Results 1 to 21 of 21
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    10,142

    Poly Ass in the bike forum, please comment on our travel plan.

    https://www.facebook.com/savemontanatrails/?rc=p

    Please take a quick peak and if you don't do FB go to http://www.savemontanatrails.com/

    Even if you will never ever ride in Montana, your trails could be next.

    Read a bit about the subject and comment before the deadline. The people that want to close another 442 miles of great back-country trails certainly will.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Sandy
    Posts
    708
    Followed the group. Will read up and write comments tomorrow. We need more bike trails, not less.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Where the center is on the right
    Posts
    649
    Donated
    "If you're gonna be dumb, you gotta be tough."

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    North Vancouver/Whistler
    Posts
    10,783
    i wrote this really quickly to put the material and a canned suggested email response

    http://www.leelau.net/sharonandlee/s...by-oct-9-2018/
    Last edited by LeeLau; 09-13-2018 at 11:22 PM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    PRB
    Posts
    19,328
    I poked around but didn't see any link to where I am supposed to comment?

    But just clicked Lee's link, which had it obvious.

    The actual Montana pages might want to update their pages to make it easier to receive help.
    "fuck off you asshat gaper shit for brains fucktard wanker." - Jesus Christ
    "She was tossing her bean salad with the vigor of a Drunken Pop princess so I walked out of the corner and said.... "need a hand?"" - Odin

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    10,142
    I contacted them and suggested that, thanks for the heads up.

    And............. Comment here: https://cara.ecosystem-management.or...?Project=44589

    And more info here: https://www.facebook.com/MontanaMoun...066?__tn__=K-R

    or here: http://www.montanamountainbikealliance.com/

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Paper St. Soap Co.
    Posts
    2,059
    What is with WWA and MWA pushing this:
    In order to ensure that the Continental Divide corridor remains wild and undeveloped,
    supporting wildlife movement as well as recreation opportunities, the majority of National
    Forest land between Stemple and Lewis and Clark passes should be managed as “semi-primitive
    non-motorized backcountry.” Without any features on the ROS maps in the DEIS to ascertain
    topography or boundaries it’s difficult to tell how much of this area would be semi-primitive
    non-motorized in each of the Alternatives, but as best we can tell, Alternatives B, C, and D would
    meet our interests in this portion of the forest. To facilitate recreation use in the landscape, we
    support a connecting trail for non-motorized (including mechanized) uses between Stemple Pass
    and Lincoln, as outlined in IMBA’s 2009 Trail Solutions Report
    .
    Can't find details on what IMBA is suggesting, but is the idea close CDT to bikes to Rogers pass and north of 200 with a trail that drops into Lincoln from Stemple?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Missoula, MT
    Posts
    19,523
    I believe I made sure to comment a little while ago. Some generic shit about economy and healthy, environmentally friendly activity, so please go with C
    No longer stuck.

    Quote Originally Posted by stuckathuntermtn View Post
    Just an uneducated guess.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    slc
    Posts
    9,436
    Glad this got bumped, almost forgot.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    10,142
    https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...-MtB-Sept-2018

    X-post: A small sample of what access is at stake.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Paper St. Soap Co.
    Posts
    2,059
    I have been reading some of the anti bike letters...oh my, I need a beer.
    [...] To allow such use in recommended wilderness or primitive landscapes will inevitably degrade the wild character of these areas. It will lead to a situation wherein allowed use must be “taken away” when and if congress acts on these areas via wilderness bills.
    [...]
    Bicycles simply do not belong on backcountry trails.
    So it is ok for this author to take my access, on the off chance Congress might someday?

    Their logic might not be sound, but they seem to be very organized and well written.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    10,142
    Bumping this one cause it is coming down to the wire.

    Meanwhile in WY.

    https://www.facebook.com/tetonfreedo...377?__tn__=K-R

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    North Vancouver/Whistler
    Posts
    10,783
    Don't know if this will embed. Thos has been lost



    Portions of this may be lost


  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Gapper Alley
    Posts
    37
    "Whether these areas ever become congressionally designated wilderness is irrelevant at this time. That the HLCNF maintains and manages these lands as suitable for wilderness is our goal. That suitability precludes allowing motorized or mechanized use of these last wildest places."

    Why bother with Congress when you could get USFS to do it for you?

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Paper St. Soap Co.
    Posts
    2,059
    The amount of anti bike letters is shocking.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Down In A Hole, Up in the Sky
    Posts
    24,085
    Quote Originally Posted by Not bunion View Post
    Bumping this one cause it is coming down to the wire.

    Meanwhile in WY.

    https://www.facebook.com/tetonfreedo...377?__tn__=K-R
    I'll be at the meeting tomorrow morning with pitchforks and torches in hand, figuratively.
    StokePimpin' ain't easy

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    slc
    Posts
    9,436
    Quote Originally Posted by 406 View Post
    The amount of anti bike letters is shocking.
    When they've finished kicking bikes out of everywhere they can, they'll try to ban running and skiing in WAs. Mark my words. The militant anti-bike faction hates anything that moves faster than walking pace and anyone with the athletic ability to do so.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    North Vancouver/Whistler
    Posts
    10,783
    Quote Originally Posted by Dantheman View Post
    When they've finished kicking bikes out of everywhere they can, they'll try to ban running and skiing in WAs. Mark my words. The militant anti-bike faction hates anything that moves faster than walking pace and anyone with the athletic ability to do so.
    After working on my Forbidden in Montana pieces the only solace I can draw is that they are old and getting older

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Southeast New York
    Posts
    6,157
    Quote Originally Posted by 406 View Post
    The amount of anti bike letters is shocking.
    Sooo sad

    Quote Originally Posted by LeeLau View Post
    After working on my Forbidden in Montana pieces the only solace I can draw is that they are old and getting older
    I've been saying that for 30 years but it just keeps getting worse. The corner has to be turned sometime though, it just has to be.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    10,142
    Last bump, I swear...........


