Anyone have anything they'd like to rant about?

[El Chupacabra]

Ever been blown by a emoped rider going 20 uphill on a non-motorized fireroad with almost no noise? You should see the reactions of hikers.

[californiagrown]

Ever been blown by a emoped rider going 20 uphill on a non-motorized fireroad with almost no noise? You should see the reactions of hikers.

"ride in a manner fitting the situation". Sounds like its the rider not the activity in that situation. IDK why anyone would think actions like that would be a good way to share trails. Blasting by hikers on the downhill at 20mph would just as rude and dangerous.

Sounds like you have or at least perceive to have a shit-ton more ebikers in your neck of the woods than i do in mine. I wonder what factors play into the prevalence of ebikes in geographical regions?

[Redsmurfer]

entitlement and $$$$. We got rangers on them as well. They claimed they would not be used for trail enforcement when the local shop sold them to the bikes. It only took two weeks before the first reports of rangers patrolling trails and writing tickets started coming in. They are setting off a new round of pissing matches about trail use here.

As I have said in other threads we are fucking doomed, these things are being rammed down our throats by corporations seeking profits and in my experience they appeal to people who really do not look at the bigger picture and only care about their own fun factor, so I guess Marin County is a perfect breeding ground for ebikers.

[californiagrown]

e-bikes seem like a cool toy, but would very be limited in application for me. too much upfront cost. Id be scared of running out of battery. And i break enough shit on my bike as is (i ride poorly and am big not b/c i ride fast)- i DO NOT need another finicky easy to break super expensive component on my bike haha. not to mention the added maintenance needs.

[Bunion 2020]

Ever been blown by a emoped rider going 20 uphill on a non-motorized fireroad with almost no noise? You should see the reactions of hikers. I deal with entitled ebikers almost every ride now. I know people do not like seeing access removed but places like that were described in those articles as well as the wildlife experts basically laying out the impacts and you have to recognized there should be some places you can't and should not ride. Sorry if you just moved to Big Sky and had this dream of playing anyway and anywhere you wanted. Increase access in the developed areas, wild places need our protection.

Look at Europe, they have no wildlife resources left nor due they have extensive wilderness areas. go ebike there.

Don't know who that was directed towards but

A. Those articles from Mountain Journal are complete bullshit.

B. I moved to Big Sky in 1991.

[skaredshtles]

<snip>
I will no longer support ANY Wilderness designations until some sanity is restored.

This. It infuriates me to have to take this stance, but I'm fucking DONE with losing great, remote, alpine rides.

[Dantheman]

This. It infuriates me to have to take this stance, but I'm fucking DONE with losing great, remote, alpine rides.

x3

[kidwoo]

Thanks not bunion a very interesting read. Kidwoo get off your high horse. Ebikes are great for around town and commuting they do not belong on trails for non motorized use. Giving ebike riders a lot of shit you meet on illegal trails is a good thing. Promoting them because they allow you ride further into areas to do gnarly lines or climbs for your stupid instagram feed and meager bro brah lifestyle is wrong. They will also allow greater penetration into remote areas for more people, and as that article and science studies show this has a significant impact on wildlife. As a group we need acknowledge our impacts and mitigate them even if that means not riding in important areas. I am all for more wilderness, especially in these areas that have been acknowledge as having very significant wildlife resources. Where do I contribute ($$) to the cause?

You're the one promoting giving shit to strangers and I'm on a high horse.......

You should read some of my posts a few years ago about ebikes, you're making a lot of assumptions. As far as access goes.....you have no idea what I do in my (formerly) free time. Because I live in the one lower 48 with by FAR the most wilderness both in land mass and in total percentage of state acreage, I'm done with this nonsense. The wilderness organizations are clueless. And at this point are literally just doing this to keep the memberships and conservation grants coming in to support their multiple 100k+/yr jobs. The people advocating for this stuff have usually never even laid eyes on the areas in question. It's a buisness.

I think ebikes are stupid as hell. But yelling at some stranger is exactly the kind of elitist "my kind only" bullshit that mountainbikers cry so hard about, and now you're doing it to other people.

Seriously, the only more entitled pricks than rich skiers, are rich hikers. But boy mountainbikers sure are making some headway.

