Bikes in Wilderness Areas

**jono** · 08-24-2016, 01:10 AM

Originally Posted by Empty Beer

adventure riders nearly always will stop and chat with whoever they meet on the trail. Right?

Right. The imagined conflict is entirely theoretical in more places than not. And not applies mostly to places that are too crowded to imagine that man is an infrequent visitor.

**Kinnikinnick** · 08-24-2016, 07:36 AM

Originally Posted by Empty Beer

What Wilderness area were you jogging in? ;-) (P.S. If you are a real runner, you don't "jog") ;-)

My guess is you were in a regular frontcountry trail where plenty of people were getting their exercise in, whether it be on bicycle or foot, possibly after work. Venturing into the backcountry on a bicycle is a COMPLETELY different mindset, attitude and experience. Would you agree?

When a mtb'er crosses paths with dozens upon dozens of pedestrians on the "in town" trails, usually the pedestrian is already yielding to the cyclist... and the cyclist figures he/she should go by as quickly as possible so as to not bother the pedestrian. In the backcountry, where crossing paths with any humans is usually few and far between, correct me if your collective experiences are different but adventure riders nearly always will stop and chat with whoever they meet on the trail. Right?

Hahh - I think that you've Emptied too many beers there bucko.

Wilderness? Yeah this obviously was in Wilderness since there were bikes and hikers

Yeah, Frontcountry and I'm not a "real" runner since I used the term "jog." I guess I'll just quit running then since I'm not legitimate.

And yeah everyone becomes your best bud as long as its further away.

Drink more beer - it always clears up your mind.

My point, as a mtber and a hiker/jogger myself (although not "real" at either), is that some bikers are probably creating a lot of bad impressions by not following trail ettiquette which comes into play in the 'open up wilderness to bikers' discussion as it taints non-bikers views of the likely user conflicts arising from bikes. Hell, I'm a biker and it makes me wonder.

**Danno** · 08-24-2016, 11:54 AM

Originally Posted by Kinnikinnick

My point, as a mtber and a hiker/jogger myself (although not "real" at either), is that some bikers are probably creating a lot of bad impressions by not following trail ettiquette which comes into play in the 'open up wilderness to bikers' discussion as it taints non-bikers views of the likely user conflicts arising from bikes. Hell, I'm a biker and it makes me wonder.

No doubt there are a small segment of bikers that create and perpetuate a bad image. But there are also bad hikers, assholes who are grumpy and complain and whatnot, it's just that nobody except bikers seem to care that these people exist. It's like the "hiker" lobby thinks they're pure as white snow and every user conflict is the result of a jerk biker.

**jamal** · 08-24-2016, 12:07 PM

Funny that this came up, and then this morning I see this from mtb missoula on facebook

Please be a link in the chain of good tail etiquette!

The Lolo National Forest gave us a call the other day to say that biker - hiker conflicts have been an issue lately in Woods Gulch and the lower Rattlesnake trails.

We are our own worst enemy. Help us help you by respecting the Rules of The Trail and being courteous to all trail users on each and every ride!

**jono** · 08-24-2016, 12:50 PM

Not saying it didn't happen, but please tell me the agency receiving such reports doesn't just accept anonymous phone calls from Mike Vandufus or whatever random saw-wielding troll decides to report in.

**panchosdad** · 08-24-2016, 03:23 PM

It happens far too often. It's not just trolls. Need to own it and deal with it.

**muted** · 08-24-2016, 03:25 PM

Go hiking on popular busy mountain bike trails and you will quickly understand how many asshole MTBers there are, and also have some sympathy for hikers who constantly step off the trail (instead of making a point by making bikers stop). You are always looking for a safe spot.

I had no idea how many bikers sucked (it's not just one or two making us look bad) until I hiked trails with my daughter two years ago. It was depressing to learn, and I also realized I need to slow the fuck down, too. What I thought was going slow by hikers was actually a bit zippy.

**ridinshockgun** · 08-24-2016, 03:30 PM

Originally Posted by muted

Go hiking on popular busy mountain bike trails and you will quickly understand how many asshole MTBers there are, and also have some sympathy for hikers who constantly step off the trail (instead of making a point by making bikers stop). You are always looking for a safe spot.

I had no idea how many bikers sucked (it's not just one or two making us look bad) until I hiked trails with my daughter two years ago. It was depressing to learn, and I also realized I need to slow the fuck down, too. What I thought was going slow by hikers was actually a bit zippy.

Yep. When passing hikers I always try to slow down to almost a stop, and sometimes a stop and CREEP by. If it's going to be a real tight squeeze on something exposed I'll get off so that everyone feels comfortable. If they move over I don't fight it, but acknowledge, say thanks, and have a good hike. Humanize yourself (not just a machine flying by) by making small talk and smiling, it goes a long way. You can't make everyone happy, but 9/10 times I get a positive response.

