they want, avoid some of what they fear, and the resource doesn't suffer the kind of damage or neglect any particular viewpoint might lead to.

It's unfortunate that the polarized sides resort to such hyperbolic rhetoric to rally the troops.

I'm resurecting this horse.

I disagree that equestrians and hikers do less damage. This has been covered many times on many forums. But I digress.

The original post was about some clown congressman who wants to bar mountain bikes from RECOMMENDED wilderness areas. He didn't mention anything about who is recommending the areas. This has huge potential for being onesided. National forest areas belong to the people and people should get a say on how those lands are used.

While I don't agree with the baring of bikes from wilderness areas, I understand that the land has been designated. This guy is talking about taking away people's rights to recreate on public land on a maybe. That's crap.

[Rontele]

Then you haven't been paying attention. It's a few in congress that have been spearheading this constantly expanding wilderness crap for over a decade, barbara boxer being one of the more vocal ones that you normall year about (at least here). What they got out of it was a hugely compromised (thank jeebus) version of what they've been proposing in the last omnibus bill. But for the most part, a lot of the recommended areas were ignored, at least in CA.

But read what that article actually says. The guy is bitching about lack of regulation in RECOMMENDED wilderness. I really don't know what the hell he's talking about, because in my world recommended wilderness is not wilderness. Either way it's this guy you need to be focusing your ire on

Raul Grijalva (D-AZ)


Rontele: where did you pull that from?

Its from a newsletter sent out by the Wilderness Society.

[Rontele]

I think this also underscores the following points:

1) mountain bike wilderness interests are not that far off from the wilderness freaks. we want preservation of our natural spaces, free from drilling and logging. we just want to be able to recreate those spaces

2) this underscores the need for a middle-ground designation that protects our open spaces from logging, drilling and developing, but still recognizes historic recreational uses.

ms ann thrope, see the Montana example of why this is dangerous precedent that cannot be worked out on a case-by-case basis.

[kidwoo]

because I need to eliminate the possibility that you are Mike Vandeman.

Way too coherent. Just about as clueless though.

as to whether Obama is involved in this: don't be fucking naive. of course he is. he's the CEO of America, Inc. he either implicitly approves or tacitly approves. don't be naive.

That's cute. You think the president is responsible when you have a messy bowel movement too? This a few people in congress pandering. It's been that way for a long time. At least as long as I've been paying attention, which is about a decade. It's 2001. Obama who? That's about when all this expansion talk began to appear.

I've never felt limited by wilderness, existing or proposed.

There's little difference between opening an area to mountain bikes and building a road to them.

Where do you live? Georgia? Do you really have any idea how much wilderness exists accross the pacific crest between california and oregon? Except for a few road passes and some lowlands between the northern sierras and klamath falls, ALMOST ALL OF IT.

Please excuse me but I really have a hard time believing you've spent any amount of time in wilderness areas where horse traffic is. And if you have, you must honestly be the worst mountain biker in history if what you leave behind in tire tracks comes anywhere close to what horses accomplish.

And like connundrum said: this isn't about yes or no on wilderness. It's about taking more mostly undeveloped lands and kicking people out of them. There is a shit ton of wilderness designation in this country already. You don't need to designate more just to keep it undeveloped. And again, if you really believe an existing singletrack being open to bikes is the equivalent of a road, I don't think you're really ridden in remote areas as much as you think you have.

[Rontele]

I will also add, our opposition--the wilderness groups--are well funded and well organized. IMBA is very well organized and has what I believe to be excellent leadership. We are just not as well funded as our opposition. Make sure to support IMBA and your local chapter.

[kidwoo]

I think this also underscores the following points:

1) mountain bike wilderness interests are not that far off from the wilderness freaks. we want preservation of our natural spaces, free from drilling and logging. we just want to be able to recreate those spaces

2) this underscores the need for a middle-ground designation that protects our open spaces from logging, drilling and developing, but still recognizes historic recreational uses.

ms ann thrope, see the Montana example of why this is dangerous precedent that cannot be worked out on a case-by-case basis.

I just love how the idea of 'more wilderness' gets touted as 'more recreation' all the time in areas that in no way shape or form are threatened by development. Make it more difficult to do and then market its availability. Brilliant.

Other than maybe for snowmobiles, there's one simple solution: roadless area designation

[spanghew]

The original post was about some clown congressman who wants to bar mountain bikes from RECOMMENDED wilderness areas. He didn't mention anything about who is recommending the areas. This has huge potential for being onesided. National forest areas belong to the people and people should get a say on how those lands are used.

If you look at the history of, say, the Barr trail in Utah: the dirt bikers and jeepers tore down gates and rode all over the place to try to prevent wilderness designation.

All kinds of roads people defend were built as ad hoc access to logging and mining activities, and should have been destroyed once those activities were done (someone quoted some famous person in that regard recently, but it's true nonetheless. I used to build those roads, as a logger, and then monitored their construction as an archaeologist. Just because there's a road that has granted people access to an area for a while and for a specific purpose, doesn't mean that road should be maintained in perpetuity . . .and the fact is the roads aren't maintained, and make a mess of runoff and add to silt in streams).

But I digress. Despite the outbursts, my point isn't particularly controversial, and most likely doesn't disagree with most: these things need to be settled through collaboration on a case-by-case basis. To pretend politics aren't involved is to be intentionally obtuse. To pretend use conflicts depend on teh opinions of the users (it's been settled . . . yeah, right) or are exclusive of other issues (custom and culture) is, again, obtuse.

Perhaps you should all move to Klamath Falls for a primer in what happens when sides get so polarized no collaboration is possible. But then, so far I see no one interested in any form of compromise. Lots of certitude and testosterone.

