should the wilderness act be gutted

[kootenayskier]

The point of Wilderness is to designate places where current human recreational needs are not the priority. That doesn’t mean it’s appropriate everywhere, but I strongly feel it has a place in the mix of land use categories.

[Mazderati]

Then get the for-profit pack trips off Wilderness Areas?

[WaistDeepGroomers]

I don't think it's fair to lump 100% human powered bikes in with atvs, snowmobiles, etc.

This is a side point of IMBA's that I think merits more attention, and careful attention given the evolution of e-bikes. Uses should be considered by their scientifically-proven impact, but unfortunately MTB's get lopped in with ATVs, dirt bikes, and other motorized toys even though their impact is very different. I know one of IMBA's long-term goals is to get a separate classification for non-motorized, mechanized (i.e. bikes) use of the land, and I'd back that big time.

I think the agony over Wilderness takes up way too much air on every side of the issue. MTB crowd sees it as a stand-in for where trail access as a whole across this country stands, and the conservation old guard will never let go of it until they're no longer on this earth. Opening it up when Repubs are making a very unified and concerted effort to override or otherwise erode any environmental protection against natural resources would not be a wise move IMO, for it will set a precedent whose direction could easily run away from our intended hopes.

There are absolutely MTB'ers with legitimate grievances over trail access loss b/c of Wilderness stuff, and conservation groups that are blockading themselves against potential allies in the broader lands protection struggle by being purists in their approach to W, but there's so much that could be done collaboratively outside of W areas to make trail access progress for bikers, and we can leave the broader W existential fight for a time when (hopefully) the political debate over how to treat the environment does not leave us such stark choices.

[mall walker]

This is a side point of IMBA's that I think merits more attention, and careful attention given the evolution of e-bikes. Uses should be considered by their scientifically-proven impact, but unfortunately MTB's get lopped in with ATVs, dirt bikes, and other motorized toys even though their impact is very different. I know one of IMBA's long-term goals is to get a separate classification for non-motorized, mechanized (i.e. bikes) use of the land, and I'd back that big time.

I think the agony over Wilderness takes up way too much air on every side of the issue. MTB crowd sees it as a stand-in for where trail access as a whole across this country stands, and the conservation old guard will never let go of it until they're no longer on this earth. Opening it up when Repubs are making a very unified and concerted effort to override or otherwise erode any environmental protection against natural resources would not be a wise move IMO, for it will set a precedent whose direction could easily run away from our intended hopes.

There are absolutely MTB'ers with legitimate grievances over trail access loss b/c of Wilderness stuff, and conservation groups that are blockading themselves against potential allies in the broader lands protection struggle by being purists in their approach to W, but there's so much that could be done collaboratively outside of W areas to make trail access progress for bikers, and we can leave the broader W existential fight for a time when (hopefully) the political debate over how to treat the environment does not leave us such stark choices.

100%

[Sirshredalot]

Then get the for-profit pack trips off Wilderness Areas?

It is odd that the default designation ALWAYS permits commercial 30-animal pack strings and ALWAYS denies access to bikes, game carts, and hang-gliders. In most of these protected areas, there is probably a case to have all of those uses, and if we're concerned about impact, the pack strings ought to go before the game carts and bikes.

[ACH]

Equating the impact of bicycles with motorized vehicles on any terrain is ridiculous.

The related impact is different, but impact none the less.
I can only comment on what I have experienced first hand in the PNW.
Trails here that are shuttle accessible see a different level of (significant) impact than trails that are strictly pedal access. The impact/evolution of shuttle accessible trails speaks for itself.

[MagnificentUnicorn]

Some trails are poorly constructed or rarely maintained, and that plays a huge factor. I don't think it's that simple to say "this user group ruined it".

I know of two wilderness trails near Lake Granby, one is pretty heavily traveled and is in beautiful shape, the other only gets a few random hunters and is in terrible shape since it crosscuts a really steep slope, has poor drainage, goes up and down far more often then it needs to and hasn't seen a handsaw in years.