Many don't understand that we have 203 mm rotors and hydraulic disc brakes and have the impression that we are way out of control so I try to demonstrate control and not scare them.

If it's mid afternoon on a sunny summer Saturday, and a trail that sees hiking traffic you need to realize that your strava time needs to wait for a less crowded day.

I am as guilty as most for getting caught up in the moment on a ripping descent sometimes and unintentionally buzzing a hiker who was sitting just off the trail... but I really, really try to make sure this never happens.

**Kinnikinnick** · 08-25-2016, 01:55 PM

Originally Posted by muted

Go hiking on popular busy mountain bike trails and you will quickly understand how many asshole MTBers there are, and also have some sympathy for hikers who constantly step off the trail (instead of making a point by making bikers stop).

Originally Posted by ridinshockgun

Yep. When passing hikers I always try to slow down to almost a stop, and sometimes a stop and CREEP by. If it's going to be a real tight squeeze on something exposed I'll get off so that everyone feels comfortable. If they move over I don't fight it, but acknowledge, say thanks, and have a good hike. Humanize yourself (not just a machine flying by) by making small talk and smiling, it goes a long way. You can't make everyone happy, but 9/10 times I get a positive response.
.

Yep.

I don't think that the biking population is somehow different that the hiking population, but with a jerky minority and tools (bikes) that allow you to easily travel faster than pedestrians its inevitable that conflicts will arise. Really I've come to think that, above very lightly trafficked trails, mtbikes and hikers are incompatible on singletrack trails. I think that it would be ideal for everyone if there were more bike only and hike only trail systems.

How does this fit into the Wilderness question? - I personally think that it would be reasonable to open up some wilderness to bikes so a lifting of the ban would be good but I also think that it should be done as new bike focused trails rather than trying to open up existing trail systems.

**jono** · 08-25-2016, 02:06 PM

That perspective is certainly valid for the trails with which you are familiar. It is the exact opposite in most of Idaho and Montana, where the easy majority of bikeable Wilderness and RWA/WSA trails are located.

The beauty of the bill under consideration is that local land managers will be allowed to make different decisions in different places. Up here I doubt if they would ever want to add trails because we need to keep enough users on these trails to keep them open. Likewise, we don't have the kind of conflicts (especially on genuine backcountry trails) that densely populated areas have. But your land managers should not be constrained by the conditions here.

**Kinnikinnick** · 08-25-2016, 02:18 PM

Originally Posted by jono

That perspective is certainly valid for the trails with which you are familiar. It is the exact opposite in most of Idaho and Montana, where the easy majority of bikeable Wilderness and RWA/WSA trails are located.

The beauty of the bill under consideration is that local land managers will be allowed to make different decisions in different places. Up here I doubt if they would ever want to add trails because we need to keep enough users on these trails to keep them open. Likewise, we don't have the kind of conflicts (especially on genuine backcountry trails) that densely populated areas have. But your land managers should not be constrained by the conditions here.

Obviously our opinions are always painted by our experiences. I just can't think of that many Wilderness areas here in CO that I've been in that I really can think of as suitable for biking options without special trail building.

What areas specifically in MT would you be in favor of opening to bikes? I'm a bit 1st hand familiar with the Bob Marshall and Missions and can't envision that much there that would be great biking short of creating new trails.

**jamal** · 08-25-2016, 02:35 PM

There are 1-2 trails in the rattlesnake wilderness that would make the maclean trail some people were proposing a few years ago from Missoula to Seeley lake work much better.

Mostly though I'd be more concerned with getting the trails bikes have recently lost access to opened back up, and keeping existing trails opened. I don't keep super close tabs on the rest of the state, just around here there have been trails closed in the bitterroot, the great burn/stateline, and the new blackfoot clearwater thing that is going to close of trails that bikers use.

I can't speak for every cyclist in MT but I'm not trying to go rip around in the bob marshall, I just want to keep riding what we have.

**evasive_MT** · 08-25-2016, 02:56 PM

Originally Posted by jamal

There are 1-2 trails in the rattlesnake wilderness that would make the maclean trail some people were proposing a few years ago from Missoula to Seeley lake work much better.

Mostly though I'd be more concerned with getting the trails bikes have recently lost access to opened back up, and keeping existing trails opened. I don't keep super close tabs on the rest of the state, just around here there have been trails closed in the bitterroot, the great burn/stateline, and the new blackfoot clearwater thing that is going to close of trails that bikers use.

I can't speak for every cyclist in MT but I'm not trying to go rip around in the bob marshall, I just want to keep riding what we have.

This. Although the Bob was expanded with the Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act and we lost Green Gulch to Rierdon Gulch. That was an awesome backcountry ride. And as others have already mentioned, I wouldn't oppose Wilderness designation for new areas.

I haven't seen anyone proposing new trails or changes to existing trails - that's only mentioned by people who oppose the bill. Every cyclist I've talked to wants trails to remain primitive.