[kidwoo]

Ever been blown by a emoped rider going 20 uphill on a non-motorized fireroad with almost no noise? You should see the reactions of hikers. .

Wait, now I want one.

Look at Europe, they have no wildlife resources left nor due they have extensive wilderness areas. go ebike there.

Look at the USA, they have 109 MILLION acres of designated wilderness. Go spray there.

[Redsmurfer]

no slam intended. It is interesting that the article talks about population growth in Yellowstone area. I have several friends that are longtime Bozeman residents. They are impressed/surprised by the increase in population, rise in real estate, and the amount of high tech/start up that is coming into the area. Being a 5th generation bay area resident I can tell you high tech should be run out of your town as soon as possible. The point being is that population is likely to increase in that neck of the woods, so will back country use. You are surrounded by amazing natural resources. You have experts who dedicated their lives to studying the wildlife and the ecology of the area. They are saying trails/human use/mtbing or what ever has impacts to these resources and these areas need to be set aside. Why is that so upsetting? Do you feel it somehow degrades your personal rights? Remember these are resources that do not exist in many places of the world and ones that do exist have no where near the potential protection measures we have in the states.

I love alpine rides but also know that we are at a cross roads in the health of our planet. Why can't we set aside areas where we are not the most important user or excluded from exploiting it whether it be for minerals or recreation. Is that not a small sacrifice to make in these uncertain times. I am sure there are great riding areas outside of this potential wilderness area.

P.S. I do agree with you that some environmental organizations care more about there own survival then the resources they claim to want to protect. Its just human nature.

[grskier]

I just get spooked when I almost run over an ebiker because they went up the hill at 22mph where by the rest of the bikes went up at 10mph and I start to creep forward pulling out of a side road.

I love this place.. lol

[grinch]

I used to take a friend backcountry skiing. Good buddy. Lives for pow. As soon as there was a "considerable" in the forecast anywhere the wife shut down the bc skiing for him. Like he was going to hop out of the car, step onto the snowbank and get destroyed by an avalanche. Those people making generalizations suck/rant

Sent from my SM-G950W using TGR Forums mobile app

[Bunion 2020]

I love alpine rides but also know that we are at a cross roads in the health of our planet. Why can't we set aside areas where we are not the most important user or excluded from exploiting it whether it be for minerals or recreation.

As was posted above there is over 100 million acres of designated Wilderness.

I can post scientific studies that show that a mountain biker has the same impact as a hiker or a horseback rider upon wildlife.

If the plan is to close areas to all humans then I am willing to listen.

Is that not a small sacrifice to make in these uncertain times. I am sure there are great riding areas outside of this potential wilderness area.

In MT we have lost well over 1000 miles of "great riding areas" in the past 15 years and that is the point. There are not that many trails left in this area to mountain bike. I appreciate your input but you are uninformed about SW MT access issues.

[kidwoo]

You have experts who dedicated their lives to studying the wildlife and the ecology of the area. They are saying trails/human use/mtbing or what ever has impacts to these resources and these areas need to be set aside. Why is that so upsetting?

I've been in too many process meetings. Trust me, the data you're referencing is rarely there in any sort of substantive manner. The groups pushing for these designations are often bright-eyed late 20s lawyers arguing over things like 'potential' habitat for species that have never even been seen in the area. That's not data, it's an assumption that one day whatever species they're talking about is going to setup shop. That's the kind of thing that gets used to exclude people from places. And you have to know by now that much of this isn't for preservation, it's for removing a use that often times some of your bay area neighbors just don't like. I mean that is the entire issue of bikes in wilderness in a nutshell if you know what the sierra club did with the wilderness act in 1984, almost 2 decades after the act passed. It has nothing to do with conservation. You been on the PCT recently? That's about as far from 'natural' as you can get, and in this state most of that mileage is well within these 'protected' places. The argument is disingenuous when something like bikes can't be there for preservation of the natural environment and popular wilderness trails look like freeways.

Why can't we set aside areas where we are not the most important user or excluded from exploiting it whether it be for minerals or recreation.

