Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2017 - 11:30am PT
|
You are correct, I was distracted by the old bill. Shows how google can mislead!
Here is the new, current bill, in it's entirety:
SECTION 1. USE OF CERTAIN WHEELED DEVICES NOT PROHIBITED IN WILDERNESS AREAS.
Section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1133(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following: “Nothing in this section shall prohibit the use of motorized wheelchairs, non-motorized wheelchairs, non-motorized bicycles, strollers, wheelbarrows, survey wheels, measuring wheels, or game carts within any wilderness area.”.
So there is NO determination at the local level, on a case-by-case basis.The JMT and the PCT are automatically opened, as are the backcountries of Yosemite, SEKI, etc.
All the arguments being made about "cautious, local" determinations are not involved in this proposal.
|
|
stevep
Boulder climber
Salt Lake, UT
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2017 - 11:50am PT
|
The "Local" language is in the preceding clause of the original Wilderness Act.
"Agency responsibility for preservation and administration to preserve wilderness character; public purposes of wilderness areas
Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, each agency administering any area designated as wilderness shall be responsible for preserving the wilderness character of the area and shall so administer such area for such other purposes for which it may have been established as also to preserve its wilderness character. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, wilderness areas shall be devoted to the public purposes of recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and historical use."
And you are correct, in theory things like the JMT could be opened(where not in National Parks/Monuments). In practice, no mountain biker I've talked to advocates that, and I doubt the FS leadership in those areas would go for it either.
|
|
Risk
Mountain climber
Olympia, WA
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2017 - 12:00pm PT
|
Here's what www.bikemag.com says is the most recent version as of 15 Dec 17 (https://off.whip.live/bike/bike-magazine-mountain-bikes-inch-closer-potential-wilderness-access);:
“Section 4 of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1133(c)) is amended by adding at the end of subsection (d) the following: "(8) Allowable uses. Each agency administering any area designated as wilderness may allow the use of motorized wheelchairs, non-motorized wheelchairs, non-motorized adaptive cycles, non-motorized bicycles, non-motorized strollers, non-motorized wheelbarrows, non-motorized survey wheels, non-motorized measuring wheels, or non-motorized game carts within any wilderness area. For the purposes of this paragraph, the term 'wheelchair' means a device designed solely for use by a mobility-impaired person for locomotion, that is suitable for use in an indoor pedestrian area.”
Troubling, but it doesn't actually prohibit motorized wheelchairs us by anyone, just that it be designed solely for use by a mobility-impaired person for locomotion.
I still think each agency, individually, would need to go through the rule making process following the Administrative Procedures Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rulemaking#The_rulemaking_process
|
|
stevep
Boulder climber
Salt Lake, UT
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2017 - 12:25pm PT
|
Seems to me that they were trying to be pretty careful to limit the motorized wheelchair use to wheelchairs designed for disabled people and for indoor use. i.e. they were trying to prevent people, disabled or otherwise from trying to use ATV-like vehicles and claim they were wheelchairs.
Not many Wilderness trails would accommodate a normal motorized wheelchair for any distance.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2017 - 08:55pm PT
|
You seem not to be able to read the things you post up. Let me highlight it for you:
"Agency responsibility for preservation and administration to preserve wilderness character; public purposes of wilderness areas
Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, each agency administering any area designated as wilderness shall be responsible for preserving the wilderness character of the area and shall so administer such area for such other purposes for which it may have been established as also to preserve its wilderness character. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, wilderness areas shall be devoted to the public purposes of recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and historical use."
AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THE NEW BILL:
Section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1133(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following: “Nothing in this section shall prohibit the use of motorized wheelchairs, non-motorized wheelchairs, non-motorized bicycles, strollers, wheelbarrows, survey wheels, measuring wheels, or game carts within any wilderness area.”.
|
|
Risk
Mountain climber
Olympia, WA
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2017 - 10:47pm PT
|
This is what I get when I go to the link you provided:
Either way, they still have to go through the rule making process. Unless they modify it, they have to use the administrative procedures act to implement regulations specific to the legislation.
|
|
monolith
climber
state of being
|
|
|
Dec 30, 2017 - 06:33am PT
|
Ken M, you are still not quoting the latest amendment. You are quoting the original 3/2/2017 introduction. The bill was amended on 12/13/2017. The bill site has not been updated yet.
Yeah, I know, you will cry fake news again just like Trump would, but note the site shows the bill was amended on 12/13/2017, yet the text of the bill still shows only the original 3/2/2017 introduction.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1349/all-info?r=1
|
|
stevep
Boulder climber
Salt Lake, UT
|
|
|
Dec 30, 2017 - 08:11am PT
|
No need to get hostile Ken...I'm not a contracts attorney, but I think I read pretty well.
You asked about local jurisdiction relative to changes. I posted section 1133(b) which addresses the agency responsible for administering. My reading of that is that the responsibility is left to whatever agency would have managed the land anyway, FS or BLM for example. That 1133(b) section is not amended. My experience is that mostly it is local FS leadership that addresses access issues.
