Anyone have anything they'd like to rant about?

[jono]

I do not claim to know about your area but I am interested in the studies about wildlife and mtbing impacts. If it is good science, my view point can evolve.

Excellent. More reading less typing. Lots of links in the several Montana threads. Lots of bullshit to be discovered. One hint, though: when the scientist's opinion carries obvious bias but is still being stated as "science" it's time to check your bullshit meter. Bigotry plus science is really hot right now.

OTOH the science regarding bikes on trails is so well settled that the USFS recently gave up and admitted in writing "It is true mountain biking may not be as impactful on the landscape as other uses...." (and then went on to describe the horrific social impacts suffered by hikers who read letters to the editor in their downtown condos). Meanwhile most damage is done by foot traffic: broken glass, graffiti, fires, shotgun shells, dump sites: no one is riding in on a mountain bike to do those things. Wilderness trails are not immune to the idiocy of the pedestrian, and designating a new W is "good" for the local economy because it attracts more of them, not less.

Your advice on what happens when big tech moves in is good: it shows that you see the value of living somewhere in understanding what happens there. The same is true of USFS Region 1 (mostly MT and ID). But read up, there's good information mixed in with the ranting.

Search sucks, so here's a start:

https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...e-You-re-Drunk

[klauss]

This looks like the right place to ask if I want loud or quiet hubs on my next carbon wheel build?

[jono]

Hey, that was my idea...

Around here there are only a handful of wilderness areas I'd like to bike in, but have also seen the degradation on the high traffic hiking and equine areas... it just needs less users to live up to it' stated ideal.

But the stated ideal is to offer opportunities for solitude. How do you offer the opportunity if doing so makes the area more populated? A lottery may seem fair, but then how do you privatize the public good for the benefit of WS supporters?

[Redsmurfer]

quiet for me. If you live in Montana LOUD!

[toast2266]

The question isn't whether mountain bikes negatively impact wildlife. They clearly do, for various reasons stated above.

The question is why are mountain bikes excluded from trails where horses and foot traffic are allowed?

All user groups have impacts of some sort. Those impacts vary from group to group. Mountain bikers travel relatively fast with relatively little noise. Horses tear up trails, shit noxious weeds, and are large smelly beasts that are likely to scare away wildlife. Hikers are more likely to travel off trail, and slower rates of travel mean that when they pass an animal, they're in that animal's bubble for longer. Hikers and horses are more likely to set up camp, cook food, and do various other things that might attract wildlife

I've yet to see a study that makes any attempt to weigh those impacts against each other. If some reasonably scientifically rigorous study came out and said bikes, overall, have way more impact than hikers or horses, then so be it. Maybe it makes sense for some sensitive areas to be closed / remain closed to bikes. But until that study comparing user groups exists, all of the arguments against bikes are just a bunch of NIMBY bullshit from people acting like their shit doesn't stink. "Our impacts are fine, but your different but roughly comparable impacts are an outrage."

And all of that applies equally to e-bikes. Those things have their own set of impacts. Its fairly safe to say that they're similar to mountain bike impacts, but a bit more. Whether those impacts are large enough to draw a line and keep them off the trails will entirely vary on the situation and should be addressed on a trail by trail basis (just as it should with every other user group).

[jono]

Another awesome thread, this one a bit more upbeat:

https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...32#post5684932

Note the average speeds in this "race"--a lot more akin to what you'd see on really long epics than what you may have heard from the no-bikes crowd who would have you believe all riders are digging lines for the next Redbull event.

But to keep this anti-e-bike and all about my entitlement: low gears can get you anywhere, the only reason you need a motor is to go faster. HTFU or GTFO.

[Bunion 2020]

This looks like the right place to ask if I want loud or quiet hubs on my next carbon wheel build?

If riding in bear country, the louder the better.

Some good stuff added on.

And all of that applies equally to e-bikes. Those things have their own set of impacts. Its fairly safe to say that they're similar to mountain bike impacts, but a bit more. Whether those impacts are large enough to draw a line and keep them off the trails will entirely vary on the situation and should be addressed on a trail by trail basis (just as it should with every other user group).

Boom! Right out of the park.

Maybe it is just that every fucking THING is so hyper politicized these days but the vitriol from the anti-crowd makes me really question the peaceful, mellow and all loving image that backpackers have always sought to cultivate.

