Page 5 of 13 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 315
  1. #101
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    I-70 West
    Posts
    4,684
    Quote Originally Posted by jono View Post
    You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
    This confuses me: are you saying people are violently opposed to letting someone else push, carry and occasionally ride a conveyance that provides them with little more than ballast at ~2 mph through difficult terrain? Why would that be?
    You can check a thesaurus, I am sure there are other great words for it. The point is that the mechanical advantages of a bike allow one to go much, much further that you would without. Great runners can complete a marathon, but great bikers can push 100 miles. The google search says that biking needs a fifth of the comparable energy that someone walking/hiking needs. I'm sure there are more numbers out there, but its common sense. That's the "mechanical advantage" that people are going to object to adding to wilderness.

    Circling back to the main issue at hand....leave current wilderness regulations as is. Work with grandfathered users not consistent with wilderness on a timely exit plan. No proposals of new wilderness that severely cut off existing access without meeting a minimum number of replacement trails (ex. for every mile removed, three new miles of trails must be constructed in immediate vicinity).

    Quote Originally Posted by Danno View Post
    bindings and skis do more than allow you to get into a rhythm. If you're not a xc skier, you may not be all that familiar with kick and glide. It's not all slow plodding with skins. Sure, in some places in deep snow there isn't a huge advantage. But in the right conditions, either snow conditions or because someone has packed the trail ahead of you, skis/bindings can provide a huge advantage. If you're a snowshoer, maybe you're not familiar with this, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.

    And yes, while it is true that environmental damage is almost nil, the point is not "environmental damage", the point is mechanical advantage as per the terms of the statute. And so I'll repeat, I do not understand why skis/bindings are allowed under the statute but bikes are not. Or, more accurately, I understand why, but it is not consistent or true to any principle other than "don't like bikes".
    Shoes only advantage is on the steeper terrain that skinners have to switchback, put the heel lifts up and you can go right up the face.
    Skis should be allowed because there is no alternative that exists in winter. You're not making it out of the parking lot without something on your feet to keep you upright. I'm certain their widely accepted use in the 50s and 60s also played a role.

  2. #102
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    2,133
    Moving away from random discussions of what mechanical advantage is...

    The text of the bill can be found here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-...bill/3205/text
    Its a short read, about 5 minutes. Its actually written pretty narrowly.

    I'm going to email my representatives today and ask them to support the bill. It seems like a good proposal that will allow bikers to use trails we have historically had access to, and allow land managers to manage wilderness areas in a way more appropriate to local conditions.

  3. #103
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Shadynasty's Jazz Club
    Posts
    10,248
    So, the solution is to build more trail in some adjacent piece of public land that magically hasn't been included in what's certain to be an all-encompassing W proposal? Can we share parking lots and bathrooms with the hikers, or do the bikers need their own parking lots, bathrooms, and water fountains. Do we have to ride in the back of the shuttle bus?

    Seriously, though, mechanical advantage and ground covered are irrelevant. Bikers can definitely cover more ground in a given period of time, which means they are less likely to linger, go off-trail, set up camp, shit, piss and cook food. I'm at a loss for how that goes against the WA or has a negative impact on people's Wilderness Experience. Regardless, if this bill passes, every red herring and pointless gripe can be sussed out at a local level, with the land managers making what they think is the appropriate decision. This my not win back established mountain biking trails, or always result in favorable decisions for mountain bikers, but at least it removes the blanket ban. It is also likely to bring a significantly more people to the table in support of big W.
    Remind me. We'll send him a red cap and a Speedo.

  4. #104
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Missoula
    Posts
    2,104
    My point was that despite having bikes they were moving at a walking pace most of the day. The trail runner guys I know regularly cover that kind of ground at a faster rate.

  5. #105
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Eburg
    Posts
    13,243
    Quote Originally Posted by jono View Post
    It's weird, you say "Bullshit" and then confirm what I said.
    More bullshit. Where did I confirm your false premise that airstrips are "traditional" uses in WAs? Nowhere. Airstrips are rare exceptional uses in WAs, not traditional uses, of course.

  6. #106
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Where the sheets have no stains
    Posts
    22,061
    Steve they are not Rare.

