should the wilderness act be gutted

[dunfree]

As much as I'd like to see something better, this is why I hope 1349 passes quickly, as written. I'd rather see mountain bikers defending Wilderness rather joining other user groups. The current bill makes bikers natural allies with hikers as far as land designation goes. Failure pushes bikes to join with motos.

bikers have proven they are politically irrelevant. your dogmatic insults might be a reason why.

Mtb'ers claiming they are victims? fucking pleaze - there are way more selfish cunt bikers who give the whole population a bad name (I'm in favor for wilderness access to bikes if you aren't assholes - like most any other non-motorized group) - bombing down popular hiking trails on weekends, poaching closed trails, not following any laws or respecting private property to access trails, far more egregious abuse then engaged in by hikers or equestrians.(purposefully poor grammar and punctuation so a legend can disregard the opinions herein)

but this falls on deaf ears. it's the same circlejerk. there is no learning, no understanding, no respect. so enjoy to shitsandwich of irrelevancy.

[jono]

Um. Wuttdatgot2dowitmypost?

[dunfree]

Um. Wuttdatgot2dowitmypost?

easy. you've proven you have little political power. who cares what side you are on?

[jono]

I do. That's why I said that. You can put your arms down, Cornholio. No one is threatening you.

[Bunion 2020]

Like a great big fat carp. From end to end with a really sharp fillet knife.

Is that what you mean?

Are you always this overly dramatic?

This is 13 year old beauty queen level.

[BFD]

Like a great big fat carp. From end to end with a really sharp fillet knife.

Is that what you mean?

Are you always this overly dramatic?

This is 13 year old beauty queen level.

really i was just looking for a word to describe taking the substance out of the bill. dealing with fish gutting came to mind. It was my first poll and I was not sure how starting one worked, as the thread title is different than the poll title. And yes as was pointed out I should of had more choices. I thought it was a pretty good discussion and I learned some things. And hey it made it 7 pages before the personal attacks started.

[Danno]

I do. That's why I said that. You can put your arms down, Cornholio. No one is threatening you.

I don't care which side you're on, that's a funny retort.

[dunfree]

I don't care which side you're on, that's a funny retort.

only if you live in the boulder bubble and are interested in jerking each other off blanno. It's like when the same assholes were saying Marmot was dead as a clothing brand - only to a bunch of yuppie assholes online. Elsewhere it has value. Use snowsports as a tool to escape your bubble, not reinforce it (will never fucking happen with you FB queens)

good to see the bus arrived eventually and you can post again.

[Danno]

Lighten up, Francis.

[MakersTeleMark]

Marmots Live!

[TahoeJ]

why do you suppose that is? I've had to jump out of the way of bikes appearing around a corner at speed enough times, on trails clearly marked for cyclists to yield to peds and horses, way too many times day hiking. I have never had one yield to me. I've encountered cyclists on trails closed to MTB's who pretended not to know the trail was closed. If you want the respect of foot travelers you need to earn it. I would ban horses too, except for riders with certified disabilities, but that is not realistic, since the number of customers would not be enough to sustain the horse packing industry. In any case, I've never had any problem getting out of the way of a walking horse; getting out of the way of a MTB going downhill at speed while wearing a backpack has a lot of potential for serious injury.

I'm extremely considerate towards hikers when I'm out on the trails and some of them are just fucking douchebags for no reason. I've met some whiny, annoying equestrians on the trails and I've also met some who were very nice and cool to chat with for a minute (typically the ones who are properly in control of their well-trained horse). I take each encounter as it comes. Is it really that difficult? I concede there are shithead mountain-bikers out there, just like there all types of shitheads in many forms. Do some MTB's act entitled to the trail? Sure, no more than trail runners with their earbuds in listening to music and completely oblivious of their surroundings.

BTW - I've had very few (if any) negative encounters in Tahoe. IME the person who moves is often the one that makes the most sense in any given situation since relying on strict yield rules is dumb / illogical. Same deal with bike on bike ascending vs. descending.

[capulin overdrive]

1964 started with 9.1 million acres, up to 109.5 million now. That's 86 times the size of Delaware!

I'd like to have winter moto access, most here want to bike. So who knows? Most would agree there should be some. Maybe 1964 was the perfect amount?

Don't know how all western States are doing, but seems like CO is at critical mass for in the summer. Would opening up help that, or take away more solitude?

[steveski]

I'm extremely considerate towards hikers when I'm out on the trails and some of them are just fucking douchebags for no reason. I've met some whiny, annoying equestrians on the trails and I've also met some who were very nice and cool to chat with for a minute (typically the ones who are properly in control of their well-trained horse). I take each encounter as it comes. Is it really that difficult? I concede there are shithead mountain-bikers out there, just like there all types of shitheads in many forms. Do some MTB's act entitled to the trail? Sure, no more than trail runners with their earbuds in listening to music and completely oblivious of their surroundings.

