should the wilderness act be gutted

[Danno]

I think horses should be banned too. Another side effect of horses is the trail goes from needing to be a small 1' wide tread to an 8' wide by 12' high corridor with a 4' wide trail beaten down to moon dust and loose rock. I'd rather share wilderness with bikes than horses if I think about it that way.

On the flip side I'd be okay with snowmobiles accessing wilderness in the winter, since they aren't impacting the ground and vegetation anyways.

Holy shit, you're against mountain bike access in the summer but FOR sled access in the winter? Jeebus.

[skaredshtles]

This poll is dumb.

[GeezerSteve]

Keep it as is 100% with no amendments ever. As legislation goes, as written and implemented, it's a solid A. Perfect legislation does not exist. The Wilderness Act has withstood the test of time.

We can disagree re specific Wilderness Area designations. I have long feared that the Act might is sometimes overplayed to designate WA status for areas that shouldn't be so designated, and that threatens dilution of the Act. Knowing what I now know, I would have actively opposed the B-WC WA expansion. There are other ways to protect fed lands, e.g., make them National Recreation Areas to allow certain suitable activities that would be inappropriate in WAs.

Don't let your opposition to a specific designation tip you against the Act as a whole. That would be throwing the baby away with the bathwater. Think big. There are areas that we need to preserve as primeval places, and we are all richer if they are so protected. Step back. Think big.

[evdog]

Think big. There are areas that we need to preserve as primeval places, and we are all richer if they are so protected. Step back. Think big.

Yes, think big. Allow bikes on a few trails where appropriate and you will win a strong ally for more Wilderness rather than an opponent of every new proposal. No one is asking for bike access to the John Muir Trail.

But I fail to see how bikes are not appropriate on Castle Divide or Ants Basin to Warm Springs, where bikers rode for decades prior to Wilderness Designation.

Or how about the Espinosa Trail which bisects the Pine Creek Wilderness near San Diego. It is used mostly by illegal migrants. Hikers don't use it much because it doesn't go to any destination. But it is the only dirt route south of I-8 that connects Pine Valley to San Diego. Everything else is blocked by private property or Tribal land.

Or how about the San Mateo Wilderness north of Camp Pendleton. It is historic ranch land that is criss crossed by old ranch roads, fence lines, water pipes, and other remnants of habitation. It is hardly primeval, nevermind pristine. And it is hardly visited aside from Tenaja Falls or other spots within a mile of the trailheads.


I agree these areas need to be protected but keeping bikes off of them does little to that end. Wilderness areas are not front country trail systems that will be overrun by weekend warriors, soccer moms with strollers and after work riders. Terrain and difficult access will filter most trail users out, and land managers have quota systems and permits at their disposal if needed. A few bikes on a trail will make little difference. If you really want to get serious about protecting Wilderness, get rid of the commercial pack stations and tour operators. Take a hike on the trail leaving the Golden Trout Pack Station in Sequoia NF. 20 ft wide of pummeled 12" deep silt is the trail, as far as you can see. But, no bikes. But I could bring my 25 head of horses instead.

As for the user experience, people go on about solitude and isolation. Seriously, you're gonna tell me I can't ride those trails under my own power, because I might ruin your sense of solitude and isolation? Just go 100ft off trail and you won't see or hear anyone. It always baffles me that the two groups who can easily go off trail bitch about running into bikers on the trail.

[jono]

Keep it exactly as it was in 1964 when bikes were allowed. Don't allow changes by the managing agencies that weren't in the original intent. Seems simple.

[GeezerSteve]

tail
wagging
dog

is not thinking big

I'm out. This is about to become another bikes-in-WA circle jerk

[plugboots]

The WA might be fine as is. Implementing it in certain areas may not be.

[cmcrawfo]

On the flip side I'd be okay with snowmobiles accessing wilderness in the winter, since they aren't impacting the ground and vegetation anyways.

Sleds have an impact on vegetation ... and some animal species.

...now, can we move this to Polly ass?