[kidwoo]

But then, so far I see no one interested in any form of compromise. Lots of certitude and testosterone.

Now who's being obtuse. No one said anything about opening up existing wilderness to bikes.

It exists. Most of us are cool with that. That IS compromise. It's the ad hoc coverall of using further designation when the real goal is non development that gets most of us riled.

And also when you just say stupid shit like bikes would destroy areas as much or more than cars and horses.

I agree with you on this

Just because there's a road that has granted people access to an area for a while and for a specific purpose, doesn't mean that road should be maintained in perpetuity . . .and the fact is the roads aren't maintained, and make a mess of runoff and add to silt in streams

What strikes me as hilarious though is that the USFS in particular hems and haws about bikes and erosion while doing diddly squat about the very problem you mention with existing grades. It's also funny when areas that have been logged to hell get closed off to preserve the 'natural environment' that hasn't existed since the first clear cut.

[Rontele]

Lets not forget that Congress is the only body in this country that can designate Wilderness. There are strong arguments that treating recommended wilderness as wilderness is unconstitutional.

[kidwoo]

Lets not forget that Congress is the only body in this country that can designate Wilderness. There are strong arguments that treating recommended wilderness as wilderness is unconstitutional.

You know any good lawyers?

[spanghew]

Where do you live? Georgia? Do you really have any idea how much wilderness exists accross the pacific crest between california and oregon? Except for a few road passes and some lowlands between the northern sierras and klamath falls, ALMOST ALL OF IT.

Yes, I do know--and Idaho, to. THe bigest roadless area in teh country is in central Idaho, and it's that way because people fight to keep it that way. Thank Frank Church and other visionaries for what open space is left.

And if you think there aren't enough logging roads twixt NorCal and Klamath to keep you riding for a hell of a long time, you don't know how to use a map.

Please excuse me but I really have a hard time believing you've spent any amount of time in wilderness areas where horse traffic is. And if you have, you must honestly be the worst mountain biker in history if what you leave behind in tire tracks comes anywhere close to what horses accomplish.

Well, I can't be blamed for your narrow perspective or your belligerent certitude about things you evidently know absolutely nothing about. You might know one small place you're generalizing from, but that's your fault, not mine. Mostly, though, you're so in love with your perspective facts have little to do with the question.

And like connundrum said: this isn't about yes or no on wilderness. It's about taking more mostly undeveloped lands and kicking people out of them. There is a shit ton of wilderness designation in this country already. You don't need to designate more just to keep it undeveloped. And again, if you really believe an existing singletrack being open to bikes is the equivalent of a road, I don't think you're really ridden in remote areas as much as you think you have.

Well, there you go: I bow, deeply, to your infinitude of knowledge. Evidently you figure if you just shout a little louder and spray more spittle and assert things are exactly the way you say they are, then, well, that's that.

Idiot.

And Rontele, I should indeed look at the specific Montana case you allude to. So far the rhetoric has been so familiar and so narrow it hasn't seemed necessary. It's not as though any of this is particularly new . . .

[Rontele]

You know any good lawyers?

Yeah, I do.

[Dantheman]

There's little difference between opening an area to mountain bikes and building a road to them.

You cannot be serious. Also, you do realize that by living in a sensitive area for months as you claim you created far more of an impact than people who would have ridden in, enjoyed the view and left? I'm not even going to touch the horse packers.

[kidwoo]

And if you think there aren't enough logging roads twixt NorCal and Klamath to keep you riding for a hell of a long time, you don't know how to use a map.
.

Logging roads? Really? That's what mountain biking is to you? Not to most of us.

Well, I can't be blamed for your narrow perspective or your belligerent certitude about things you evidently know absolutely nothing about.


Well, there you go: I bow, deeply, to your infinitude of knowledge. Evidently you figure if you just shout a little louder and spray more spittle and assert things are exactly the way you say they are, then, well, that's that.

Idiot.

Tell me where I'm wrong einstein. You're just doing exactly what you accuse me of.

So far all I've gotten from you is a pretty unrealistic view of what a 2 foot wide path through millions of acres of wildlands does to that land when a bicycle is allowed on it. And you state a pretty misguided opinion as some sort of overarching fact.

No really. Enlighten me. Because can almost guarentee you I cover more miles of wilderness on foot every year for my job than you can even fathom, and it's a part of that job to stay on top of land use. And I'm a mountainbiker. I pay attention this topic way more than you seem to believe.

[stuckathuntermtn]

Wilderness is a knee-jerk reaction to over development, so people in subdivisions and cities can feel better about the fact that they ruined a town, but "protected" some "wilderness." (See: Bozeman)

I saw a car the other day with a bike rack and Wilderness plates. It made me want to smack them.

Our forests are being totally mismanaged. It's somehow assumed that Wilderness protects it better when what you get is less trail maintenance and half the trees becoming dead stands and limited to no ways to take them out or doing any other fire mitigation.

What if instead of the uphill battle against each individual Wilderness declaration, we just fought to allow bikes IN Wilderness?
EDIT to add: roadless designations are sweet. They allow for most to all types of recreation, and even include a provision to allow for fire roads and such, which mean better management. Snowmobilers have an interest here to since many are using sleds to access the bc and although sleds burn all kinds of fossil fuels and makes lots of noise, they don't cause any erosion.

Better education for mountain bikers, and better education for etiquette on everyone's part would go a long way. Lot's of hikers don't seem to feel the need to look out for bikers, and whoever is coming downhill should have to yield to whoever is going uphill, no matter what they're on.

[stupendous man]

wilderness is not knee-jerk. development is knee-jerk.

Rontele- why doesn't IMBA get together with some other like-minded groups and propose middle-way legislation? Wilderness is the only option for protection right now that is not reversible by bureaucratic moves. that's why its pushed so hard.