Results 101 to 125 of 315
Thread: Bikes in Wilderness Areas
-
08-08-2016, 02:59 PM #101Rope->Dope
- Join Date
- Nov 2012
- Location
- I-70 West
- Posts
- 4,684
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).
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.
-
08-08-2016, 03:36 PM #102Hudge
- 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.
-
08-08-2016, 03:54 PM #103yelgatgab
- 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.
-
08-08-2016, 03:57 PM #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.
-
08-08-2016, 03:57 PM #105
-
08-08-2016, 04:10 PM #106
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"
-
08-08-2016, 04:13 PM #107Rope->Dope
- Join Date
- Nov 2012
- Location
- I-70 West
- Posts
- 4,684
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.
-
08-08-2016, 04:14 PM #108
-
08-08-2016, 04:15 PM #109
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
-
08-08-2016, 04:32 PM #110
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.
-
08-08-2016, 04:53 PM #111
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
-
08-08-2016, 04:56 PM #112
-
08-08-2016, 05:04 PM #113
-
08-08-2016, 06:39 PM #114
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.
-
08-08-2016, 07:33 PM #115
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.”
-
08-08-2016, 07:55 PM #116
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
-
08-08-2016, 09:22 PM #117
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.”
-
08-08-2016, 10:16 PM #118
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.
-
08-08-2016, 10:29 PM #119
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.
-
08-08-2016, 10:43 PM #120
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.
-
08-08-2016, 11:04 PM #121
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.
-
08-09-2016, 08:16 AM #122Rope->Dope
- Join Date
- Nov 2012
- Location
- I-70 West
- Posts
- 4,684
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.
-
08-09-2016, 08:19 AM #123"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
-
08-09-2016, 08:29 AM #124
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.
-
08-09-2016, 08:34 AM #125Registered User
- 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?
Bookmarks