BTW - I've had very few (if any) negative encounters in Tahoe. IME the person who moves is often the one that makes the most sense in any given situation since relying on strict yield rules is dumb / illogical. Same deal with bike on bike ascending vs. descending.

Wise words here.

Unfortunately common sense has gone away and with increasing user groups the need to policy (read: police) traffic at a national level seems to be a lazy, half hearted land management response to a local, district specific "problem".

[DBdude]

I grew up owning and riding horses. They are unpredictable, stupid animals and I'm always super leary about spooking them and getting trampled or sending their riders to the abyss.

i like horses and spent time with them as a kid and I totally agree. Horses are spooky.

[toast2266]

Negative encounters on the trail are almost always the result of one of the parties being an entitled prick. That holds true across pretty much all modes of conveyance.

If you think you have more of a right to be there than someone else, you're going to have a problem more often than not. If you're one of those people that talk about how you frequently have problem encounters with mountain bikes, or horses, or motos, or any other user group, perhaps the problem is the common denominator in all of those interactions: you.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[snoqpass]

https://wilderness.org/sites/default...lderness_0.pdf

[jono]

https://wilderness.org/sites/default...lderness_0.pdf

The analysis of the uninformed and conventiently obtuse would apply strict construction to a law that was not strictly constructed. Strict construction of the form this article describes is violated before the word "mechanical" even appears: "no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft..."

Which motor vehicles, motorboats or aircraft are not motorized equipment? Perhaps they mentioned aircraft just to include gliders and hot air balloons, but a motor vehicle and a motorboat are explicitly motorized equipment and thus the terminology of the act is clearly redundant in order to provide examples to the common reader of exactly what is intended.

A motor is not defined as anything that provides motive power, it is a specific type of motivator--a rotor type. Rockets, jets, wind, water, linear actuators of numerous kinds and a virtually limitless supply of other mechanisms exist for drawing power from non-living sources in order to mechanize without ever needing a motor. A great many such devices were known even more commonly in 1964 than now (including most steam-driven machines and of course those hot air balloons).

Anything motorized is clearly mechanized, but simply banning motors would not ban all other forms of non-living power sources. The law was not written to ban only the forms of mechanized transport that existed at the time, it was written to avoid encouraging a whole new class of mechanized but not motorized machines by which the intent of the law might be circumvented. Strict construction would require that banning mechanized transport (by any definition) would leave no reason to mention motor vehicles, motorboats or even motorized equipment specifically. And yet the Act mentions them all. The argument for strict construction lacks internal consistency when analyzing the Wilderness Act.

Wilderness Society history is obviously going to be the history as they wish to see it. They have hung a century's worth of emotional branding on the word Wilderness, but undisturbed land, by any other name, would be as natural. The law didn't make it that way. Neither did the word Wilderness. And neither did they. If we care more about the land and its natural contents than we do about human history then the right thing to do is to manage the land for maximum natural results. If that means 1% of that land allows people to look out from a bicycle seat but we can thereby protect twice as much land in total and so protect 98% more from the horrors of bicycles (not to mention the sale of oil and gas leases), then the truly devoted Wilderness supporter should welcome the chance to expand the protection to more acres. As well as the chance to expose more people to the wonders of the natural world so that it will be defended when necessary. In years like, say, 2018.

[old goat]

I'm extremely considerate towards hikers when I'm out on the trails and some of them are just fucking douchebags for no reason. I've met some whiny, annoying equestrians on the trails and I've also met some who were very nice and cool to chat with for a minute (typically the ones who are properly in control of their well-trained horse). I take each encounter as it comes. Is it really that difficult? I concede there are shithead mountain-bikers out there, just like there all types of shitheads in many forms. Do some MTB's act entitled to the trail? Sure, no more than trail runners with their earbuds in listening to music and completely oblivious of their surroundings.

BTW - I've had very few (if any) negative encounters in Tahoe. IME the person who moves is often the one that makes the most sense in any given situation since relying on strict yield rules is dumb / illogical. Same deal with bike on bike ascending vs. descending.

I yield to bikes coming downhill regardless of the rule--it is easier for a hiker to get off trail, but I expect the biker to be under control enough to stop or avoid hikers and esp dogs (I'm sure there will be comments re dogs) and to make noise coming around blind curves. Frankly I find trail runners to be more annoying than bikes--they never yield, regardless of whether they're going uphill or downhill or whether the other person is carrying a load. Entitled MFers IMO.

Re horses, I don't like them--don't like the poop or what they do to trails but there are exceptions. I was on the NE side of Castle-Basin Pks on the Warren Lake Trail and I cross paths with an equestrienne riding English with the full outfit, including riding crop, absolutely milf gorgeous, silent, hauty, dark hair pulled back in a tight bun. I got off the trail and bowed down in worship. I would have licked her shiny boots if she would have let me. Still see her in my dreams. Strange place to see someone like that.

[powpig]

Should The Wilderness Act Be Gutted?

If by "Gutted", you mean returned to the original meaning, scope & intent of the legislators who authored the Wilderness Act, then yes. Absolutely!