[jono]

tail
wagging
dog

is not thinking big

I'm out. This is about to become another bikes-in-WA circle jerk

Seeking a broader base of support is not letting the tail wag the dog. Don't let me put words in your mouth, but it seems like your take is pretty close to what Frank Church called a "Wilderness Purist" and I guess you've expressed a firm stance in that respect. But while looking big picture I think you should consider the reality that there can (and should) be more actual "pure" wilderness contained within the boundaries of bigger areas which contain more diversity of use. There are win-win scenarios available where the management of the land is itself diverse. It's well established that bikes, for example, are compatible with Congress' more centrist view, which is why they saw fit to put a WA on those bike trails evdog mentioned. Also well established that the long term effect and, therefore, any long term risk of having bikes on trails is essentially zero (where the long term is the state of the land after any given trail is closed).

My point is, if you can stomach the idea that some designated WA's have trails crossing them then the benefit for off-trail travelers and generic conservationists is that more land can be designated. And every time that happens those new acres are 99% trail-free; (assuming the trails don't grow to 8' wide it's probably upwards of 99.9%). Which is probably why Congress tends not to agree with the so-called purist approach, but regardless of that, purists can and do benefit when more land is designated, even if only 99% of that land is managed to puritanical standards. Objecting to a broader definition of Wilderness that brings with it specific trail management is shooting yourself in the foot.

It seems like the other issue that purists have is the potential reduction in solitude with more users. There's an interesting way to fix that for trail users: one-way trails handle a lot more travelers while letting them all feel much more alone. That's not always feasible, but when solitude is at a premium and the purpose of the WA is to provide it, it should be considered. Maybe a little bigger WA would help make it feasible more often. Of course, reducing the number of visitors is an expedient approach, but it's obviously incompatible with the idea of providing Americans with...well, anything, really, wilderness experiences included.

With that said, you're right to say other designations work as well or better than the Wilderness Act when it comes to protecting the land. Of course, it's also true that the success of the legislation establishing the Sawtooth National Recreation Area, for example, and the higher protections it afforded compared with the WA, were possible because there was a wider base of support.

I think there has to be a limit, though, and motors, batteries and all other non-human power sources fundamentally lack that limit--they can always get bigger. So keeping it human powered does seem appropriate to me.

[snoqpass]

Keep it exactly as it was in 1964 when bikes were allowed. Don't allow changes by the managing agencies that weren't in the original intent. Seems simple.

There wasn’t very many people mountain biking in 1964

[riser4]

Expand. NO FOOTPRINTS!!! I'm serious. No human activities including overflights. No drones. No high altitude jets. No eyeballs. Off limits to humans.

[kootenayskier]

Agreeing to minimize our exploitation of a few small areas of this planet seems a noble gesture worth supporting. It’s not perfect legislation, and it’s not appropriate everywhere, but that doesn’t invalidate the concept.

[jono]

There wasn’t very many people mountain biking in 1964

But enough for LBJ to note this user group alongside horses and hikers as specific beneficiaries of the Act at the time. In fact all such user groups were tiny minorities then, as now, but the WA was created for us all anyway. Increased numbers should have been met with better specific regulations, not a reactionary blanket ban on one specific constituent group.

I actually agree with riser3, there should be portions of these lands that are human-free. Not big portions, and maybe not to the extent of restricting high altitude jets, but ideally there should be a spectrum within most WA's. But since the Act makes human enjoyment of these places an explicit goal, I don't see a way to do that except by simply increasing the acreage and letting it happen naturally by leaving some parts trail-free.

[mall walker]

keep it as is, and introduce a new designation for protected land that permits motorized/mechanical access (atvs, snowmobiles, bikes, etc) ... essentially permanently protected BLM land. that way you can increase the amount of land protected, preserve (and in some cases add to) existing wilderness, but get the broader support of OHV groups / bikers / etc to get even more land protected.

[MagnificentUnicorn]

keep it as is, and introduce a new designation for protected land that permits motorized/mechanical access (atvs, snowmobiles, bikes, etc) ... essentially permanently protected BLM land. that way you can increase the amount of land protected, preserve (and in some cases add to) existing wilderness, but get the broader support of OHV groups / bikers / etc to get even more land protected.

