Bikes in Wilderness Areas

[jono]

Have we really been that unclear? The bill was written (unless TahoeJ can elaborate) by Ted Stroll and friends at the Sustainable Trails Coalition. Lee and Hatch had nothing to do with it except that they are willing sponsors.

The reasoning and background are at www.sustainabletrailscoalition.org

[TahoeJ]

^^ Nothing to add as far as I know. The person I'm familiar with who was involved is part of the STC.

Gay marriage is legal and here we are many months later and no one is out fucking animals and proposing marriage to them. Point is, slippery slope arguments are usually pretty weak and unfounded.

[Dantheman]

Have we really been that unclear? The bill was written (unless TahoeJ can elaborate) by Ted Stroll and friends at the Sustainable Trails Coalition. Lee and Hatch had nothing to do with it except that they are willing sponsors.

I agree that the bill is narrowly written and there does not seem to be any way that it could be a trojan horse for public lands transfer. However, STC needs to find different sponsors, period. Association with those two is fatal.

[jono]

At this point getting new sponsors is up to us and other members of congress: the bill needs cosponsors, and those can be anyone. You can't get them to unsponsor it and frankly that would be stupid, since the key is to get enough votes to get it out of committee and pass it.

Write to your favorite Democrat and tell them how much you'd like to support future WA's. Overwhelm these two. But if you truly believe in the evil hearts of Utah's Senators, do it before they change their minds.

[adrenalated]

Just because I, an engineer with no legal experience and minimal knowledge of the details of federal law, don't see where the trojan horse could be, does not mean that Hatch and Lee, two scumbags who also happen to be lawyers and who have over four decades combined experience in federal lawmaking, don't see one.

Dantheman is right - STC needs to find different sponsors.

[snoqpass]

Have we really been that unclear? The bill was written (unless TahoeJ can elaborate) by Ted Stroll and friends at the Sustainable Trails Coalition. Lee and Hatch had nothing to do with it except that they are willing sponsors.

The reasoning and background are at www.sustainabletrailscoalition.org

The STC is playing a little lose with the facts

[jono]

Just because I, an engineer with no legal experience and minimal knowledge of the details of federal law, don't see where the trojan horse could be, does not mean that Hatch and Lee, two scumbags who also happen to be lawyers and who have over four decades combined experience in federal lawmaking, don't see one.

So what conclusion can you draw from this? If they find other sponsors the bill will become squeaky clean? The bill was written before these two saw it and you're saying that because they decided to support it you won't? Have you heard of the fallacy of the ad hominem attack? Because that is the textbook definition.

How about if Mike Simpson and Jim Risch sponsor it? Their environmental records rank lower than Lee and Hatch and they pushed through the latest Wilderness Area last year. Screwed bikes in the process. What if they sponsor this bill?

[adrenalated]

So what conclusion can you draw from this? If they find other sponsors the bill will become squeaky clean? The bill was written before these two saw it and you're saying that because they decided to support it you won't? Have you heard of the fallacy of the ad hominem attack? Because that is the textbook definition.

I do not draw any conclusion from this other than that I do not have the knowledge or experience necessary to make a conclusion about the merits and liabilities of this bill.

In fact, I did not say anything about whether or not I will support the bill, you made an assumption.

[jono]

The STC is playing a little lose with the facts

Which ones? The sources I've checked have come up pretty good so far, but I haven't checked all of them yet.

[jono]

I do not draw any conclusion from this other than that I do not have the knowledge or experience necessary to make a conclusion about the merits and liabilities of this bill.

But you have read the bill, correct? Would you feel more comfortable in your analysis of its content if it hadn't found any sponsors yet?

I can't speak for Hatch and Lee personally, but there is absolutely a case for their support of this bill on ideological grounds. Whether you agree with their ideology or not, they support less federal government/more state and local control. (As should be obvious by the extremes they say they'd like to go to.) This bill is an example of more local control. Acting in good faith, this bill is an achievable step toward an ideal they support. It's a compromise compared with turning land over to the states, but it achieves a little more local control in exchange for building the coalition of people willing to stand strongly in opposition to that most extreme step.

Reasoning that Lee and Hatch are evil because of what they support and then concluding that everything they support is evil because they support it is the definition of circular reasoning. We gotta do better than that.

ETA: that really was a question, not an assumption. I get that we're playing a bit of devil's advocate here.

[Dantheman]

So what conclusion can you draw from this? If they find other sponsors the bill will become squeaky clean? The bill was written before these two saw it and you're saying that because they decided to support it you won't? Have you heard of the fallacy of the ad hominem attack? Because that is the textbook definition.

How about if Mike Simpson and Jim Risch sponsor it? Their environmental records rank lower than Lee and Hatch and they pushed through the latest Wilderness Area last year. Screwed bikes in the process. What if they sponsor this bill?

All I'm saying is that lots, LOTS, of people will see Hatch and Lee's names and just stop right there. It also makes very easy fodder for STC's opponents, as we've seen already.

[TahoeJ]

^^ Agreed. But it's better than nothing and at least it's bringing some attention to the issue.

