should the wilderness act be gutted

[BFD]

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.

I started this poll as I was curious what the collective's thoughts were on the Wilderness Act. I agree there is a discussion about the bike bill already. I was surprised at the support it had and wondered how far this support would go in amending the Wilderness Act. As far as no reasonable person wanting to gut the WA one third of the votes in this poll are in favor of it. To relate this to your bike bill I would wonder which way the sponsor of HR 1349 Tom McClintock would vote in this poll.
unfortunately there seems to be a lot of uncertainty in our political climate especially in areas that concern me. two years ago I purchased a second home for winters, I figure I have hopefully 15 more years of BC skiing left. I chose an area that I thought would allow me to do this in a wilderness area. I have spent the last two months traveling around riding my bike. I have come to appreciate my choice of location and to seriously considering doubling down on my investment in this area. Really the only thing that is holding me back is the uncertainty of the protection of the wilderness area. I was just trying to get a handle on what others thought about this issue as my views are not shared by many. ( my candidates don't win many elections)

[jono]

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.

What do you think the odds are of parsing the current Wilderness lands into Wilderness and Wilderness-B or some such? Or would the argument immediately be "that's just too risky"? Because the cleanest way I see to restore access to places like Boulder-White Clouds is to open those places to consideration by local land managers. They've already shown their willingness to do whatever the Sierra Club wants, so what's the risk? Maybe they make a wrong decision and a trail sees bikes for a few years before being closed again? I take Senator Risch at his word when he said B-WC was not a referendum on bikes in Wilderness and as such there is no reason to believe Congress intended to kick us out of there, they just wanted to recognize the Wilderness character of the land. I think they acted appropriately in that sense, but I'm genuinely curious why you "don't feel like mountain biking belongs in Wilderness." I keep assuming that's an emotional perspective but you seem to be saying it's not. Can you say what it is about bikes that you feel makes them inappropriate?

[Dantheman]

There should be wilderness areas where humans can enter only if they are completely naked and bring absolutely nothing with them. Primitive camping only. And no film crews either. This is serious, not some fucktard disreality show.

I’m down with this. We could soften it a little and only allow technology that existed prior to 1900. That would include all the maps. Black them out on Google Earth. Remove all the trails, too. Now you have a legit “wilderness experience.”

We can disagree re specific Wilderness Area designations. I have long feared that the Act might is sometimes overplayed to designate WA status for areas that shouldn't be so designated, and that threatens dilution of the Act. Knowing what I now know, I would have actively opposed the B-WC WA expansion. There are other ways to protect fed lands, e.g., make them National Recreation Areas to allow certain suitable activities that would be inappropriate in WAs.

I’m sure the Wilderness Society, Sierra Club, et al. will throw their full weight behind this proposal

Bottom line, there is a Wilderness lobby and they are not interested in becoming the National Recreation Area lobby (see: BWC, which was already a NRA). They are going to continue to push for more Wilderness, and at this point virtually any new Wilderness designation will contain trails used by bikes for decades.

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.

I would love to be able to provide a counter argument to Aaron, sadly my observation of the evolution of some trails (that are shuttle accessible) are similar to his.

I have no problem with the downhill crowd but they don't belong on certain trails or the mindset while riding those trails should change from adrenaline seeking to travel and scenery.

I think it because most backcountry moto dudes are about the destination not the ride. Most of them are not "boosting the side hits" or riding the trails at full tilt and skidding brakes, etc. Watching most modern "freeride" type bike videos the style of riding displayed personally isn't compatible with wilderness trails.

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.

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.

With the growing popularity of shuttle riding that trail is seeing more abuse because of the increase speed and traffic.

Where are all these shuttleable DH trails in existing Wilderness areas? I personally know of none. The “shuttlers” argument is a huge straw-man. I’m sure there are exceptions, but in those cases land managers would still have complete authority to ban bikes from trails where that would be a problem.