    Bicycle Advocates! The most important comment period deadline of a generation is upon us - October 9th. The outcome of the Helena-Lewis & Clark National Forest Planning process will shape recreational opportunities (bicycle access to public lands) for decades to come.

    Most critically, the mandate from this Forest Plan will set the course for bicycle access in planning processes that follow - the Custer Gallatin and beyond.

    MMBA was formed over 10 years ago knowing that this pivotal moment would someday come. That time is HERE AND NOW.

    The GOOD NEWS is that through YOUR diligent advocacy efforts there is a bicycle friendly Alternative C that allows continued bicycle use on valued trail systems. Please take the time to comment to ensure that bicyclists remain on the landscape and at the table as invested partners. Your comments will make a difference!

    Suggested talking points:

    Alternative C best supports the needs of our muscle-powered, low-impact, trail-based constituents by allowing continued bicycle access to valued trail riding experiences across the Helena / Lewis&Clark National Forest including Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA), Wilderness Study Areas (WSA) and Recommended Wilderness Areas (RWA). We contend that our historic bicycle use on these trails through the decades has not diminished the wilderness character of these wild landscapes, nor reduced the potential for these areas to be officially designated Wilderness areas if there were the political will to do so.

    More than just the sum of the geographically specific management recommendations, Alternative C conceptually places backcountry bicycling in parity with hiking and equestrian use as legitimate recreation on these trails with similar impacts to the landscape and wildlife. Unlike Alternative B which proposes an arbitrary trail-access hierarchy between users, Alternative C side-steps politics by allowing existing uses to continue while monitoring and pro-actively managing ALL uses to NOT impact wilderness character. Alternative C is a smart choice allowed by the planning rule and Forest Handbook, and is in line with other Forest Service Regions. By providing Alternative C for comment, the Helena Lewis and Clark planners prevent the Forest Planning process from becoming another archaic Region One sanctioned trail closure process. MMBA welcomes and supports this balanced proposal.

    Adaptive Management described in the Forest Service Handbook has details for how to address non-conforming uses in Recommended Wilderness Areas. Adaptive Management would protect the land and limit use if there is a problem, not ahead of time under the assumption that someday mountain bike use might cause problems. Future science-based travel management decisions should engage constituents to address change in the ecological, wildlife and social systems before a crisis drives policy. And if restrictions are needed to protect the resource, that these restrictions will apply equally to all human users, whether that be equestrian, bicycle or hiking. MMBA submits that mountain bicycling activity is benign and doesn’t degrade these wild public lands.

    Montana Mountain Bike Alliance believes that area boundaries can be adjusted to reflect real ongoing recreation uses, and that recreation corridors passing through Recommended Wilderness should be identified at the Forest Planning stage as a component of social evaluation. MMBA also believes that the present evaluation of social uses in RWA’s is grossly inadequate. A rigid evaluation process drives measurements of wilderness character and size, but study of how citizens recreate on the same landscapes lack similar scrutiny. This is a significant flaw in the RWA evaluation process.

    It is important to note that continued access to the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail (CDNST) is vitally important to our membership.

    Of the 9 Recommended Wilderness Areas in Alternatives B and C, 6 stand out as having significant bicycling destinations.

    Big Snowies, near Lewistown (The trail loop to the Ice Cave plus the trail along the top of the range)

    Dearborn Silverking, near Lincoln (just the Alice Creek loop at termination of the CDNST)

    Nevada Mountain, near Lincoln (critical CDNST access)
    Mt Baldy, near Townsend (In contrast to the industrial scale outfitters camp, bicyclers have no impact to the area)

    Arrastra Creek, near Lincoln (trail loop off of rd. 4106)
    Blackfoot Meadows, near Basin (CDNST access)

    The proposed Elkhorns Core Wildlife Management Area (WMA) bicycle ban is presented as a method to improve wildlife habitat and to reduce wildlife stress, and yet the DEIS dialog states wildlife benefits from bicycle removal would be minimal. Bicyclists are concerned that the proposed action is misguided and limited to one user group - and does not apply to all sources of impact with equanimity.

    Montana Mountain Bike Alliance asserts that the Wildlife Management Area (WMA) in the Elkhorns proposal should not be part of the H/L&C Forest Plan. It seems an ill-conceived social experiment with no purpose or need, no baseline data, no implementation guidelines, no method or provisions for study, no specified end goal and no deadline to sunset the proposal if it fails to provide expected benefits to wildlife. Nor does the WMA propose to address the impacts of other recreational users or grazing. With such a project, an adequate NEPA process is vital before restrictions occurs. In its current form, bicycling appears to be irrationally singled out for discrimination. Please remove the Elkhorns Core bicycle ban proposal from ALL Alternatives in the DEIS.

    Find comment link here:

    https://cara.ecosystem-management.or...c/CommentInput

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    North Vancouver/Whistler
    Posts
    10,783
    Feel free to crib my email if it helps

    Forest plan - https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/hlcnf...d=fseprd574977

    Comment via this form
    https://cara.ecosystem-management.or...?Project=44589

    “I am a visitor to the area from Canada. I enjoy Montana’s superb biking trails and outdoors. I support Alternative C to allow biking on Montana trails. I suggest amendment by dropping the Elkhorns area from the DEIS proposal which would allow biking in the Elkhorns area not only by Helena Montana locals but also by in-state and out-of-state visitors”"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •