should the wilderness act be gutted

[Dantheman]

Loincloths and moccasins for all.

Sheeeiiit, most backpackers today couldn't navigate their way out of the parking lot without a GPS.

"Mountain bikes ruin the wilderness experience!"

[TAFKALVS]

I just wonder why people need to bring all that shit with them in woods? How many devices are they charging? Are we unable to disconnect from any kind of electronics for a weekend? I stick my cellphone in my pack turned off and carry a little point and shoot camera in a pant/jacket pocket. I don't even bring a GPS and have always gotten to where I wanted to go, although on occasion I will admit maybe on a slightly more difficult route than a GPS track would have shown me. But that's part of the fun and adventure.

get off my lawn.

[dunfree]

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.

glib condescension and smug put downs are definitely the way to get there. somehow it always turns into the same bikes in wilderness circle jerk.

Who gives a fuck why they are bringing stupid shit? If they aren't damaging anything I sure as shit don't.

My understanding one of the groups advocating horse access to wilderness areas are hunters

[Mazderati]

One foot in front of the other.

[riser4]

Loincloths and moccasins for all.

Fuck that. Bare ass nekkid. No tools. Nothing. Cavity searches at the wilderness gates.

[jono]

glib condescension and smug put downs are definitely the way to get there.

Thanks for the encouragement, I'll have to see if I can come up with another one to reach plural status.

[evdog]

One foot in front of the other.

I should point out that one foot goes in front of the other while biking, too. It just goes in a circle rather than up/down up/down.

[Danno]

+2

+3

[Danno]

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.

I actually would have no problem if (under the regime if the bill passes) land managers took certain trails off the table because of the "danger" of shuttles.

[Dantheman]

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.

This makes sense, CO has a lot of high roads. How popular are those trails with hikers and horsepersons? Is poaching currently a problem? Like Danno, I would fully support maintaining closures where shuttlers could be problematic.

Who gives a fuck why they are bringing stupid shit? If they aren't damaging anything I sure as shit don't.

I couldn't give less of shit if someone wants to watch movies on their iPad or post continuous Instagram updates while traveling in a WA. However, I do find the unintentional irony hilarious and completely infuriating.

[TAFKALVS]

I should point out that one foot goes in front of the other while biking, too. It just goes in a circle rather than up/down up/down.

wheels are the devil.

[adrenalated]

This makes sense, CO has a lot of high roads. How popular are those trails with hikers and horsepersons? Is poaching currently a problem?

Some are popular, some are not, some I don't know.
I'm not aware of poaching being an issue currently. But my knowledge is fairly useless.

[MagnificentUnicorn]

This makes sense, CO has a lot of high roads. How popular are those trails with hikers and horsepersons? Is poaching currently a problem? Like Danno, I would fully support maintaining closures where shuttlers could be problematic.



I couldn't give less of shit if someone wants to watch movies on their iPad or post continuous Instagram updates while traveling in a WA. However, I do find the unintentional irony hilarious and completely infuriating.

I can think of several trails in CA and WA that you could shuttle in Wilderness areas, driving to the th or with a relatively short hike a bike. A really easy on right off the top of my head is the PCT trail through Buck's Lake Wilderness above Quincy CA. If you drive to the end of the road it's a very short pedal or push to the top and then it's 12-13 miles downhill back to the highway. It's a fantastic ride.

I'm not against bikes in the Wilderness and think they should be allowed where appropriate. I've biked many miles in Wilderness and on the PCT in CA back in the day when there was hardly anyone riding the high country. This was before suspension and from 1988-1994 before there was too much pressure to do it anymore. The thing is, we were just traveling and covering ground. That type of MTB isn't really all that popular anymore, people want thrills. Knowing what people will go through to get a great descent, I can see lots of folks picking off any low hanging fruit and tearing up the trails and scaring the tree huggers. Not all users but there will be a few bad apples as always.

[skaredshtles]

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.

I'm with this guy 100%.

It fucking *sickens* me that I need to oppose Wilderness designation. I was a backpacker for quite a long time before I was a mt biker. I appreciate wilderness. I'd love to see more of it. But I REFUSE to support it with the current (arbitrary, I might add) rules in place.

[skaredshtles]

<snip>
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.

We call those point-to-points.

[LightRanger]

I'm with this guy 100%.