    In Idaho the Frank Church Wilderness is full of airstrips. Off the top of my head I could easily name a dozen that I have flown in or out of.
    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"

  7. #107
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    I-70 West
    Posts
    4,684
    Quote Originally Posted by bagtagley View Post
    So, the solution is to build more trail in some adjacent piece of public land that magically hasn't been included in what's certain to be an all-encompassing W proposal? Can we share parking lots and bathrooms with the hikers, or do the bikers need their own parking lots, bathrooms, and water fountains. Do we have to ride in the back of the shuttle bus?

    Seriously, though, mechanical advantage and ground covered are irrelevant. Bikers can definitely cover more ground in a given period of time, which means they are less likely to linger, go off-trail, set up camp, shit, piss and cook food.
    Hey, I'm not saying that's the solution, but if the majority wants wilderness and bikers are getting kicked out, it's one idea to mandate suitable levels of replacement trails.
    Nothing wrong with any of those activities, assuming one is responsible. Acting like a certain user group is above making an impact is the wrong way to go about it.

  8. #108
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    95762
    Posts
    276
    Quote Originally Posted by bunion View Post
    Steve they are not Rare.

    In Idaho the Frank Church Wilderness is full of airstrips. Off the top of my head I could easily name a dozen that I have flown in or out of.
    But goldamn you if you take a dam bicycle in there!!!!! ;-)

  9. #109
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Not in the PRB
    Posts
    32,776
    It entirely depends one one's perspective. Many WAs do not have things like airstrips, so if that's your perspective, you would think they don't exist or are extremely rare. Others, like the Frank Church, have many. So if that's your perspective then they seem fairly traditional and not at all rare or exceptional.

    I don't think anyone is going to "win" this argument.
    "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

  10. #110
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    8,318
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Steve View Post
    More bullshit. Where did I confirm your false premise that airstrips are "traditional" uses in WAs? Nowhere. Airstrips are rare exceptional uses in WAs, not traditional uses, of course.
    Obviously the WA prohibits airplanes, so just as obviously, the only reason that private airstrips exist in any WA (nineteen in the Frank Curch River of No Return Wilderness FTR) is that they were established as a traditional use of the land in that location prior to establishing the WA.

  11. #111
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    8,318
    Quote Originally Posted by hatchgreenchile View Post
    Hey, I'm not saying that's the solution, but if the majority wants wilderness and bikers are getting kicked out, it's one idea to mandate suitable levels of replacement trails.
    Nothing wrong with any of those activities, assuming one is responsible. Acting like a certain user group is above making an impact is the wrong way to go about it.
    Many of the kinds of negotiations you mention will become feasible if (and only if) this bill passes.

    I appreciate that you would expect reasonable people to act reasonably. If it seems that the bikers in this thread are being dismissive of those often-reasonable solutions then you might want to peruse the thread about the last Wilderness Area to be designated. Suffice it to say the end result was that the groups we would presumably need to negotiate with have already acted in bad faith and thrown the bicycle users under the bus after explicitly promising to seek a National Monument and using the local bike club to gather signatures in support, only to pivot and team with motorized users to get a headline that changed only one fact on the ground: bike trails that had been in use for 30 years were protected from bikes. After 30 years they were too perfect to allow bicycles.

    https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...ead.php/293294

  12. #112
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    in your second home, doing heroin
    Posts
    14,690
    Heh.

    I got curious.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	landingfrankchurch.JPG 
Views:	73 
Size:	642.1 KB 
ID:	186024

    And that's only what I could fit in one frame. Tons of them bitches up in there.

    My wilderness experience is remotely detracted from.
    Besides the comet that killed the dinosaurs nothing has destroyed a species faster than entitled white people.-ajp

  13. #113
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Alpental
    Posts
    4,166
    Quote Originally Posted by Danno View Post
    It entirely depends one one's perspective. Many WAs do not have things like airstrips, so if that's your perspective, you would think they don't exist or are extremely rare. Others, like the Frank Church, have many. So if that's your perspective then they seem fairly traditional and not at all rare or exceptional.

    I don't think anyone is going to "win" this argument.
    The bikers won't win once The Sierra Club and groups like Wilderness Watch step in
    “I have a responsibility to not be intimidated and bullied by low life losers who abuse what little power is granted to them as ski patrollers.”

  14. #114
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    95762
    Posts
    276
    Quote Originally Posted by snoqpass View Post
    The bikers won't win once The Sierra Club and groups like Wilderness Watch step in
    Mountain bikers have already won! This subject is getting tons and tons of media coverage all over the USA both in print and television (as well as internet forums). Regardless of what happens to this particular bill, the issue isn't going away until reasonable accommodation for bicycling finally takes place, even if it is only for future Wilderness designations. I predict within 10 years. Less than 5 would be swell.

