Game on in the Bitterroot.

[hick]

Some real gems are open again. Wonder for how long?

https://missoulian.com/news/local/st...c9f85bb2f.html

[LeeLau]

Thats super exciting!

[RootSkier]

Wonder for how long?

Until about 30 days after the newly mandated public comment period closes would be my guess.

[evdog]

Plus objection period should add a couple more months....

[hick]

You fucking downers. It’s all going to be puppy’s and rainbows from here on out!
Sapphires here I come! (Going to ride it regardless of what some assholes in a climate controlled office decide, anyways

[stuckathuntermtn]

Cool!

[stuckathuntermtn]

Until about 30 days after the newly mandated public comment period closes would be my guess.

You fucking downers. It’s all going to be puppy’s and rainbows from here on out!
Sapphires here I come! (Going to ride it regardless of what some assholes in a climate controlled office decide, anyways

For reals

[jono]

So are the trails just open from now until they close them again? Is there a list of which trails someplace? Tried reading on BBC's website, but got a little discouraged after noting their trail conditions list isn't updated.

Awesome to see some progress for bikes, but guessing we'll get one season to make those killer view/uber slow YouTube vids before they write down a bunch of nonsense to back up their predetermined conclusion. Gotta hurry.

[406]

trails are on mtb project and/or trailforks. Bring a good hand saw.
https://www.mtbproject.com/trail/700...azorback-ridge

https://www.mtbproject.com/trail/700...rail-south-313

[DolphinSki]

Until about 30 days after the newly mandated public comment period closes would be my guess.

This.

Sure, some trails are going to be open, but only the WSA trails and probably only until the new comment period closes. On the other hand, the court upheld every bit of reasoning and analysis by the Forest Service. So except for one procedural flaw (failing to allow public comment on the increase of WSA trails closed to mountain bikes) to Forest Service won the case.

Here are some things the Order said:

-Region 1’s unwritten policy of closing RWAs to mountain bikes is legal.
-Areas can be close to mountain bikes due to “social characteristics”
-Closing WSAs to mountain bikes because use has risen since 1977 is a good strategy (same argument that Montana Wilderness Association won on to close 100+ miles of trail in the Gallatin)

Really what I think looks bad and will hurt in the long run is mountain bikers teaming up with motorized users to fight environmentalists. I have nothing against motorized use, but if we as mountain bikers want to push the narrative that we are non-intrusive recreationalists who are compatible with wilderness and backcountry settings, it may not be the best strategy.

Other analysis/overview- https://silentrecreation.wordpress.c...ourt-decision/
This link has the full court opinion at the bottom too

[hick]

DolphinSki, thanks for that link. Very informative!


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[kidwoo]

Really what I think looks bad and will hurt in the long run is mountain bikers teaming up with motorized users to fight environmentalists. I have nothing against motorized use, but if we as mountain bikers want to push the narrative that we are non-intrusive recreationalists who are compatible with wilderness and backcountry settings, it may not be the best strategy.

Meh. When it affects both populations, no harm in teaming up. All these defendants hate you equally because you don't fit their religious-like devotion to the big W :Friends of the Bitterroot, Hellgate Hunters and Anglers, Missoula Backcountry Horsemen, Montana Wilderness Association, Selway-Pintler Wilderness Backcountry Horsemen, WildEarth Guardians and Winter Wildlands Alliance.

[jono]

Agree with kidwoo. I'm not too worried about the optics. Most of the people who know this happened at all are interested enough in the topic to be following it, and most of those know or should know that objecting to self-described environmentalists' desire to ban mountain bikes does not mean objecting to conservation. I'd love to see the Wilderness Act fixed and become less of a compromise, less of a gift to the extractive industries. To get the political will for that requires some other form of compromise, though, and if the Wilderness supporters don't recognize the need to expand their own constituency then demonstrating opposition may be the only way to wake them up. As it stands now, they're losing both on new WA proposals and by failing to protect existing designated WA's from extractive industries.

The legal precedent is another matter. I hope we see this appealed. It's hard to imagine how the explicit effort to encourage one political constituency over another could occur without a pre-existing bias, since that fundamentally requires assuming that the favored constituency's goals are desirable. Which obviously requires a political decision.

DolphinSki, do you see any reason why a loss on appeal becomes any worse?

[406]

What can we put in the comment letters that would drag the process out?

[jono]

What can we put in the comment letters that would drag the process out?

Been thinking about that, too. The only thing I have so far is that R1 should consider partial closures in place of full closures, similar to what's done around Tahoe. If the MTB impact is purely social then closing a trail to mountain bikes on even numbered days is a way to address it without being purely political. (Which means it will not be considered, of course.) I hope there are some better ideas.

Can any of the legal eagles here speak to the USFS' basis for justifying decisions by saying they are acting to discourage a constituency that would oppose congressional designation? That feels like suppression of free speech/association, but obviously it's not that directly. Is there any other precedent for government agencies to actively seek to modify the political landscape like that? How is that not overstepping the DoI's mandate to manage the land?