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

Seriously. IME, 99% of Wilderness users never venture far from a trail.

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.

Which is exactly what the very, very, limited scope of the STC bill would allow.

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.

See my response to Steve above. The Wilderness lobby has shown no interest in this.

[jono]

As far as no reasonable person wanting to gut the WA one third of the votes in this poll are in favor of it. ...... ( my candidates don't win many elections)

Dude. You gave two options. Some people will always choose the ridiculous one when the other is an absolute they dislike. No reasonable person thinks those are the only two options and anyone that tries to get you to think so is being dishonest.

[ACH]

Where are all these shuttleable DH trails in existing Wilderness areas? I personally know of none. The “shuttlers” argument is a huge straw-man. I’m sure there are exceptions, but in those cases land managers would still have complete authority to ban bikes from trails where that would be a problem.

I (they) didn't say that there were shuttleable DH trails in existing Wilderness areas.
This was a side topic that came up on the basis of mountain bike vs. motor sport environmental impact.
So, not an argument re WA.

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

You are missing my point, but that's fine as it really doesn't apply to the larger topic re: WA.

[evdog]

I have no problem with the downhill crowd but they don't belong on certain trails or the mindset while riding those trails should change from adrenaline seeking to travel and scenery. Before the advent of full suspension trails were rarely as fucked up as they are now.

I fully agree. If it came to the point where people were requesting bike access to DH shuttleable trails in WIlderness, I would be first in line to say no to that use. But that isn't what this bill aims to do. It does not open all trails to bikes, just trails where the land manager deems bike travel appropriate. That would be trails which might roughly follow a WA boundary but are off limits because it briefly enters Wilderness. Or trails that connect two non-wilderness areas together through Wilderness. Or areas within Wilderness that are acceptable for bike use. This is for the purpose of cross country travel, not DH, enduro, racing or free-ride. That doesn't mean some of the trails could not be a fun descent, but if it were something that could be shuttled it would have to be a pretty important connector for me to support opening it to bikes.

That said, can any of you give examples of trails in Wilderness that could be shuttled? I can't think of any off hand. In CA most of the Wilderness areas are uphill from roads. Maybe Sedona, where Wilderness exists between town and the mesa tops. But I don't know if those trails are even rideable.

[TAFKALVS]

Maybe mountain bikes should be okay but they have to have rigid suspension.

[hatchgreenchile]

What do you think the odds are of parsing the current Wilderness lands into Wilderness and Wilderness-B or some such? Or would the argument immediately be "that's just too risky"? Because the cleanest way I see to restore access to places like Boulder-White Clouds is to open those places to consideration by local land managers. They've already shown their willingness to do whatever the Sierra Club wants, so what's the risk? Maybe they make a wrong decision and a trail sees bikes for a few years before being closed again? I take Senator Risch at his word when he said B-WC was not a referendum on bikes in Wilderness and as such there is no reason to believe Congress intended to kick us out of there, they just wanted to recognize the Wilderness character of the land. I think they acted appropriately in that sense, but I'm genuinely curious why you "don't feel like mountain biking belongs in Wilderness." I keep assuming that's an emotional perspective but you seem to be saying it's not. Can you say what it is about bikes that you feel makes them inappropriate?

I like having small areas set aside for primitive access and travel, and I don't see mountain bikes fitting that definition.

I don't think you are going to go backwards on any older designations. Maybe some of the ones in the past 5 years or so, but I'm not familiar enough with any of those designations to really comment on that...

[evdog]

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.

Then set aside a "small percentage of public lands" for primitive access. With all the wilderness designations in the last decade or two, Wilderness is no longer a small percentage of public lands. When you consider the portion of public lands that are suitable or attractive for mountain bikers, Wilderness takes up a massive percentage of that. The HR1349 bill does not open all trails in Wilderness to bikes. It gives land managers the ability to allow access on specific trails that make sense. So it is possible to open a few trails to bikes and still have entire areas in Wilderness that are off limits. If this goes ahead, then I'd be all for designating more areas as Wilderness. With the current blanket ban that kicks me off each newly designated area, I've been fighting each new one instead.