Why can't you realize that in many ways we've done exactly that? Go hike across the Bob Marshall or Frank Church. These are not small plots of land. And they're not that unique in mountain states, they exist en masse in all of them. Caging the question like we're starting from zero doesn't paint an accurate picture.

[californiagrown]

I can post scientific studies that show that a mountain biker has the same impact as a hiker or a horseback rider upon wildlife.
If the plan is to close areas to all humans then I am willing to listen..

Id be for a permit lottery system to allow a certain number of users per day into certain wilderness areas. How you want to recreate there is up to you- bike, horse, hike etc.

[rod9301]

It's bullshit that bikers have the same impact as horses.



Sent from my Armor_3 using Tapatalk

[Redsmurfer]

bunion post the link please. Peer reviewed and published, right? There are so many access issues depending on the individual area. I do not claim to know about your area but I am interested in the studies about wildlife and mtbing impacts. If it is good science, my view point can evolve.

Hey if you can sustain 10 mph uphill on a reasonable off road grade I am impressed, I struggle to hold onto 6-7 mph.

[grinch]

It's time spent in the bc that gauges wildlife impact. Over a 10km trail a mtber will have less effect than a hiker or horseback. Over time duration it's a wash. 1 hour is an hour

Sent from my SM-G950W using TGR Forums mobile app

[grinch]

Trail damage, mtb creates the least

Sent from my SM-G950W using TGR Forums mobile app

[Redsmurfer]

Horses rip the hell out of trail, and have big impacts on meadows when pack stock is allowed to graze, one reason the PCT looks the way it does.

Grinch, do not know if time is a significant variable but the article did talk about the speed at which bikers can come up on wildlife. The sudden interaction tends to cause a flight or fight response. Your contact when hiking is going to be different, likely slower. It also made the point that data on interactions with bears occurs at a higher rate per user on Mtbs than hiking. Seems like a reasonable assumption to me.

[Bunion 2020]

bunion post the link please. Peer reviewed and published, right? There are so many access issues depending on the individual area. I do not claim to know about your area but I am interested in the studies about wildlife and mtbing impacts. If it is good science, my view point can evolve.

Uh.... Google?

https://www.vvmta.org/2016/07/impact...ific-research/

http://mbosc.org/2019/04/introducing-mtb-impact-review/

It also made the point that data on interactions with bears occurs at a higher rate per user on Mtbs than hiking. Seems like a reasonable assumption to me.

Dude, that article is a slanted anti mountain biking bullshit hit job. There has been 1 Mountain Bike VS Grizzly fatality in the US VS over a dozen involving campers, hikers and hunters.

The Bear Scientist also supports de-listing Grizzlies from endangered species protection which will lead to hunting.

His quote,

Some selfish and self-centered mountain bikers are especially prone to this,” Servheen said. “The key factors of mountain biking that aggravate its impact on wildlife are high speed combined with quiet travel. These factors are exactly what we preach against when we tell people how to be safe when using bear habitat.”

Where he is so wrong is that when we ride in Bear Habitat (often, Montana IS Bear habitat) we ride slower, we make noise and we stick together.

[grinch]

Horses rip the hell out of trail, and have big impacts on meadows when pack stock is allowed to graze, one reason the PCT looks the way it does.

Grinch, do not know if time is a significant variable but the article did talk about the speed at which bikers can come up on wildlife. The sudden interaction tends to cause a flight or fight response. Your contact when hiking is going to be different, likely slower. It also made the point that data on interactions with bears occurs at a higher rate per user on Mtbs than hiking. Seems like a reasonable assumption to me.

It's all splitting hairs. The differences aren't much. Those were the differences though and all I remember from the definitive study. Ya you go faster on a bike but spend enough time(ie: hike) you'll see more bear. So speed or length of contact. Neither are perfection as far vas animal human interaction but again its splitting hairs. There's a time and a place for similar activities. Some places with species at risk isn't the best place for any activities. To single out one user group I think you should have to identify another conflict

Sent from my SM-G950W using TGR Forums mobile app

[Redsmurfer]

thinking about this more. What is the length of average hike 5 to 8 miles? My rides average about 20 miles but I have fairly easy trails and only moderate climbs (2,500 feet). I ride through several types of habitats and cover way more ground then typical hiker. Am I likely to have more and diverse interactions over a wider variety wildlife in a variety habitats because of distance that I cover in the same amount of time?

