Bikes in Wilderness Areas

[stuckathuntermtn]

Good thinking. Very positive. I forget to be positive about this.
Ime, though, it seems most people don't realize bicycles are banned from the big W and think it's silly. Though it's not in their interest either way.
Fuck it, let's throw eggs at The Wilderness Society.

[Danno]

One reason land managers won't like the new leg is that it'll mean that every trail will be in for a fight. The Boulder chapter of the IMBA will be fighting tooth and nail to get Indian Peaks access and the Sierra Club members will be fighting tooth and nail against any MTB access on any trail.

While your general point may be true, that there may be big fights afoot, I strongly disagree on your example. First off, we have no idea how IMBA would act if this bill passed. Lord knows they have not been out front of this issue, and instead have actively worked against it. Second, I know BMA well (local IMBA group), maybe you do too, and I doubt very much that BMA would be fighting for across the board IPW access. Maybe there's a single trail here or there that they ask for, but they're not going to be fighting for 4th of July or Hessie access.

[Danno]

Question for everyone: How do we get bike industry $ to support this? $130K was already raised primarily from individuals and a few bike clubs and one bike shop. How do we raise another $100K+?

Get IMBA to change their tune, that will help.

And the STC needs to set up one of those handy "mail your congresspeople" things, where you enter your info and it does so automagically.

[raisingarizona13]

I like having forests where it's totally quiet from loud bicycles and moto bikes.

From what I have seen a lot of wilderness trails suck for bikes. The old pack trails just aren't very good for cycling, neither are the fall line hiking trails generally. To reroute those trails would be a ridiculous task, I'm not saying it's impossible but it's not likely going to happen either. Because of their poor design there are erosion issues with bicycles and a lot of cyclists cut corners or create new lines once the old ones are rutted and too difficult for them to ride. Those kinds of scars are something I like to keep to a minimum honestly. Wilderness trails also weren't laid out with sight lines being much a consideration either, blind corners and mixing bikes and hikers/horse people can create a lot of user conflict.

I'm not against it and I can't stand the Sierra Club, I think all user groups should have places to play and recreate but I'm not sold on opening all wilderness areas to biking is a great idea, yet.

In all honesty I don't think this will ever pass anyways. It's pie in the sky shit but if it derails the Sierra Club and takes some of their resources away from fighting cyclists on NF land than I'm 100% in support. We should be creating all kinds of silly battles to keep that organization as busy as possible.

[jono]

Have you read the bill? Pretty well thought out with respect to all those objections. The text is up here:

http://www.sustainabletrailscoalition.org/

The biggest, to me, is the fact that it allows variation by location. So, for example, if your Wilderness Area allows for ultra-silent travel then you can raise that issue with your land manager. Whereas in my area, if you can hear my bike over the sound of your bear bell you're doing it wrong.

[jono]

...we have no idea how IMBA would act if this bill passed.

Don't we though? They might ask nicely but that's probably about all.

I was trying to count the number of lawsuits brought by mountain bikers for access the other day...have we reached one yet?

[toast2266]

But if bikes were allowed in Wilderness, the 7 lane superhighway the horse packers have created might turn into an 8 lane superhighway, which is obviously unacceptable.

[Bunion 2020]

One idea that has been missed is that "IF" a trail in a WA were to be open to MTBs there is always an option to do Bike Free days.

Here in Bozeman there is what is called Shared days in which many popular trails are not open to MTBs on either Sat. or Sun. and at least one week day to allow for that oh so sought after bullshit experience.

Only odd thing is there are no days when there are no hikers allowed. But hey, we are sharing.

[Sirshredalot]

One idea that has been missed is that "IF" a trail in a WA were to be open to MTBs there is always an option to do Bike Free days.

Here in Bozeman there is what is called Shared days in which many popular trails are not open to MTBs on either Sat. or Sun. and at least one week day to allow for that oh so sought after bullshit experience.

Only odd thing is there are no days when there are no hikers allowed. But hey, we are sharing.

In SLC, there is an area with alternating days of off-leash dogs and mtbs. Which seems reasonable to me.

[Bunion 2020]

Off leash dogs riding mountain bikes would totally ruin it for me.

Is Mueller Park still open to biking?

[TahoeJ]

We have a few trails on the Nevada side of Tahoe with even / odd designations. Whether or not those are actually respected I couldn't tell you. I'm guessing "sort of."

[stuckathuntermtn]

Bicycles are loud? I guess if you get 1 of stupid mufflers...

[babybear]

Bicycles are loud?

only with chris king hubs

[goldenboy]

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).

This already happens to an extent, and I think the nutless folks at IMBA would love to see it continue. Don't get me wrong, new trails are great. But in many areas, it seems as though there are more and more short trails near town being built, while the backcountry trails are lost to new travel management plans and Wilderness areas. For those of us who like backcountry trails, that isn't a net gain.

[jono]

Across most (all?) of USFS Region 1 the result of that policy would be more trails lost to overgrowth. Trail maintenance hasn't been happening and it's not likely to start anytime soon...to say nothing of building new trails.