[stuckathuntermtn]

Fuckity fuck
Sorry that's all I can offer. And words to friends who have Wilderness plates but want to get into mountain biking.

[stuckathuntermtn]

The article says it's updated with something? The closures aren't political? Fuck right off.

[toast2266]

Finally got around to reading the Court's Order. Pretty much a kick in the teeth. Calling that a win in any way shape or form is polishing a turd.

Conclusions: 1) While I don't have any moral issues with bikes jumping on board with the arguments from motorized uses, I don't think it helped here. There's a lot of discussion in the order of social impacts, and in that context, I think lumping bikes in with motos does a disservice to the arguments for bikes.

2) The courts aren't going to be where we win - there's too much deference given to the forest service's decisions. The only practical way to win these battles is to get the forest service to make the right choice in the first place. But the Wilderness Society, Montana Wilderness Association, Backcountry Horsemen, etc. etc. spend a whole lot of time and resources lobbying the forest service on these issues and making sure the biologists are going to write an analysis that favors excluding motos / bikes. I think, over time, that dynamic will change as the old guard at the forest service retires, but it won't be a quick change, and it'll take decades to undo the damage that they've done in terms of cutting off access.

[RootSkier]

do you see any reason why a loss on appeal becomes any worse?

Basically every federal court decision about land management seems to come down to process, not result. In other words, when the USFS loses, it loses because the procedure was flawed, but it can almost always re-engineer the same result by going back and fixing whatever mishap a court identifies.

To answer your question: I doubt it. There are no bike-friendly decisions in the entire Ninth Circuit that I am aware of (I don't focus on environmental law, though), but losing on these types of things at the Ninth Circuit always carries the risk that the gov't will use that reasoning in another part of the Circuit, which is obviously massive.

It is amazing how anti-bike all of the National Forests are in western Montana.

Edit: I agree 100% with toast.

[Danno]

2) The courts aren't going to be where we win - there's too much deference given to the forest service's decisions. The only practical way to win these battles is to get the forest service to make the right choice in the first place.

This is true. Because of this:

Basically every federal court decision about land management seems to come down to process, not result. In other words, when the USFS loses, it loses because the procedure was flawed, but it can almost always re-engineer the same result by going back and fixing whatever mishap a court identifies.

[kidwoo]

I still don't get how WSA's must be managed as de facto wilderness. That's essentially circumventing the legislative process of congressionally mandating wilderness. IE getting wilderness designations without going through the proper steps.

And if biking occurs somewhere, that by its very existence excludes the whole 'wilderness character' of the place. This shit is infuriating. And it seems like it's always the same assholes pushing it, winter or summer.

[livefreerdie]

Conservation orgs have dumped a huge amount of money into low $, low population areas. Region 1 has given them a lot and they still pushed harder to have Recommended Wilderness and WSA managed as Wilderness. The real solution is to have some other designation that allows bikes, but in the mean time we need a response: it's time to make WSA go away.
https://www.daines.senate.gov/news/p...f-public-lands

[jono]

^^Saw that, too. I have to admit I discounted the silent recreation blog a bit for his response to the SWMMBA's support. The current trends seem to be pushing us in exactly that direction, especially since public opinion and reasonable legislators lean in favor of MTB more often than courts or the USFS. It would be better on net to keep those places as WSA's and fix the Wilderness Act instead, but it's one or the other.

[stuckathuntermtn]

Weren't horses not introduced to the Americas till the end of the 15th Century? Geologically, that's nothing. There might even be a few redwoods around from then. So, if you really want to have a "wilderness character," there should be no horses either. Yeah, let's see the old ladies at whatever associations jump on that.
Also, read 1491 and then tell me about "wilderness character".

[evdog]

There were some hiking groups trying to get horses banned from Wilderness in the Sierras a few years ago. Well, more specifically, their focus was on the commercial packing operations, on the basis that these operations were growing without oversight or regard for sustainability. Whoever this got elevated to in Congress killed it, saying horses have a historical basis for use in Wilderness and will be allowed to stay. So, I can take 25 head of horses in, but can't go in there by myself with my bike.

If you really want to maintain Wilderness character, get rid of all the access roads that lead to it. Then see how many people will still hike Mt Whitney if they have to start down in Lone Pine rather than at Whitney Portal. Get rid of the commercial operators, too. And if you really want to get serious, get rid of the trails.

Unfortunately I don't think we'll get access to Wilderness. There is too much wildernut opposition, too many people who don't understand the issue but will be swayed by the "we need to protect it" and "bikes will run us off the trail" generalizations, and not nearly enough bikers who would want access to Wilderness and be willing to fight for it. Which, ironically, is exactly why bikes in Wilderness would not be a big deal in reality. Aside from a few easy to access places most would not see a lot of traffic. Most wilderness trails would be to much work and too hard to access for the vast majority of mountain bikers to want to ride. Just look at all the backcountry trails out there that are legal now but see little to no traffic.