I'm guessing it would be difficult to get many (or any) Democratic senators to sponsor it because they're all tight with the Sierra Club... and we know how they feel about bikes.

[snoqpass]

Which ones? The sources I've checked have come up pretty good so far, but I haven't checked all of them yet.

RE NPS access,
bike use when they determine they are appropriate. This is really the exact same legislation that Sustainable Trails Coalition seeks for Wilderness areas.

Still prohibited in wilderness and require NEPA review to add bikes to existing trails

https://www.nps.gov/dsc/docs/trails/...0_July2012.pdf

[panchosdad]

From a friend in Montana who is well versed in the bike ban politics:

The Forest Service own definition of Mechanical transport still on the books today is as follows.

( Mechanical transport, as herein used, shall include any contrivance which travels over ground, snow, or water, on wheels, tracks, skids, or by floatation and is propelled by a nonliving power source contained or carried on or within the device."
36 CFR § 293.6(a) (1973), formerly 36 CFR § 251.75 (1966)

Bicycles were not banned from Wilderness in the 1964 act, they were banned in 1984 with a push from Wilderness Groups and at least one Horse Packing outfitter.

The Great Burn RWA is next up on the Region 1 bike ban list.

[adrenalated]

But you have read the bill, correct?

Yes.

Would you feel more comfortable in your analysis of its content if it hadn't found any sponsors yet?

In MY analysis? No, not really, because I'm not in the habit of reading legislation. As I said, I don't see anything particularly objectionable. I'm not quite comfortable with how vague the maintenance section seems to be written, but again, I don't know enough to know if it's a real problem or not.

I can't speak for Hatch and Lee personally, but there is absolutely a case for their support of this bill on ideological grounds. Whether you agree with their ideology or not, they support less federal government/more state and local control. (As should be obvious by the extremes they say they'd like to go to.) This bill is an example of more local control. Acting in good faith, this bill is an achievable step toward an ideal they support. It's a compromise compared with turning land over to the states, but it achieves a little more local control in exchange for building the coalition of people willing to stand strongly in opposition to that most extreme step.

Absolutely, that is one way to look at this, and one possible explanation, but it does require a lot of assumptions about their motives.

Reasoning that Lee and Hatch are evil because of what they support and then concluding that everything they support is evil because they support it is the definition of circular reasoning. We gotta do better than that.

I'm not assuming everything they do is evil. HOWEVER based on their actual record I am forced to approach anything they support with a great deal of suspicion.

[muted]

Have we really been that unclear? The bill was written (unless TahoeJ can elaborate) by Ted Stroll and friends at the Sustainable Trails Coalition. Lee and Hatch had nothing to do with it except that they are willing sponsors.

The reasoning and background are at www.sustainabletrailscoalition.org

I certainly missed this link, thank you. My eyes glossed over at some point in this 10 pages, can't blame me for that...once these thread start to get derailed by bickering over minor points I lose interest. I can't take anymore oar-locking, freewheel spinning, ski binding arguing either!

But I want the reasoning for Lee and Hatch only, which the link doesn't provide but you do make a fair point here: "I can't speak for Hatch and Lee personally, but there is absolutely a case for their support of this bill on ideological grounds. Whether you agree with their ideology or not, they support less federal government/more state and local control. "

Still, Hatch and Lee? Fuck those guys.

[jono]

Absolutely, that is one way to look at this, and one possible explanation, but it does require a lot of assumptions about their motives.

I'm not assuming everything they do is evil. HOWEVER based on their actual record I am forced to approach anything they support with a great deal of suspicion.

If all we assume is that they're humans then there's some reason to believe they aren't actually trying to screw up the environment as an actual goal. From there, if their stated ideology fits with the bill I would say you have to assume a great deal more about their motives to believe they are up to something nefarious than to take their support at face value.

The fear mongers are basically throwing up the domino theory, and history doesn't support that. The Wilderness Act itself and most additions were passed by building coalitions among people who disagreed about a lot of things. If the Sierra Club comes out in support of this bill it will change my thinking about the Sierra Club, not the bill.

That said, if the sponsors are such a problem let's take it to a neutral party: how about the Pew Charitable Trust? Doesn't have to be them, ideally someone like them that hasn't come out in support or opposition yet and isn't so staunchly involved as to have a strong stake. (Pew weighed in on the last WA bill, switching sides late; they do have an anti-bike editorial on their page from 2012 which, to borrow a phrase, plays it pretty loose with the facts. Better suggestions?)

In my view, this is a simple matter of righting an obvious wrong to build support for Wilderness and I think it would be valuable to see if there is an interested but not bigoted group that can be convinced to agree after looking at this thoroughly.

[Bunion 2020]

Whether you agree with their ideology or not, they support less federal government/more state and local control.

I don't think they are complete idiots, evil incarnate yes, but not idiots.

Maybe that is the entire reason they support this bill, that it grants more local control.

[jono]

Gay marriage is legal and here we are many months later and no one is out fucking animals and proposing marriage to them. Point is, slippery slope arguments are usually pretty weak and unfounded.

There it is.

This thing is presently stuck in a Republican-controlled committee. It's not getting out without Republican support. No point attacking the people who brought it there unless they let it die. That would confirm some worst case speculation, but so far that's a waste of time.

[jono]

I certainly missed this link, thank you. My eyes glossed over at some point in this 10 pages, can't blame me for that...once these thread start to get derailed by bickering over minor points I lose interest. I can't take anymore oar-locking, freewheel spinning, ski binding arguing either!

Valid point and I apologize for my contribution to the sideline comparison of mechanical transportation. The bill under discussion renders that irrelevant far better than any arguments I can make. Since my only point on the matter is that differences in stupid little parts do not make relevant differences, I should have left that out.

[Kinnikinnick]

Not directly related, although maybe in the sense of it can impact how other users view bikers, but how many of you guys actually yield to hikers when riding on single track? I think that many riders are so oblivious, don't give a shit, or are otherwise don't do the right thing and ever slow down or dismount and let a hiker pass unless they choose to let you continue riding. Are a significant segment of the biking public creating animosity with hikers that would impact public perceptions in a debate like this?

I more typically ride a bike on singletrack trails that are open to all uses, but today I didn't have the bike and jogged a few miles out and back on a trail. I usually get out of the way when on foot as its easier to step to the side than dismount on a bike, but on a couple of sections it was not feasible as I came around a corner with a steep slope- and the bikers kept going forcing me to jump to the side last second on precarious spots.

[jamal]

Even if they step off the trail well in advance I still pretty much come to a complete stop. Scaring and pissing off hikers and horse people is not going to help anything. Plus I am usually wearing logos for a local shop which is another reason for me to not be an asshole.

Still you occasionally come around a corner and there is a person there and you've got to slam on the brakes. I've scared and pissed off a few people, although have not ever come close to actually hitting anyone.

And then you have the other side where people are wearing headphones and oblivious to their surroundings, then are surprised when they finally notice you. I came up behind a guy hiking recently on the way up a climb, am ringing my bell, saying "hey, coming up behind you," he doesn't notice until I'm like 3 feet away. I just said good thing I"m not a mountain lion.


Not many people in MT so not the same situation as places like wa/or/co/ut but even if all the winderness in the state was opened I don't see it ever being overrun with bikers. Even our local rattlesnake wilderness takes either a 15mi trip up the main corridor or a huge climb to get to.

[adrenalated]

If all we assume is that they're humans then there's some reason to believe they aren't actually trying to screw up the environment as an actual goal.

What reason to believe? History has certainly proven that there are many people perfectly willing to screw up the environment for monetary/personal/political gain. You're saying that simply being human causes people to have an innate desire to protect the environment and I have simply seen zero evidence to support that. Especially from these two assclowns.

I think it would be valuable to see if there is an interested but not bigoted group that can be convinced to agree after looking at this thoroughly.

Absolutely.

[Empty Beer]

Not directly related, although maybe in the sense of it can impact how other users view bikers, but how many of you guys actually yield to hikers when riding on single track? I think that many riders are so oblivious, don't give a shit, or are otherwise don't do the right thing and ever slow down or dismount and let a hiker pass unless they choose to let you continue riding. Are a significant segment of the biking public creating animosity with hikers that would impact public perceptions in a debate like this?

I more typically ride a bike on singletrack trails that are open to all uses, but today I didn't have the bike and jogged a few miles out and back on a trail. I usually get out of the way when on foot as its easier to step to the side than dismount on a bike, but on a couple of sections it was not feasible as I came around a corner with a steep slope- and the bikers kept going forcing me to jump to the side last second on precarious spots.

What Wilderness area were you jogging in? ;-) (P.S. If you are a real runner, you don't "jog") ;-)

My guess is you were in a regular frontcountry trail where plenty of people were getting their exercise in, whether it be on bicycle or foot, possibly after work. Venturing into the backcountry on a bicycle is a COMPLETELY different mindset, attitude and experience. Would you agree?

When a mtb'er crosses paths with dozens upon dozens of pedestrians on the "in town" trails, usually the pedestrian is already yielding to the cyclist... and the cyclist figures he/she should go by as quickly as possible so as to not bother the pedestrian. In the backcountry, where crossing paths with any humans is usually few and far between, correct me if your collective experiences are different but adventure riders nearly always will stop and chat with whoever they meet on the trail. Right?

[jono]

What reason to believe? History has certainly proven that there are many people perfectly willing to screw up the environment for monetary/personal/political gain. You're saying that simply being human causes people to have an innate desire to protect the environment

Note that I said that humans aren't going to make it a goal to screw up the environment. The examples you list are cases of people putting profit ahead of the environment, not seeking to destroy it for nothing. The point being, you have to look for the motive because screwing the environment isn't it. If you can find a profit motive I'm all ears; it's probably a nice economic case for mountain biking in Utah. But I think the ideological argument makes more sense, being the simplest. Occam's razor and all that (though I'm usually partial to Hanlon's).