Bikes in Wilderness Areas

[Edgnar]

^^
Posting shit like that on the internet doesn't really help the cause.
It will never happen and it alienates the horse lobby, which we really need to be on our side or at least, to not oppose us.

The horse problem is taking care of itself. Horse ownership is way down and will continue to do so.
But there is still a bunch of little old ladies, that never ride, but still control half the wealth in the US, that will fight for their right to do so, where ever the fuck they want.

So why don't you delete your post, so that that I can delete mine.

The Horse people are never going to be on our side.

[the_eleven]

Kidwoo, could you inform me about the changes to the Eastern Sierra in 2010, i.e. how it was done, and the reasons given; I was absent that day.

Is more access really the solution?

[jackattack]

Is more access really the solution?

The aim of this bill is to allow local land managers to decide, no? Perhaps you can agree that what is good for the Sierra may not be necessary in the White Clouds?

[jono]

We should all be thankful that forward thinking environmentalists in the 1950's and 60's pushed it through congress. It really is a great achievement.

This is absolutely true. And their intent was to preserve and manage the lands for continued enjoyment of many user groups, even the ones that fly airplanes in and out of Wilderness airstrips. They never intended to ban bikes or even hang gliders and if their intent had remained the WA would have been strengthened in numerous ways thanks to much larger support.

For every mountain biker who thinks bikes don't belong in Wilderness there are ten average citizens who imagine that they already are allowed and can't comprehend this whole debate.

The hypocrisy of the situation drives away more support than just mountain bikers.

[Edgnar]

The Appalachian Trail is specifically and forever a hiker only trail based on its charter. I don't remember where my source is exactly, but someone else can dig it up if they want to.

The best use of this would be to allow bikers to use trails that have historically been open to mountain biking but that have been closed of due to wilderness designations- which is one of the big problems in places like Montana. I personally doubt that the bill would end up creating NEW bike trails in wilderness, but I could be wrong.

I think Kidwoo makes a great point, wilderness needs more allies, not less. I will personally never support the Sierra Club because of their anti-bike stance. I really like some of their other work, especially the beyond coal campaign, but I'll never give them money because they might use it to fight against bike trails and bike access.

the_eleven- please explain how allowing bikes into wilderness degrades natural habitats and ecosystems? Frankly, a mountain biker is in and out much faster than your average hiker and probably leaves behind less garbage than most hikers and backpackers too. Mountain bikers aren't going to be camping next to pristine streams or alpine lakes and contaminating those basins with human waste.

[kidwoo]

Actually there are already entrance quotas for many Eastern Sierra trailheads.
.

It sounds a little like you need to get away from the popular, guide book recommended spots. There's waaaayyy more out there.

What I'm talking about is things like in June lake on the Yost Meadows trail. There were about three trails in the June basin that were open to bikes in 2010, the yost trail, the silverlake trailhead (which sucks to ride bikes from), and then the other side of the yost trail that drops into town. In 2010 both sides of the yost trail were sucked up in the omnibus expansion. I say both sides because there's a giant clear cut, friggin ski area right in the middle of it where the magic of wilderness doesn't exist for about a half mile. Now none of it is rideable. And all the while Barbera Boxer was going on and on about how these expansions were going to draw more tourism dollars to the area while closing off hundreds and hundreds of lower elevation lakes that people have fished in for decades, a tourist industry that is the single largest draw of dollars to those towns. I'm not talking whitney portal here, I'm talking about stuff way lower. All of this stuff is right above town mind you. You can hear people and cars.

Every person has their own definition of the wilderness experience, but the original intent of the act was to protect wild places from development. We should all be thankful that forward thinking environmentalists in the 1950's and 60's pushed it through congress. It really is a great achievement.

The whole concept of a 'wilderness experience' to me is kind of canned. It's something fabricated to give people who spend too much time in cities something to look forward to on a weekend that really just amounts to 'going outside'. I spend far too much time in wilderness and non wilderness areas to believe there's a magical line out there in the woods that by itself somehow instills the mystical glitter in someone's eyes as soon as they cross it. As said, the wilderness experience is in your head. It's amazing so much of the alps, and the Canadian rockies stay so beautiful and natural without wilderness designations. Can you not have a 'wilderness experience' in Canada? How about the Himalayas? There's a good way to do this IMO and the current American implementation of the WA is not it.