The problem with what you propose is that a large segment of the OHV crowd can't be good stewards of the land that is already legal for them to use. I know there are lots of responsible snowmobilers, dirtbikers and atv/utv uses but there are just as many that feel it's their right to just ride wherever they want with no regard for the land. You could say that you could solve this with increased enforcement but how does that get funded? FS and BLM LEOs are already stretched to the limit.

The truth is that a lot of users(non-motorized too) of wild lands are poor stewards of their land.

[Danno]

keep it as is, and introduce a new designation for protected land that permits motorized/mechanical access (atvs, snowmobiles, bikes, etc) ... essentially permanently protected BLM land. that way you can increase the amount of land protected, preserve (and in some cases add to) existing wilderness, but get the broader support of OHV groups / bikers / etc to get even more land protected.

I don't think it's fair to lump 100% human powered bikes in with atvs, snowmobiles, etc.

[MagnificentUnicorn]

I don't think it's fair to lump 100% human powered bikes in with atvs, snowmobiles, etc.

No? Many trails that are legal for bikes and used to be 12-18" singletrack have become 3-4'+ tracks that are rutted out, washed boarded messes now with the shuttling enduro/downhill folks using them. Hell, around here a lot of the trails built 20-30 years ago by the motorcycle clubs are more legit singletrack than the trails used and/or constructed by the enduro/downhill crowd.

[Not Neil_Armstrong]

(in downhill crowd)

[ACH]

(in downhill crowd)

I would love to be able to provide a counter argument to Aaron, sadly my observation of the evolution of some trails (that are shuttle accessible) are similar to his.

[MagnificentUnicorn]

(in downhill crowd)

I have no problem with the downhill crowd but they don't belong on certain trails or the mindset while riding those trails should change from adrenaline seeking to travel and scenery. Before the advent of full suspension trails were rarely as fucked up as they are now.

It's kind of like downhill vs. ski touring/xc skiing, I enjoy both and each has their place and merit.

[Not Neil_Armstrong]

I would love to be able to provide a counter argument to Aaron, sadly my observation of the evolution of some trails (that are shuttle accessible) are similar to his.

Oh I know the truth.... which is why I was hesitant... I am less and less inclined to hop on my v-10. Time for a uphill bike

[Mazderati]

Equating the impact of bicycles with motorized vehicles on any terrain is ridiculous.

[hatchgreenchile]

No? Many trails that are legal for bikes and used to be 12-18" singletrack have become 3-4'+ tracks that are rutted out, washed boarded messes now with the shuttling enduro/downhill folks using them. Hell, around here a lot of the trails built 20-30 years ago by the motorcycle clubs are more legit singletrack than the trails used and/or constructed by the enduro/downhill crowd.

Some trails are poorly constructed or rarely maintained, and that plays a huge factor. I don't think it's that simple to say "this user group ruined it".

I know of two wilderness trails near Lake Granby, one is pretty heavily traveled and is in beautiful shape, the other only gets a few random hunters and is in terrible shape since it crosscuts a really steep slope, has poor drainage, goes up and down far more often then it needs to and hasn't seen a handsaw in years.

[TAFKALVS]

I would love to be able to provide a counter argument to Aaron, sadly my observation of the evolution of some trails (that are shuttle accessible) are similar to his.

I think it because most backcountry moto dudes are about the destination not the ride. Most of them are not "boosting the side hits" or riding the trails at full tilt and skidding brakes, etc. Watching most modern "freeride" type bike videos the style of riding displayed personally isn't compatible with wilderness trails.

[mall walker]

I don't think it's fair to lump 100% human powered bikes in with atvs, snowmobiles, etc.

I'm not equating them, but you are kidding yourself if you think that any rollback of the wilderness act will be done with MTB in mind. It'll be done to facilitate the sale of public lands and nothing else ("for too long the government has told private citizens what they can do on their own land", just look at how the UT thing gets continually spun). So add a new designation. Removing/redesignating wilderness because you want to bike seems pretty short-sighted and naive to me.