[Redsmurfer]

so took a quick look Bunion. These are published by pro bike groups though so "frame of reference?" Interesting neither link is peer reviewed or published but it does rely on peer reviewed literature searches which is good. The Santa Cruz one even site their literature sources, however can not read the base literature unless I pay for the journal articles. I have to see if my wife has subscriptions to any of these journals. Here is the summaries

Generally speaking what impact does mountain biking have on wildlife. Generally speaking, what is the impact of mountain biking on wildlife?

• The short answer is that it’s complicated. It largely depends on the species encountered, the characteristics of the trail, and the conduct of the trail user.
• The creation and presence of human created trails may lead to the fragmentation of a landscape that was once intact.[1] [2]The effects of fragmentation on wildlife vary depending on the species and the scale of analyses and impact.[3]Fragmentation has been found to be more severe in areas where unsanctioned trails are common.[4]
  
  • For instance, Red-legged Frogs can be adversely impacted if a trail traverses within 100 meters of its habitat.[5]
  • Research has found that some bird species have decreased nest survival, increased predation, or lower nest density in areas fragmented by trails.[6] [7]
  • Other species, however, have been shown to use trails to their advantage for travel or foraging, demonstrating that the presence of trails can affect the local composition of species.[7]
  
  
• The trail user and that user’s behavior also will dictate their impact on wildlife. Studies have shown that nesting birds may not be disturbed (e.g. the bird being startled from its nest/perch) by hikers or bikers quietly moving along a trail, but when trail users were noisy (e.g. talking) or when they stopped and/or approached the nest (e.g. birdwatchers), the likelihood of disturbance was significantly higher.[8] [9] [10] Most birds and mammals will react more strongly (i.e., flee) to off-trail recreationists than to on-trail users.[8] [9] [10] [11] [12]
• Research shows that noise can affect wildlife. Noise, however, is subjective and is perceived by different species in different ways.[13] [14] Studies have show that bicyclists passing quickly may cause less noise disturbance than other recreationalist on the trail.[11] [16] [32]
• A number of papers have attempted to synthesize the existing research of recreational impacts on wildlife worldwide. Findings show that a majority (>60%) of the studies reviewed demonstrated some form of negative impact on wildlife from all types of trail use (mountain biking, hiking, horseback riding).[16] [17] [18]
  
  • However, these same studies suggest that while recreational trail use may impact individual or groups of animals, population-level impacts to a species are less well-studied and poorly known.

How do mountain bikers impact wildlife as opposed to other users?
How do mountain bikes impact wildlife as compared to other trail users?

• Many studies examined the impacts of recreation on wildlife by user type(s). The majority of these studies however didn’t specifically address mountain biking, nor do they distinguish between the wide variety of mountain bike riding types (e.g. cross-country vs. downhill). The few studies that specifically addressed mountain biking have suggested the following:
  
  • Across a number of studies, researchers found that ungulates (such as deer and elk) are equally or less likely to be disturbed by mountain bikers than by hikers, joggers, or horseback riders.[11] [12]
  • The negative effects of trail use on birds is equal across trail use types when users are quiet and continuously moving.[17]Birds tend to be more adversely affected when users stop along the trail, or when they make more noise.[8] [9] [10] [19]
  • A study in a network of wildland reserves in Southern CA of disturbance to medium and large mammals found that all user types had negative effects, and that some types of human disturbance were more negative than others (from most to least impactful: pedestrian, bicycles, vehicles, dogs, equestrians).[20]
    
    • This study’s researchers refer to these impacts as a form of “mortality-free predation” due to the fact that these animals preferentially avoid habitat that humans are a part of.

[grskier]

Id be for a permit lottery system to allow a certain number of users per day into certain wilderness areas. How you want to recreate there is up to you- bike, horse, hike etc.

Hey, that was my idea...

Around here there are only a handful of wilderness areas I'd like to bike in, but have also seen the degradation on the high traffic hiking and equine areas... it just needs less users to live up to it' stated ideal.