It fucking *sickens* me that I need to oppose Wilderness designation. I was a backpacker for quite a long time before I was a mt biker. I appreciate wilderness. I'd love to see more of it. But I REFUSE to support it with the current (arbitrary, I might add) rules in place.

So I hear this particular opinion a lot. In fact, I hear it expressed more than I hear support for HR 1349 as written.

It begs the question of why the STC bill(s) are not more narrowly-tailored to address it and thereby potentially picking up more support. (Including, potentially, mine. Whereas I don't support HR1349 as written.) By narrowly-tailored I mean with date limitations, date limitations with prospective language, and/or simply calling out the specific areas.

I think I know the answer, but I'm curious to hear others' thoughts.

[skaredshtles]

I just wonder why people need to bring all that shit with them in woods? How many devices are they charging? Are we unable to disconnect from any kind of electronics for a weekend?

Sooo... you must be new to planet Earth?

[Danno]

So I hear this particular opinion a lot. In fact, I hear it expressed more than I hear support for HR 1349 as written.

It begs the question of why the STC bill(s) are not more narrowly-tailored to address it and thereby potentially picking up more support. (Including, potentially, mine. Whereas I don't support HR1349 as written.) By narrowly-tailored I mean with date limitations, date limitations with prospective language, and/or simply calling out the specific areas.

I think I know the answer, but I'm curious to hear others' thoughts.

I'm not sure I understand what limitations you would look for; the STC bill seems pretty narrowly tailored to me. And I think it's hard to call out specific areas, because the whole point of the bill is to lift a blanket ban and let it be determined case by case.

[skaredshtles]

<snip>
I couldn't give less of shit if someone wants to watch movies on their iPad or post continuous Instagram updates while traveling in a WA. However, I do find the unintentional irony hilarious and completely infuriating.

Was backpacking in the summer of '16 and came across a DRONE flying in the Wilderness Area. Never saw the twat flying it.

One of the few times in my life I really wish I had a 12-gauge shotgun with me.

[skaredshtles]

wheels are the devil.

I used to think that the administrative decision that resulted in bikes being banned was due to the drivetrain (cranks, chain, sprockets) - but it was the *WHEELS* that were objectionable.

And I still can't figure out why wheels were any more objectionable than ski bindings, canoes, or any other human-powered mode of transportation which are *allowed* in Wilderness Areas.

What is it about the wheel?

[TAFKALVS]

Sooo... you must be new to planet Earth?

No, but it's weird to me that in the last 5 years all of a sudden a solar panel is part of the 10 essentials.

[skaredshtles]

No, but it's weird to me that in the last 5 years all of a sudden a solar panel is part of the 10 essentials.

You and I would agree on that. And I'd be irritated pretty much anywhere in the backcountry if I came across asswipes with all that shit.

Then again, I have a bitchin' light tent, sleeping bag, and backpack for when I go backpacking... so c'est la vie?

I even take my mobile phone (turned on) so I can take pictures... 'cause it takes better pictures than my camera.

[doebedoe]

Was backpacking in the summer of '16 and came across a DRONE flying in the Wilderness Area. Never saw the twat flying it.

One of the few times in my life I really wish I had a 12-gauge shotgun with me.

I had an asshat last year who refused to stop flying theirs.

His controller ended up in a steam. He was mad, but luckily my dog is scary.

[jono]

I'm not sure I understand what limitations you would look for; the STC bill seems pretty narrowly tailored to me. And I think it's hard to call out specific areas, because the whole point of the bill is to lift a blanket ban and let it be determined case by case.

Pretty much this. Also worth noting that local discussion is integral to the federal agencies' ability to draw help with trail maintenance etc. from local users. I'd love to think the land managers will also put boots on the ground before deciding things, but I certainly don't expect that where I live.

[MagnificentUnicorn]

I used to think that the administrative decision that resulted in bikes being banned was due to the drivetrain (cranks, chain, sprockets) - but it was the *WHEELS* that were objectionable.

And I still can't figure out why wheels were any more objectionable than ski bindings, canoes, or any other human-powered mode of transportation which are *allowed* in Wilderness Areas.

What is it about the wheel?

Wheels are faster on the trail than other trail users. It's scary for some people. Skiing you aren't on the trail, usually, and there is no one around anyway. Canoes are in the water, same deal as skiing.