And as for Redsmurfer, ok you asked for it.

https://www.bikemag.com/industry-new...rUCqeeCeB36Eug

https://www.mtbcgnf.org/?fbclid=IwAR...ik5H0vl0jlU2sQ

Read up a bit, make some comments either for or against as long as you are informed. 2 days left and again, we are getting our asses kicked.

[Sandbox]

This looks like the right place to ask if I want loud or quiet hubs on my next carbon wheel build?

LOUD...

[jm2e]

My rant? This fucking thread. You fuckers dicked it all up. Come in, state your gripe, Get The Fuck Out. It ain’t that fucking hard.

Go start your own thread titled “Let’s argue back and forth and never change each others minds! I’m Right And I Hate You For It! (Dick wagging and pissing contests encouraged)”


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[kidwoo]

My rant? This fucking thread. You fuckers dicked it all up. Come in, state your gripe, Get The Fuck Out. It ain’t that fucking hard.

Go start your own thread titled “Let’s argue back and forth and never change each others minds! I’m Right And I Hate You For It! (Dick wagging and pissing contests encouraged)”

I really hate it when locals forget: Virginia is for lovers.

[joetron]

I’m just pissed that these dumb fucking heavy shitty riding turds are inevitably gonna fuck up a lot of mtb access scenes.
I get it, it’s fun and novel to have a little motor under ya, but a bunch of us rode heavy stupid bikes for years...and sure, they were fun because they were different and we could ride radder shit. But then we all bitched and moaned for so long and we finally have these totally ridiculous, light awesome bikes in every shape and size and we can ride even better shit, then suddenly these kooks just wanna go backwards with weight and riding style...while simultaneously jeopardizing access all over the place. Fuck!

Just wait until there is a critical mass of these things out in the world and we start to see failure rates. Gonna keep shops in business.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[grinch]

I was just thinking there wasn't much "ranting". More of a civil discussion. Strange. Where tf am i

Sent from my SM-G950W using TGR Forums mobile app

[evdog]

You have experts who dedicated their lives to studying the wildlife and the ecology of the area. They are saying trails/human use/mtbing or what ever has impacts to these resources and these areas need to be set aside. Why is that so upsetting? Do you feel it somehow degrades your personal rights? Remember these are resources that do not exist in many places of the world and ones that do exist have no where near the potential protection measures we have in the states.

I love alpine rides but also know that we are at a cross roads in the health of our planet. Why can't we set aside areas where we are not the most important user or excluded from exploiting it whether it be for minerals or recreation. Is that not a small sacrifice to make in these uncertain times. I am sure there are great riding areas outside of this potential wilderness area.

I could support the wildlife angle of needing Wilderness to sustain a threatened species like the grizzly bear. But if these areas are so important and wildlife is affected by all users, why is it only bikes that get kicked out? Surely if these haters are so concerned about wildlife and this is a small sacrifice in these uncertain times, they won't mind not being allowed to go there as well? What about Wilderness areas where wildlife is much less of a concern? Then we are back to the "bikes will ruin our feeling of isolation and solitude" argument. If they would just admit that they fucking hate bikes and don't want to share I could at least respect that stance. But this demand for solitude while on a public trail is BS. A trail is a travel corridor. Anyone can use it. If there are too many people on it, bikes included, all you have to do is walk 100ft off trail and you will see no one.

Grinch, do not know if time is a significant variable but the article did talk about the speed at which bikers can come up on wildlife. The sudden interaction tends to cause a flight or fight response. Your contact when hiking is going to be different, likely slower. It also made the point that data on interactions with bears occurs at a higher rate per user on Mtbs than hiking. Seems like a reasonable assumption to me.

Anyone who has done a lot of backcountry mountainbiking knows that backcountry riding is generally not a high speed activity. If you look at stats from almost any of my rides I average around 5mph. I posted stats at the bottom of my AZT thru ride trip report linked below. My average for the whole trip was around 4.6 mph. Sure descents can be much faster but those are over quickly so the majority of time is spend plodding along. A hiker might average 2-3mph. A trail runner - can't say but I've been passed by plenty of them who I never caught up to again, so anecdotally their average speed is greater than a mountain biker. So shouldn't trail runners be banned along with bikes?