[Dantheman]

I (they) didn't say that there were shuttleable DH trails in existing Wilderness areas.
This was a side topic that came up on the basis of mountain bike vs. motor sport environmental impact.
So, not an argument re WA.

OK, but while it was a side topic here, the "The shuttling downhillers will take over everything!" argument gets made all the time in the bikes/Wilderness debate despite having virtually no basis in reality.

That said, can any of you give examples of trails in Wilderness that could be shuttled? I can't think of any off hand. In CA most of the Wilderness areas are uphill from roads. Maybe Sedona, where Wilderness exists between town and the mesa tops. But I don't know if those trails are even rideable.

The inherent nature of how WA boundaries are drawn mostly precludes the possibility. I'm sure there are some exceptions, but they are going to be exceedingly rare.

[jono]

Maybe mountain bikes should be okay but they have to have rigid suspension.

I think suspension is actually preferable in terms of keeping trails primitive and reducing impact. Keeping the wheels in constant and relatively even contact with the ground helps keep the trails in good shape for everyone, especially on a lot of CCC-era trails that were cut a little too steep. But if the real point is keeping people from bringing DH bikes and ripping the descents, just keep the trails long. Nobody wants to pedal a downhill sled or even a lighter long travel bike for long distances anyway, let alone use pads 20 miles from the nearest help.

[hatchgreenchile]

Then set aside a "small percentage of public lands" for primitive access. With all the wilderness designations in the last decade or two, Wilderness is no longer a small percentage of public lands. When you consider the portion of public lands that are suitable or attractive for mountain bikers, Wilderness takes up a massive percentage of that. The HR1349 bill does not open all trails in Wilderness to bikes. It gives land managers the ability to allow access on specific trails that make sense. So it is possible to open a few trails to bikes and still have entire areas in Wilderness that are off limits. If this goes ahead, then I'd be all for designating more areas as Wilderness. With the current blanket ban that kicks me off each newly designated area, I've been fighting each new one instead.

Fair points. We all define "small" a bit differently.

The percentage of public land in the lower 48 that is set aside as wilderness is well know. I think its reasonable and don't think there's a need for any further big time wilderness areas. I do like the Hermosa Creek method that designated a large SMU with some of the area being wilderness.

Of course, I can admit that wilderness is sometimes concentrated. Locally, the Rawah, Never Summer, Indian Peaks and James Peak Wilderness, when combined with Rocky, have about 75 miles of the spine of the front range under Wilderness. There are only a few narrow corridors through that strip, for better or worse.

[jono]

I like having small areas set aside for primitive access and travel, and I don't see mountain bikes fitting that definition.

I'd agree with one tweak: I don't see trails fitting that definition. At least not many trails. I think letting land managers restrict bikes to trails, and then only those trails where they are appropriate, would achieve your goal. Am I missing something?

[Dantheman]

If this goes ahead, then I'd be all for designating more areas as Wilderness. With the current blanket ban that kicks me off each newly designated area, I've been fighting each new one instead.

This. For the love of God, this. At this point virtually any new Wilderness designation will contain trails used by bikes for decades. It absolutely infuriates me that I have to oppose new WA designations.

[jono]

This. For the love of God, this. At this point virtually any new Wilderness designation will contain trails used by bikes for decades. It absolutely infuriates me that I have to oppose new WA designations.

+2

[adrenalated]

That said, can any of you give examples of trails in Wilderness that could be shuttled? I can't think of any off hand. In CA most of the Wilderness areas are uphill from roads. Maybe Sedona, where Wilderness exists between town and the mesa tops. But I don't know if those trails are even rideable.

Not taking sides overall in this debate, but...