I agree through, I'm glad there are areas that in theory will remain about as natural as they can be. And also like you, my BS alert goes up when I see those two senator's names. But this isn't a new topic for some of us, and losing more and more land open to bikes isn't some story online about some far off place that doesn't affect us. Some of us are just a little sick of it and think it's worth reinvestigating how preservation gets accomplished. Especially when if preservation is really the goal, thinking some bicycles are a greater threat than the god awful erosion ditches created by pack trains and even yes, high levels of human foot traffic are just brushed under the rug because it's what the current proponents like to do.

[Shredhead]

The Horse people are never going to be on our side.

That's not true. It's the MTBer that have the problem with horses.
I was a horse person way before MTB's even existed and I married into another big equestrian family.
Most of them just don't care about MTB's at all. But they would if you start trying to exclude them from places.

[kidwoo]

Oops, sorry. I missed this.

Kidwoo, could you inform me about the changes to the Eastern Sierra in 2010, i.e. how it was done, and the reasons given; I was absent that day.

Is more access really the solution?

Look up Omnibus Wilderness expansion 2010/Omnibus Public Lands Management act 2009. That's also when so much of the white mountains got closed off, where there were a few really neat, huge descents you could do on a bike.

Also look up the excelsior district, the area north of I-80 where the grouse ridge trail is. There was some wheeling and dealing to leave that out, with the provision that a lot of what went into wilderness get substituted. But that area is absolutely full of dams and existing roads. Check out what was lost in the San Bernardino and (I think) San Gabriel mountains down south as well.
Like I said, I'm not talking about areas that are what most people think of as the high sierraS. Those were locked up eons ago. I'm talking about the stuff right next to roads and towns.

[raisingarizona13]

Anything you say Princess.

HAHA! Well played.

[Danno]

I am going to actively campaign against this bill. Wilderness is wilderness. Read the original Wilderness Act. I am a mountain biker, and there is no shortage of places to ride.

Land management? As it stands, funding for wilderness enforcement has been cut to the bone. In some parts of the Sierra wilderness there is no wilderness ranger presence. Mountain bikes on the JMT? No thanks.

Take a stroll down some of the Sierra trails that the packers use. Although they are subject to quotas, they ignore them because of the lack of enforcement. These trails are destroyed by client parties and pack trains. The trails are ground to dust, with horse crap and flies everywhere. Horses are definitely not an asset in keeping trails cleared.

Adding mountain bikes to the mix is only going to further degrade the "wilderness experience"

The single greatest threat to the "wilderness experience" and to "wilderness" is the introduction of trails and humans. Once you accept and sanction that form of environmental destruction and destruction of the "wilderness experience", there is very little difference (in terms of environmental damage) between humans on foot and humans on a strictly human powered wheeled device. Acting like there is, and that you as a hiker hold some elevated status for your version of environmental degradation over bikers, is the height of hubris.

Moreover, where all those trails are being hurt from lack of funding and lack of maintenance? Why don't you want as an ally an as-yet-untapped large source of volunteer hours and donations? Right now, people whose primary outdoor recreation is biking don't generally donate time or money to wilderness organizations and wilderness areas. If this act passes, and land managers treat bikers fairly and reasonably, that will change, and those neglected trails might see more maintenance and more enforcement.

[jono]

I won't presume to answer for bunion on why Montana has lost so many miles of trails (speaking from Idaho, I think we've lost a similar share) but here's an excerpt from savemontanatrails.com that includes a quote from the USFS Forest Manager explaining why she chose to use her discretion to close mountain bike trails in a WSA whose legislative charter specifically allowed for their use on established trails:

"the trails are being closed in order to influence the political process, " ..allowing uses that do not conform to wilderness character creates a constituency that will have a strong propensity to oppose recommendation and any subsequent designation legislation. Management actions that create this operating environment will complicate the decision process for Forest Service managers and members of Congress." "

Her words echo the words chosen by the head of the USFS in an op-ed in the last few years. Unlike the BLM, which is under executive order to cooperate with bike groups when feasible, the USFS has no reason to pay any attention to bikes at all. As a result they have chosen to directly ban us in order to make life less complicated for themselves. This bill isn't just about Wilderness, it's also about taking that crutch away so that RWAs and WSAs don't get closed by default, even with no legislative action.

[the_eleven]

Thanks to everyone for keeping this on issue, and not degrading into personal attacks.... This has been an interesting and enlightening discussion.

We will just have to disagree about relative impacts from hikers, bikers, and horses. Clearly in high horse-use areas, the trails are impacted. Clearly in high human-use areas, the trails are impacted. Will there be degradation from bike usage? Of course. Are humans having an effect on the wilderness? Absolutely. Are hikers destroying the wilderness? Not in my experience. Apologies if that seems like hubris.