Oh for sure a lot of trails are built that are in no way sustainable and a lot of those are built by the gravity powered 'freeride' crowd. That's fine on private land but trails with gradients that are too steep and have feature that aren't appropriate for the broad range of user groups really don't belong on public land outside of designated OHV parks. Of course this is just my opinion.

I didn't say that an entire user group ruined it, a small subset of a user group has an impact that is out of proportion to it's size and that is what is visible to people. There are hikers that 'ruin' it too, mindlessly cutting switchbacks and trammeling off trail and around mud holes. Equestrians do it too and I would say it's a larger portion of that user group because the condition of the trail means less to them than hikers or bikers so they are more likely too use a trail when it's wet and soft.

[MagnificentUnicorn]

The related impact is different, but impact none the less.
I can only comment on what I have experienced first hand in the PNW.
Trails here that are shuttle accessible see a different level of (significant) impact than trails that are strictly pedal access. The impact/evolution of shuttle accessible trails speaks for it's self.

Yes, trails like Devil's Gulch used to be pretty nice even with motorcycle use. With the growing popularity of shuttle riding that trail is seeing more abuse because of the increase speed and traffic. What I've noticed is that if a user's main focus is on speed then the trail will change over time to suit that style versus riding a trail like it was designed and changing style to suit the trail.

[jono]

This is a side point of IMBA's that I think merits more attention, and careful attention given the evolution of e-bikes. Uses should be considered by their scientifically-proven impact, but unfortunately MTB's get lopped in with ATVs, dirt bikes, and other motorized toys even though their impact is very different. I know one of IMBA's long-term goals is to get a separate classification for non-motorized, mechanized (i.e. bikes) use of the land, and I'd back that big time.

I think the agony over Wilderness takes up way too much air on every side of the issue. MTB crowd sees it as a stand-in for where trail access as a whole across this country stands, and the conservation old guard will never let go of it until they're no longer on this earth. Opening it up when Repubs are making a very unified and concerted effort to override or otherwise erode any environmental protection against natural resources would not be a wise move IMO, for it will set a precedent whose direction could easily run away from our intended hopes.

There are absolutely MTB'ers with legitimate grievances over trail access loss b/c of Wilderness stuff, and conservation groups that are blockading themselves against potential allies in the broader lands protection struggle by being purists in their approach to W, but there's so much that could be done collaboratively outside of W areas to make trail access progress for bikers, and we can leave the broader W existential fight for a time when (hopefully) the political debate over how to treat the environment does not leave us such stark choices.

I'm having trouble not just calling this what it is: stupid. Politically naive might be better?
The argument that reasonable approaches can't be taken at a time when the "other" side has the upper hand is the fallacious underpinning of all things obstructionist. And it strengthens the other side's position by showing that you're the one that can't be reasonable. Furthermore, it flies in the face of present reality by ignoring the very moderate choices that have recently been available: ending a reactionary blanket ban on bicycles has been on the table with no other strings attached and the opposition to that has demonstrated the exact point that the pro-Trump folks make about federal lands being taken away from the people.

Or maybe you're addressing the poll, in which case I heartily agree: the poll is a "stark" false dichotomy and the language should have gotten it moved to polyass before page 2.

[jono]

The related impact is different, but impact none the less.
I can only comment on what I have experienced first hand in the PNW.
Trails here that are shuttle accessible see a different level of (significant) impact than trails that are strictly pedal access. The impact/evolution of shuttle accessible trails speaks for itself.

There is a difference between front country and backcountry MTB, just as there is with skiing: high altitude trails that take people from A to B in a scenic environment are not ridden the same way as some downhill trail that is built (overbuilt in most cases) for getting rad. Long distance biking usually involves a lot of walking and seldom if ever do the wheels leave the ground. This is increasingly true the further you get from medical help. The difference in mentality almost certainly explains why so many scientific studies find no increase in impact for bikes versus hikers. On the other hand, in the grand scheme of things hatchgreenchile's point about water erosion is the one that matters: drainage trumps all use impacts.

