View Poll Results: should wilderness be open to all users
- Voters
- 48. You may not vote on this poll
-
open it up
10 20.83% -
maintain wilderness act as is
38 79.17%
Results 76 to 100 of 169
-
12-13-2017, 12:20 PM #76
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)off your knees Louie
-
12-13-2017, 12:28 PM #77
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?
-
12-13-2017, 12:32 PM #78
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.”
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.
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.
Seriously. IME, 99% of Wilderness users never venture far from a trail.
Which is exactly what the very, very, limited scope of the STC bill would allow.
See my response to Steve above. The Wilderness lobby has shown no interest in this.
-
12-13-2017, 12:34 PM #79
-
12-13-2017, 12:37 PM #80
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.
You are missing my point, but that's fine as it really doesn't apply to the larger topic re: WA.
-
12-13-2017, 12:39 PM #81
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.
-
12-13-2017, 12:42 PM #82
Maybe mountain bikes should be okay but they have to have rigid suspension.
-
12-13-2017, 12:46 PM #83Rope->Dope
- Join Date
- Nov 2012
- Location
- I-70 West
- Posts
- 4,684
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...
-
12-13-2017, 12:57 PM #84
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.
-
12-13-2017, 01:05 PM #85
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.
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.
-
12-13-2017, 01:08 PM #86
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.
-
12-13-2017, 01:09 PM #87Rope->Dope
- Join Date
- Nov 2012
- Location
- I-70 West
- Posts
- 4,684
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.
-
12-13-2017, 01:12 PM #88
-
12-13-2017, 01:16 PM #89
-
12-13-2017, 01:19 PM #90
-
12-13-2017, 01:19 PM #91
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.
-
12-13-2017, 01:22 PM #92
-
12-13-2017, 01:23 PM #93
-
12-13-2017, 01:24 PM #94off your knees Louie
-
12-13-2017, 01:29 PM #95
Loincloths and moccasins for all.
-
12-13-2017, 01:32 PM #96Rope->Dope
- Join Date
- Nov 2012
- Location
- I-70 West
- Posts
- 4,684
-
12-13-2017, 01:39 PM #97
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.
-
12-13-2017, 01:41 PM #98
-
12-13-2017, 01:46 PM #99Rope->Dope
- Join Date
- Nov 2012
- Location
- I-70 West
- Posts
- 4,684
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.
-
12-13-2017, 01:51 PM #100
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.
Bookmarks