On the right sidebar on my screen there is an ad for 750+ miles of trails in Crested Butte. Thinking of going there to ride, since the wilderness in the Sierra is off limits...

[mmmm...pow!]

Don't know how any mountain biker can oppose this. Just using Tahoe for example, pretty clear that Desolation isn't suitable for bikes. Granite Chief, however, would be sweet. Due to its remote character, allowing bikes would increase human presence from very few to a few. And just allowing mtb access to the TRT in Mt. Rose would open up some incredible options. Rose to Kings Beach or Rose to Reno shuttle runs? Fuck yes!

[raisingarizona13]

It would open up some key connectors in Sedona.

[jono]

We will just have to disagree about relative impacts from hikers, bikers, and horses.

Well, we could, but it's actually been researched. One of the best studies from a lack-of-bias perspective (though very long and unbiased mainly because it was commissioned to study ways to minimize all impacts in a specific area, so comparisons weren't the specific objective) showed slightly lower average erosion from bikes than hikers in about 2/3 cases studied and Much higher impact from horses. The difference between hikers and bikes was so slight as to be considered negligible, which is often the phrase used to describe the comparison. Tellingly, the conclusion of that study was to avoid steep trails and manage water rather than worrying about user groups primarily, although I think they said horses should be kept to much more limited terrain.

There is a great deal of evidence to support that bikes in a wilderness setting do not cause more erosion than hikers. The reason (in many cases) is that bike tires tend to act like rolling pins and flatten/harden the very top of the dirt, which protects it from running water which is actually responsible for the vast majority of the damage. This tends to go down only 2-3" but in some terrain that's very meaningful. In the Boise foothills, for example, it's not uncommon for horse and hiker footprints to show up after a rain event and then be rolled flat over the next few days.

[Edgnar]

On the right sidebar on my screen there is an ad for 750+ miles of trails in Crested Butte. Thinking of going there to ride, since the wilderness in the Sierra is off limits...

There would be a lot more if you could ride in the wilderness between CB and Aspen.

[Bunion 2020]

Eleven, just back from a nice 4 hour ride, once I was 5 miles in I didn't see anyone

As for the history of closures here, I will find you some background but if you visit http://www.savemontanatrails.com/trails.html they can explain much better than I.

And BTW we are at risk of losing another 4-600 miles in the next round of bullshit.

[the_eleven]

Interesting history. Beaverhead looks like a sweet place to ride!

So, even if S.B. 3205 were passed by congress, the local NF offalcials could decide to prohibit bike access, as the decision remains at their discretion?

[jono]

Correct. It seems like they'd have to justify doing so, but basically any reason would probably do, from user conflict to environmental.

[stuckathuntermtn]

I'm gonna degrade this into personal attacks now.
Eleven, you're a moron with some idea in your head that is not reality.
Shut your whore mouth.

[2FUNKY]

Oh look, the village idiot showed up.

[grskier]

Interesting history. Beaverhead looks like a sweet place to ride!

So, even if S.B. 3205 were passed by congress, the local NF offalcials could decide to prohibit bike access, as the decision remains at their discretion?

Hi, welcome to the convo from a page or two ago

[gravitylover]

"the trails are being closed in order to influence the political process, " ..allowing uses that do not conform to wilderness character creates a constituency that will have a strong propensity to oppose recommendation and any subsequent designation legislation. Management actions that create this operating environment will complicate the decision process for Forest Service managers and members of Congress." ".

This just makes me want to scream. Arggh

[panchosdad]

I won't presume to answer for bunion on why Montana has lost so many miles of trails (speaking from Idaho, I think we've lost a similar share) but here's an excerpt from savemontanatrails.com that includes a quote from the USFS Forest Manager explaining why she chose to use her discretion to close mountain bike trails in a WSA whose legislative charter specifically allowed for their use on established trails:

"the trails are being closed in order to influence the political process, " ..allowing uses that do not conform to wilderness character creates a constituency that will have a strong propensity to oppose recommendation and any subsequent designation legislation. Management actions that create this operating environment will complicate the decision process for Forest Service managers and members of Congress." "

Her words echo the words chosen by the head of the USFS in an op-ed in the last few years. Unlike the BLM, which is under executive order to cooperate with bike groups when feasible, the USFS has no reason to pay any attention to bikes at all. As a result they have chosen to directly ban us in order to make life less complicated for themselves. This bill isn't just about Wilderness, it's also about taking that crutch away so that RWAs and WSAs don't get closed by default, even with no legislative action.

This is exactly why I support this bill. Well said.

[tone capone]

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.