[bagtagley]

The thread in Sprockets is a reasonable discussion about a well thought out, extremely limited bill. Nobody but BFD has talked about gutting the WA. If we're going to discuss among the broader group, why aren't we talking about the bill itself? No reasonable person wants to gut the WA.

[hatchgreenchile]

Oh for sure a lot of trails are built that are in no way sustainable and a lot of those are built by the gravity powered 'freeride' crowd. That's fine on private land but trails with gradients that are too steep and have feature that aren't appropriate for the broad range of user groups really don't belong on public land outside of designated OHV parks. Of course this is just my opinion.

I didn't say that an entire user group ruined it, a small subset of a user group has an impact that is out of proportion to it's size and that is what is visible to people. There are hikers that 'ruin' it too, mindlessly cutting switchbacks and trammeling off trail and around mud holes. Equestrians do it too and I would say it's a larger portion of that user group because the condition of the trail means less to them than hikers or bikers so they are more likely too use a trail when it's wet and soft.

Agreed. Nobody is perfect, we all make an impact, even when we have the best intentions of leaving no trace.

I don't think the Wilderness Act was about which user groups had the lowest impact. It was about setting aside select areas for primitive travel methods and "one foot in front of the other" access to preserve the wildest of our public lands.

[jono]

I don't think the Wilderness Act was about which user groups had the lowest impact. It was about setting aside select areas for primitive travel methods and "one foot in front of the other" access.

You may think not but the people who wrote it and signed it included bicyclists as valid users. It's a very small difference, but it's the kind of thing that makes the hikers look very hypocritical. If there's no argument from an impact standpoint, are you just saying that your spiritual experience of walking is sacred and can't be shared by someone who rolls on wheels?

[Danno]

No? Many trails that are legal for bikes and used to be 12-18" singletrack have become 3-4'+ tracks that are rutted out, washed boarded messes now with the shuttling enduro/downhill folks using them. Hell, around here a lot of the trails built 20-30 years ago by the motorcycle clubs are more legit singletrack than the trails used and/or constructed by the enduro/downhill crowd.

Someone who is shuttling something can't really be considered human powered recreation then, not in my book.

And ultimately, the largest environmental damage to a wilderness environment comes from the existence of the trail in the first place.

I'm not equating them, but you are kidding yourself if you think that any rollback of the wilderness act will be done with MTB in mind. It'll be done to facilitate the sale of public lands and nothing else ("for too long the government has told private citizens what they can do on their own land", just look at how the UT thing gets continually spun). So add a new designation. Removing/redesignating wilderness because you want to bike seems pretty short-sighted and naive to me.

I'm not in favor of removing wilderness designation, but I am in favor of the bill that allows local land managers to determine what forms of non-motorized uses should be allowed on the wilderness lands they manage.

[Danno]

The thread in Sprockets is a reasonable discussion about a well thought out, extremely limited bill. Nobody but BFD has talked about gutting the WA. If we're going to discuss among the broader group, why aren't we talking about the bill itself? No reasonable person wants to gut the WA.

this

[hatchgreenchile]

You may think not but the people who wrote it and signed it included bicyclists as valid users. It's a very small difference, but it's the kind of thing that makes the hikers look very hypocritical. If there's no argument from an impact standpoint, are you just saying that your spiritual experience of walking is sacred and can't be shared by someone who rolls on wheels?

No - we all enjoy the mountains in our own ways. If that's on a bike, good for you.

Here's my internet opinion - I don't feel like mountain biking belongs in Wilderness. It is good to set aside a small percentage of public lands for primitive access and travel where you need to "hoof it" to enjoy the goods, and I feel that definition does not include mountain bikes. I fully support improved access outside of these areas to MTBers, and hope that some of the areas that you were cut out of unfairly, like Boulder White Clouds, are restored.