Just off the top of my head in Front Range CO:
-From Berthoud Pass you could climb less than 1000' vert from the top of the pass (in either direction) and access several 3000' descents that either bounce in and out of, or go directly through, the Valdez Peak Wilderness or James Peak Wilderness. Obviously these are not all downhill, and are rough/rugged and would involve hike-a-bike, but they can and would be shuttled. A similar shuttle ride nearby, Jones Pass to Herman Gulch, is already fairly popular.

-there are several trails that could be accessed in the Mt. Evans Wilderness Area, either from Mt. Evans Road or Squaw Pass, that would be mostly or all downhill. I haven't personally traveled these trails and don't know how ride-able they would be, but you could definitely shuttle them.

I would wager that there are a lot of other areas in Colorado where you could do similar things off high mountain passes, especially with a 4x4.

[Not Neil_Armstrong]

, let alone use pads 20 miles from the nearest help.

When I exploded my tib/fib on my DH bike I had to crawl/slide on my butt to the closest road then gingerly roll on my bike trying to keep my floppy leg from getting in the way......
it was a 2 mile journey and it felt like 50 miles.

[ACH]

OK, but while it was a side topic here, the "The shuttling downhillers will take over everything!" argument gets made all the time in the bikes/Wilderness debate despite having virtually no basis in reality.

Agree.
Sadly this is business as usual for politically minded advocacy groups that will leverage and miss use any information they can if it serves their agenda, whether it is accurate or not.

[BFD]

I'd agree with one tweak: I don't see trails fitting that definition. At least not many trails. I think letting land managers restrict bikes to trails, and then only those trails where they are appropriate, would achieve your goal. Am I missing something?

I think you make some good points. However this is not one of them. I think what trails are appropriate for bikes has changed drastically with technology. I think the important concept with wilderness is it should not be affected by changes of technology.

[Mazderati]

Loincloths and moccasins for all.

[hatchgreenchile]

I'd agree with one tweak: I don't see trails fitting that definition. At least not many trails. I think letting land managers restrict bikes to trails, and then only those trails where they are appropriate, would achieve your goal. Am I missing something?

Yeah - don't change the wilderness act as it is written.

[jono]

I think you make some good points. However this is not one of them. I think what trails are appropriate for bikes has changed drastically with technology. I think the important concept with wilderness is it should not be affected by changes of technology.

Everything is effected by changes of technology. High altitude jets, for example. Hunting in Wilderness is effected by gun and bow technology. Canoes aren't made from tree trunks anymore and the tents and gear that horses and backpackers can carry in now are better than they were in '64 as well. You do any backcountry skiing lately?

But it's extremely important to recognize that restricting us to human-powered technologies creates an absolute limit beyond which technology cannot provide further advances. Without adding power from an outside source a bicycle is a slave to the laws of thermodynamics and there's nothing that can change that. Public lands will always require management and evolving bike technologies are a tiny thing to deal with compared with stuff like social media and GPS changing where people go in huge numbers.

[jono]

Yeah - don't change the wilderness act as it is written.

So...divine inspiration?

[hatchgreenchile]

So...divine inspiration?

Jono - I'm running out of fuel here.
You think bikes should be able to access Wilderness, that is fine. I want things to remain as is, that is also fine.
We have our reasons, neither of which are in any way ridiculous. I'm glad your passionate about your cause, but I must agree to disagree.
Peace.

[jono]

Jono - I'm running out of fuel here.
You think bikes should be able to access Wilderness, that is fine. I want things to remain as is, that is also fine.
We have our reasons, neither of which are in any way ridiculous. I'm glad your passionate about your cause, but I must agree to disagree.
Peace.

I'm sorry, that was a bit glib on my part. My first post in his thread actually agreed: leave it the way it was written and implemented in 1964 and I'm happy.

I really am just trying to understand where there is and is not common ground here, so I'm trying to get a better understanding of what mootivates your conclusions. I think we may place differing amounts of value on the name Wilderness or something.