**jono** · 08-25-2016, 03:03 PM

I get more rides in Idaho than Montana, but I was also thinking specifically of the trails in Recommended and Study areas when I said we have the majority of bike-suitable trails--the number of bike trails in actual Wilderness is smaller. And I would take it so far as to say that 90% or more of all the trails that should ever be opened to bikes have been open to bikes sometime in the last 20 years.

I've mentioned this elsewhere, but I think one easy fix to some of the concerns about this bill would be to create a distinction for trails bikes have already used. In the long run the nondiscrimination approach is the right one, and the past should not constrain the future forever. But I would prefer if the two year time limit were changed to five years for trails never previously opened to bikes and to thirty days for trails that have been used by bikes at any time since 1964 (or open to bikes any time after 1984). Give the land managers some more time (and basis) for a decision while recognizing that congress has not intended to use the Wilderness Act as a way to close big swaths of land to bikes.

**jono** · 08-25-2016, 03:15 PM

Originally Posted by Kinnikinnick

I just can't think of that many Wilderness areas here in CO that I've been in that I really can think of as suitable for biking options without special trail building.

One thing to note here: hike-a-bike is a perfectly legitimate use for a bicycle which is currently illegal thanks to the ban on possession. A lot of long distance treks should be allowed to include parts of trails which are not really suitable to ride. And they won't attract many bikes, either, so conflicts should be basically zero in those places. But read a few of Evdog's TR's before dismissing that type of adventure (not that you haven't personally).

**panchosdad** · 08-25-2016, 03:48 PM

New trails in the Wilderness seems far fetched and incredibly difficult politically and administratively to do.

My hope would be that this bill would end the closing of trails is RWA's and WSA's, allow the opening of trails with historic bike use (the BWC would be first on my list), and allow for the opening of a few trails in Wilderness areas where bikes actually make sense. I agree with most above that most Wilderness trails ought to remain hike/horse only.

**toast2266** · 08-25-2016, 03:53 PM

Last weekend I rode in the Ten Lakes Wilderness Study Area, near Eureka Montana. Bikes are about to be shut out of those trails, and there's certainly a big push to designate that area as Wilderness.

That was an really, really good ride. The trail rides well, and there's relatively little hike-a-bike. It'd be a great ride even if there weren't awesome views at every turn. We saw a few hikers, and a few people on horses. No conflicts, and everyone seemed to be having a good time. That's a prime example of trails that could and should remain open to bikes, even after a Wilderness designation. It's also an area where there's a big fight about moving towards Wilderness because there's a lot of winter motorized use in the area. I can't help but think that the Wilderness advocates would be in a better position if the mountain bikers weren't fighting them too.

Some pics: https://www.facebook.com/IMBAMontana...59475474101264

**BFD** · 08-25-2016, 04:12 PM

would suck for you if they became a wilderness area and limited group size.

**toast2266** · 08-25-2016, 05:29 PM

Originally Posted by BFD

would suck for you if they became a wilderness area and limited group size.

yeah, unsurprisingly, a lot of people show up when there's a group ride on great trails that are about to get closed to bikes.

**Bunion 2020** · 08-26-2016, 07:41 AM

Originally Posted by panchosdad

New trails in the Wilderness seems far fetched and incredibly difficult politically and administratively to do.

My hope would be that this bill would end the closing of trails is RWA's and WSA's, allow the opening of trails with historic bike use (the BWC would be first on my list), and allow for the opening of a few trails in Wilderness areas where bikes actually make sense. I agree with most above that most Wilderness trails ought to remain hike/horse only.

Same here. I am willing to hike a bike in order to complete a long ride and don't want to see existing trails gentrified so that I don't have to push occasionally.

There are a bunch of historic use MTB trails in Montana that were great rides just as they were. Open them back up.

**ridinshockgun** · 08-26-2016, 08:46 AM

Evergreen MTB Alliance coming out with a *cautious* statement of support today

https://www.evergreenmtb.org/blog/bi...washington-mtb

**skifishbum** · 08-26-2016, 08:58 AM

i aints really gots a dog in the fight
but the dog will fight for stream access

dtm nailed it
add bishop and chaffetz to the list of sad assed utarded poliwasteofspaces i wouldn't want anything i hoped fors name attached to

**stuckathuntermtn** · 08-26-2016, 09:02 AM

Wait, they're closing the Hoodoo trail over by Superior? Ugh, so many rides I need to get out on! Pm me or something.

**jamal** · 08-26-2016, 12:04 PM

That's an interesting situation, the great burn study group and montana wilderness association have been acting like that is already official Wilderness. As far as I can tell, all they did was make a map and drew lines on it for the "Great Burn Wilderness Area."

The idaho side is managed as wilderness but I'm not entirely sure about the MT side. Will have to ask my friend who has talked to a lot of forest service people about riding in the area. His conclusion was to ride anyway. South from hoodoo and then down to pearl then heart lake is a really cool ride, although I think you can't legally do it anymore.

https://caltopo.com/m/0GSL