  15. #115
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Alpental
    Posts
    4,166
    Quote Originally Posted by Empty Beer View Post
    Mountain bikers have already won! This subject is getting tons and tons of media coverage all over the USA both in print and television (as well as internet forums). Regardless of what happens to this particular bill, the issue isn't going away until reasonable accommodation for bicycling finally takes place, even if it is only for future Wilderness designations. I predict within 10 years. Less than 5 would be swell.
    The USFS will taken to court and forced to do NEPA studies before they can add wheeled travel to existing trails, 10 years is very optimistic I've seen it happen around here many times. I used to give money to the Sierra Club years ago but now I have a strong dislike for them and their attitude towards other users of public lands
    “I have a responsibility to not be intimidated and bullied by low life losers who abuse what little power is granted to them as ski patrollers.”

  16. #116
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    95762
    Posts
    276
    Quote Originally Posted by snoqpass View Post
    The USFS will taken to court and forced to do NEPA studies before they can add wheeled travel to existing trails, 10 years is very optimistic I've seen it happen around here many times. I used to give money to the Sierra Club years ago but now I have a strong dislike for them and their attitude towards other users of public lands
    You're not alone in your feelings for what was once a very noble organization (Sierra Club). Regarding NEPA, I saw this dialogue on the STC FB page. I'm not experienced with NEPA... just passing along some insight:

    Greg B. asks:
    "A well known anti-bike advocate has been jumping on the comment section of recent articles, stating that to allow bikes on Wilderness trails would require a NEPA process and cost each managing agency thousands of dollars that don't exist. I have my doubts if this is true. I know for a fact that NEPA is not used when Wilderness areas are created, and NEPA has been disregarded or manipulated when bikes have been recently banned in Recommended Wilderness and Wilderness Study Areas of Montana. My questions are: Was NEPA employed in creation of the blanket ban of 1984? Would passage of S3205 trigger NEPA compliance as the anti-bike advocate asserts?"

    STC responds:
    "As far as we know there was no NEPA review in 1977 or 1984 when the Forest Service banned bicycles in Wilderness. The Pacific Crest Trail non-Wilderness ban rests only on a typewritten order, lacking NEPA review, that probably violates the Administrative Procedure Act. If a land manager wants to undertake NEPA review during the two-year decision-making period, nothing in the proposed law would bar that. But it is not required. Moreover, if that review doesn't conclude in two years, the affected area would become open to all human-powered travel."

    https://www.facebook.com/Sustainable...2%3A%22R%22%7D

  17. #117
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Alpental
    Posts
    4,166

    Bikes in Wilderness Areas

    One example I know of around here is the FS tried to allow street legal ATVs on six roads already open for motorized use not orv trails they got taken to courts and were told to do a NEPA review before allowing them...on a fucking road already open for street legal vehicles so imagine what going to happen if it's already wilderness. Demanding NEPA is a common tactic to stop the FS from making changes some people don't like. It took ten years of court battles just fix one road around here
    “I have a responsibility to not be intimidated and bullied by low life losers who abuse what little power is granted to them as ski patrollers.”

  18. #118
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Norcal
    Posts
    2,190
    No NEPA should be needed in area's recently changed to wilderness that allowed mountain biking for decades and left it pristine enough to be called Wilderness. If it does pass I would guess most long existing wilderness area's would stay bike free. Even if a lot of wilderness did magically open up, many area's will attract very few mountain bikers, many trails are just to challenging for a majority of riders, but for the adventuresome, it will be quite rewarding.

    Would be nice if it did pass, I'd like to be able to root for more wilderness rather than fight tooth and nail against it.

    If it does not pass, then the growing number of bikers who just say fuck it as they lose more and more trails will go ride it anyway, rangers of the law enforcement variety are few and far between.

  19. #119
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Park City
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by jono View Post
    In point of fact you are incorrect about the speed traveled by bikes in this setting. I can go for a ride with a hiker and basically stay together. To use your example, if you send a snowshoer over a ridge top/multi-peak traverse when I'm on skies we'll never see each other after I rip skins the first time.
    Dude. Put the crack pipe down. Bikes are faster than pedestrians due to mechanical advantage. Ever seen someone run 30 mph? Me neither. A good biker can sustain that for quite some time. Mechanical advantage & all. That's why bikes are awesome. Just not in wilderness areas.