Now, I would like to see more "wilderness-B", special management units and national recreation areas going forward that incorporate current users and provide additional protection. It is going to get harder and harder to establish new large wilderness areas, which is fine. I know that the current state of affairs in DC puts a dark cloud over the concept of reasonable give and take and collaborative discussion, but it doesn't mean its impossible nor worth exploring. Legislation that changes the wilderness act is not the route to take and creates further division and mudslinging.

Hermosa Creek in CO is a good example of multiple user groups coming together and creating a win-win scenario.

[bagtagley]

For every good example of multiple users coming together, there are probably a dozen where they didn't. Just calling it Wilderness-B is enough to turn people off. Not to mention, there are groups that use the big W specifically for the purpose of excluding mountain bikers. I don't see the harm in allowing local land managers to make the call. I don't know any mountain bikers that believe bikes should be allowed in ALL wilderness areas. But, there are countless areas where they were, and should be allowed. The only people that can reasonably make those determinations are those that know and use those resources.

[Mazderati]

It is good to set aside a small percentage of public lands for primitive access and travel where you need to "hoof it" to enjoy the goods, and I feel that definition does not include mountain bikes.

This is a romanticized notion that does not mesh with reality. Hoofing it is not riding a rented horse to a dinner someone else prepared at a camp someone else set up for several thousand dollars.

[ACH]

There is a difference between front country and backcountry MTB, just as there is with skiing: high altitude trails that take people from A to B in a scenic environment are not ridden the same way as some downhill trail that is built (overbuilt in most cases) for getting rad. Long distance biking usually involves a lot of walking and seldom if ever do the wheels leave the ground. This is increasingly true the further you get from medical help. The difference in mentality almost certainly explains why so many scientific studies find no increase in impact for bikes versus hikers. On the other hand, in the grand scheme of things hatchgreenchile's point about water erosion is the one that matters: drainage trumps all use impacts.

Yes, I understand this, and allude to it in my third sentence.
My point was in response to Mazderati.

Reading your post again.
My takeaway is that mountain biking represents a broad cross section of use that cannot be painted with a single brush.
Which is an accurate point of view IMO.

[hatchgreenchile]

This is a romanticized notion that does not mesh with reality. Hoofing it is not riding a rented horse to a dinner someone else prepared at a camp someone else set up for several thousand dollars.

Wilderness reality is not horse camps as far as the eyes can see. They are a small percentage of users, which you will continue to see decrease.
Times are changing.

[Danno]

I don't see the harm in allowing local land managers to make the call. I don't know any mountain bikers that believe bikes should be allowed in ALL wilderness areas. But, there are countless areas where they were, and should be allowed. The only people that can reasonably make those determinations are those that know and use those resources.

Exactly. And to be honest, many land managers (most, I'd wager) would not entertain the idea of bikes in any event. As in, most areas would remain closed. And many trails are really not suitable to bikes and would and should remain closed.

[Mazderati]

Wilderness reality is not horse camps as far as the eyes can see. They are a small percentage of users, which you will continue to see decrease.
Times are changing.

The reality is the current law allows those things and that is the basis of the discussion.

[Not Neil_Armstrong]

Interesting article.... http://www.capradio.org/articles/201...derness-areas/

[jono]

Yes, I understand this, and allude to it in my third sentence.
My point was in response to Mazderati.

Reading your post again.
My takeaway is that mountain biking represents a broad cross section of use that cannot be painted with a single brush.
Which is an accurate point of view IMO.

Agreed. Didn't mean my post to come off as disagreeing with yours, actually, I just thought it was a point that needed to be made in the context of different kinds of use. If this was about whether to allow downhill rigs to be shuttled onto purpose-built trails it would be a whole different discussion than if we're talking about allowing bikes to pass through areas where they've been banned for a few acres which blocks access to a whole long route.

[Mazderati]

The related impact is different, but impact none the less.
I can only comment on what I have experienced first hand in the PNW.
Trails here that are shuttle accessible see a different level of (significant) impact than trails that are strictly pedal access. The impact/evolution of shuttle accessible trails speaks for itself.

Right, everything has an impact. Cutting new trails and running shuttles need not be part of allowing bicycles.