[jamal]

Yeah, the bigger effort that I've seen lately has gone into working on exiting trails that have become overgrown and practically abandoned.

Around here the FS is not allowing any new trail to be built, I don't know if that is just lolo or a larger area. So anything new is on private land, ideally that is in the process of becoming public.

[raisingarizona13]

All of the FS monies are going towards fire with nothing left for recreation. The FS needs to hand over the keys to local communities to some degree. Big G regulations and budget cuts are strangling their ability to get anything done. Add in a threat of a lawsuit from the Sierra Club and the FS pretty much won't try to make anything happen, they know that their jobs could be cut next. I imagine this is in part why we keep getting new wilderness areas, they simply can't manage them as NF lands but that's just a hunch.

[raisingarizona13]

Bicycles are loud? I guess if you get 1 of stupid mufflers...

You don't hike at all eh? In a busy place it can be a pretty big distraction. I don't mind it when I'm on multi use trails at all, I expect their to be people out riding and I'm often one of them but I also like going to places with hardly anyone around and enjoying tranquility.

I don't want anyone to think I'm on the opposite side here, I'm just a bit of a fence sitter and see benefits for and against. Regardless of the outcome I'll be stoked.

[TahoeJ]

Good article on Single Tracks - http://www.singletracks.com/blog/mtb...ess-areas-act/

[Bunion 2020]

I like having forests where it's totally quiet from loud bicycles and moto bikes.

Maybe you can lobby to stop the airlines from flying their damn planes overhead too?

Seriously, 1/2 the hikers complain we are too quiet and startle them, so which is it?

You don't hike at all eh? In a busy place it can be a pretty big distraction. I don't mind it when I'm on multi use trails at all, I expect their to be people out riding and I'm often one of them but I also like going to places with hardly anyone around and enjoying tranquility.

I don't want anyone to think I'm on the opposite side here, I'm just a bit of a fence sitter and see benefits for and against. Regardless of the outcome I'll be stoked.

OK but maybe if you want tranquility it would make more sense to avoid trails altogether.

[raisingarizona13]

Maybe you can lobby to stop the airlines from flying their damn planes overhead too?

I have often looked up and thought WTF? I walked this far to get away from it all and modern civilization has their dick butter splattered across the sky like a porn movie money shot! I'm not anti bike or lobbying for removing anything, in fact I'm heavily involved with advocacy here in Flagstaff but being a back packer, hiker, back country skier, etc. I like to try and naturally do understand the different sides to these sorts of things. I think it's good to sort of be neutral and agreeable and to some extent that attitude helps when you have a seat at the table trying to get things done for bikes.


[/QUOTE] Seriously, 1/2 the hikers complain we are too quiet and startle them, so which is it?

Ya, the Sierra clubbers will complain no matter what! They don't like mountain bikes at all and they don't care to share. I have never had a problem hearing or seeing them coming but if I'm on a popular trail on a weekend/holiday or even not I know to pay attention. Too many people have no situational or scene awareness. Maybe I'm wrong but that's never been a problem for me.

OK but maybe if you want tranquility it would make more sense to avoid trails altogether . [/QUOTE]

I often do but to cover ground I still use some trail.


edit: Apparently I can't figure out how to do multiple quotes, I tried.

[TahoeJ]

I'm obviously pro MTB but I agree there are many trails where bikes shouldn't be allowed, and I do sympathize with the disturbance aspect (to some degree). But a blanket ban is just stupid - let the local land managers who have a better understanding of their trail systems make those decisions. Many of them would *love* to have bikers' help with maintenance on further out trails where very few hikers ever make it. Many trails are disappearing under the current restrictions.

That's kind of the whole point.

[raisingarizona13]

I'm obviously pro MTB but I agree there are many trails where bikes shouldn't be allowed, and I do sympathize with the disturbance aspect (to some degree). But a blanket ban is just stupid - let the local land managers who have a better understanding of their trail systems make those decisions. Many of them would *love* to have bikers' help with maintenance on further out trails where very few hikers ever make it. Many trails are disappearing under the current restrictions.

That's kind of the whole point.

Ya, that makes sense.

[kootenayskier]

I'm fine with certain trails, and certain areas being off limits for biking. I just get pissed off when trails built by the CCC in the 30s, and that I've been riding for 25 years have received or are being considered for bike-less wilderness designation because it's cheaper to manage for cash strapped local land managers. Fortunately the rules aren't enforced, but it's a load of bs nonetheless.

[kidwoo]

I'm fine with certain trails, and certain areas being off limits for biking. I just get pissed off when trails built by the CCC in the 30s, and that I've been riding for 25 years have received or are being considered for bike-less wilderness designation because it's cheaper to manage for cash strapped local land managers. Fortunately the rules aren't enforced, but it's a load of bs nonetheless.

What's the canadian equivalent of american capital W?

I thought it was only provincal parks and individual local closures you guys had to deal with?