  20. #120
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    8,318
    Go back to the context of the conversation. Bikes are faster than hikers, usually by 20-50% in rugged terrain (which is about what your 30mph comment indicates, too). That is owed to mechanical disadvantage (more reading), but the impact on the environment is similar or less, as has been noted, because in many cases better range equals less human waste in the WA. Mountain bikes are less frequent visitors who don't stay as long. But we stop for pics and to observe our surroundings as often and we have every right to that same experience.

  21. #121
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    8,318
    Quote Originally Posted by TahoeBC View Post
    Would be nice if it did pass, I'd like to be able to root for more wilderness rather than fight tooth and nail against it.
    This. People who claim to love these places would rather fight with the apostates whose tastes or abilities differ from their own than protect the land.

    30 years of bikes on trails in the SNRA didn't hurt the land a bit, as congress and the president confirmed. The proposed bill would clarify the law to exactly what they already believe to be correct.

    If it passes we can have our petty squabbles over specific trails. If it fails we have clarified the problem with the hypocrisy of the status quo, which can only make more additions to Wilderness more difficult. Especially since there are a dozen other ways to protect federal lands that don't discriminate between user groups.

    Empty Beer is right, we win if we win and if we lose we'll have a better chance to stop future expansion. I'm adding a donation to STC to the letters.

  22. #122
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    I-70 West
    Posts
    4,684
    Quote Originally Posted by jono View Post
    That is owed to mechanical disadvantage (more reading), but the impact on the environment is similar or less, as has been noted, because in many cases better range equals less human waste in the WA. Mountain bikes are less frequent visitors who don't stay as long. But we stop for pics and to observe our surroundings as often and we have every right to that same experience.
    Again, the "holier than thou", "we make less of an impact" approach is the wrong way to go about it. You've seen the letter that 115 conservation groups have signed. It's about "mechanical transport / mechanical advantage" and how a bike fits into that conversation. Your battle is changing that mindset and 50 years of established policy across every public land administration.

    More often than not, trail quality is dependent on layout, erosion control and how often it sees a saw. Some places are in great shape that get heavy use, some are not. Keep in mind that horse usage continues to plummet, and a trail will see 50 hikers or bikers before it sees a single horse. "Leave no Trace" isn't about leaving no trace, it's just about minimizing the impact. Climbing on the high horse (hehe) because you can bang out those 20 miles before lunch, where it requires a hiker to burn a few logs and set up a tent is missing the point.

  23. #123
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Not in the PRB
    Posts
    32,776
    Quote Originally Posted by TahoeBC View Post
    Would be nice if it did pass, I'd like to be able to root for more wilderness rather than fight tooth and nail against it.
    this is basically it. As someone who considers themselves a staunch environmentalist and needs wild spaces for my sanity, I hate that I feel like I have to oppose, rather than support, wilderness designations.
    "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

  24. #124
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Wasatch
    Posts
    6,256
    Quote Originally Posted by hatchgreenchile View Post
    Again, the "holier than thou", "we make less of an impact" approach is the wrong way to go about it. You've seen the letter that 115 conservation groups have signed. It's about "mechanical transport / mechanical advantage" and how a bike fits into that conversation. Your battle is changing that mindset and 50 years of established policy across every public land administration.

    More often than not, trail quality is dependent on layout, erosion control and how often it sees a saw. Some places are in great shape that get heavy use, some are not. Keep in mind that horse usage continues to plummet, and a trail will see 50 hikers or bikers before it sees a single horse. "Leave no Trace" isn't about leaving no trace, it's just about minimizing the impact. Climbing on the high horse (hehe) because you can bang out those 20 miles before lunch, where it requires a hiker to burn a few logs and set up a tent is missing the point.
    50 years ago the Sierra Club was not engaged in anti-bicycle lobbying. This is a change that's occurred mostly over the past 20-30 years.

    Also, it's best practice not to burn any logs in pretty much all Wilderness areas in the west, especially if you're backpacking. There is the obvious fire hazard, plus a much larger impact from your camp site.

  25. #125
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    12,609
    I think that areas and trails in Wilderness should allow bikes on a case by case basis. Also, they should not be allowed for hunting purposes.

    Side note: Isn't it interesting that hunting is allowed in Wilderness but it's the mountain bikes who are "Killing" the wilderness experience?

Posting Permissions

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