I've also heard the argument that bikes have less impact on wildlife because they tend to travel at a more constant rate throughout the landscape and tend to stop less frequently, so wildlife are less likely to view them as a threat. A hiker will be slower and might stop to look around more especially if they see wildlife, and this can seem more predatory therefore causing the wildlife to move away.

Another awesome thread, this one a bit more upbeat:

https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...32#post5684932

Note the average speeds in this "race"--a lot more akin to what you'd see on really long epics than what you may have heard from the no-bikes crowd who would have you believe all riders are digging lines for the next Redbull event.

When you read the comments by opponents of bike access they complain about how fast bikes travel, and always around a blind corner of course. Each one of them has a story about a fast moving mountain biker colliding with them, or at minimum coming tearing around a corner and scaring them off the trail. They make it sound like hiking on a multi-use trail is a terrifying experience. Sure it is easy to startle a hiker but that is a far cry from running them off the trail. A lot of people seem to be projecting their experience on front country trail systems that are overrun with clueless users of all types and assuming those same behaviors will occur on a backcountry Wilderness trail. And that just isn't what goes on on those trails. They are too much work for the average mountain biker to want to attempt. These trails are not going to become overrun with bikes.

[powdrhound]

Soon you can ride the access roads for the drilling and mining rigs out there in the wild.

[kidwoo]

Soon you can ride the access roads for the drilling and mining rigs out there in the wild.

That's like 70% of the high elevation riding in Colorado.......old mine access.

I love it when people equate letting a mountainbike into the woods on a trail to strip mining and fracking. Same thing really.

[jono]

I love it when people equate letting a mountainbike into the woods on a trail to strip mining and fracking. Same thing really.

Don't be obtuse. Mountain bikes are much worse, that's why mining is allowed in Wilderness and mountain bikes are not.

[stuckathuntermtn]

The thing about biker/grizzly interactions is it's not usually the grizzly that loses.

[klauss]

mountain bikers startling wildlife and other trail users is kind of a BS argument. Everyone knows bikers blast music from their backpack speakers when tearing up the trails. I prefer something like pitbull or Kanye in the backcountry

[Dantheman]

I could support the wildlife angle of needing Wilderness to sustain a threatened species like the grizzly bear. But if these areas are so important and wildlife is affected by all users, why is it only bikes that get kicked out? Surely if these haters are so concerned about wildlife and this is a small sacrifice in these uncertain times, they won't mind not being allowed to go there as well?

I'd support some Complete Human Exclusion Zones^TM. Not holding my breath.

Then we are back to the "bikes will ruin our feeling of isolation and solitude" argument.

"Now, please excuse me while I go enjoy my isolation and solitude by posting to Instagram from my sat phone."

A trail runner - can't say but I've been passed by plenty of them who I never caught up to again, so anecdotally their average speed is greater than a mountain biker. So shouldn't trail runners be banned along with bikes?

I've found that it's pretty common for "No Bikes in Wilderness" arguments to detour into implicit or explicit disdain for anyone that moves faster than a walking pace. If they could find a way to ban trail running they absolutely would.

[kidwoo]

I'd like to ban banning stuff.

[bagtagley]

I vote to ban the ban on banning stuff.

[kidwoo]

I vote to ban the ban on banning stuff.

That's it.
You're banned.

[toast2266]

I've found that it's pretty common for "No Bikes in Wilderness" arguments to detour into implicit or explicit disdain for anyone that moves faster than a walking pace. If they could find a way to ban trail running they absolutely would.

The local wildernuts managed to shut down a 100 mile ultra marathon. Because bears. I believe there were around 15 entrants, and a good chunk of the course was on moto legal trail.

But the forest service is more than willing to cower at the threat of litigation.

[bagtagley]

We've been fighting bored old farts for years on allowing mountain bikes on trails around the local reservoir. We're talking about a city reservoir that can been seen from the interstate, has tons of hiking traffic, and was recently expanded in a massive, multi-year construction project. These people still stand on arguments about pristine wilderness, sensitive habitats, and endangered species. Common sense should be enough to shut them down, but when you have decision-makers that don't know their ass from a hole in the ground, anything goes.

[skaredshtles]

Don't be obtuse. Mountain bikes are much worse, that's why mining is allowed in Wilderness and mountain bikes are not.

Don't forget pack trains and grazing. Much less impact than mt biking.