The section amended by the new bill is the section below that, 1133(c), which deals with prohibitions in Wilderness areas.
Again, you're correct. In a worst case scenario, this could open up a lot of land. But mt bikers aren't asking for all of that, and in many cases, the trails are too steep and rugged to be ridden. What I do think most want is not to have further access taken away by new wilderness declarations, and to be treated as if we're less damaging to remote areas than horse packs(which I think most would agree that we are).
|
|
stevep
Boulder climber
Salt Lake, UT
|
|
|
Dec 30, 2017 - 08:19am PT
|
And really, "fake news"?
Monolith and I and a few others have tried to be civil about this, posting citations and references. No need to stoop to Trump level.
|
|
Risk
Mountain climber
Olympia, WA
|
|
|
Dec 30, 2017 - 11:37am PT
|
The problem is scale and intent. If it were just an access-only issue, that would be one thing. But hardcore mountain biking has no place in designated Wilderness. The biking industry (read republicans) want to degrade all protections to public lands however possible. Is anyone fooled to think McClintock wants to improve access?
The article below discusses access and the use of rollerpacks, and how they are currently allowed.
http://dixonrollerpack.com/28704.html
Soda Springs Trail (PCT) at Tuolumne Meadows
This article is a call to fight all restrictions
https://www.bikemag.com/features/opinion/web-monkey-speaks/web-monkey-speaks-screw-apathy/
|
|
stevep
Boulder climber
Salt Lake, UT
|
|
|
Dec 30, 2017 - 12:20pm PT
|
TMJesse, what do you mean by hardcore mountain bikers? You mean the guys on 45lb downhill bikes wearing full-face helmets and body armor? If so, I'm with you. But those aren't the riders that would be in the wilderness...they don't like to ride up hill, or venture far from trailheads, lifts or shuttles. At least some of the people asking for this are bikepackers, who like the solitude in the wilderness, tend not to go very fast, and have more in common with backpackers than with the DH bikers.
And the main point of that opinion piece in Bike you linked to is not removal of all existing restrictions...it's pointing out that in addition to the Idaho and Montana trails that were recently taken from cyclists by wilderness designations, there are other areas under threat. So mt bikers should organize and lobby to prevent this.
SLCDs are certainly mechanical devices..if a ruling came down that said those were not allowed in the wilderness, would you be surprised if climbers fought against that?
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Dec 30, 2017 - 12:48pm PT
|
Sorry if I've gotten a little heated. I've been through this debate a number of times, most recently when the attempt was made to force the USFS to allow access to the PCT. A lot of unethical actions attempted.
I've fixed the link to the Congressional site, I'm not sure how that error happened. Hope I'm not now on a terrorist watch list!
Mono, I look at your link, and I only see that a markup happened, not an amendment. Perhaps I'm reading it wrong.
|
|
Risk
Mountain climber
Olympia, WA
|
|
|
Dec 30, 2017 - 12:58pm PT
|
We agree. I said hardcore Mountain Biking, not bikers. Obviously, many of us enjoy dirt-biking and backpacking, etc. The problem - I see no way to discriminate between 20-person teams on 45lb downhill bikes wearing full-face helmets and body armo vs. those who want the solitude in the wilderness.
As for SLCDs, banning them in Wilderness would be like banning such thangs as coffee grinders, glasses with hinged frames, etc. The Wilderness Act (1986 amendment) specifically bans bikes. As I said upthread, many environmental orgs and preservation purists want to restrict or keep out all users. That also extends to area managers who would just a well keep everyone out. Look at Auburn State Recreation Area above Sacramento as a classic example of over restricted access through "management."
I want one of those rollerpacks!
|
|
Greg Barnes
climber
|
|
|
Dec 30, 2017 - 01:01pm PT
|
There are a lot more grey areas than many want to admit. When a small subset of conservationists in Joshua Tree were trying to argue that all climbing bolts were “installations” under the Wilderness Act, that was really stretching (mis-interpreting) the Wilderness Act (it’s pretty obvious from the Act that they’re talking about roads, dams, buildings, etc as “installations"). Even though the language at first glance seems pretty clear, “no other form of mechanical transport” probably meant mass transport like a rope tow or gondola or other yet-to-be-developed mass transport (remember this was the early ‘60s and flying cars seemed plausible in the not-so-distant future). The real question is intent - would mountain bikes have been prohibited had they existed in the early ‘60s?
Hard to say - I could see that going either way. The start of the Wilderness Act says that Wilderness areas will be administered in "such manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use as wilderness” - and bikes on some remote Wilderness trails might be just fine. Or not - one issue that hasn’t been talked about much is wildlife habitat fragmentation. Some wildlife would be highly disturbed by bikes traveling at greater than running speed (some might be disturbed by a pack of trail runners, or any human presence at all!). Most probably wouldn’t, but that would really depend on the particulars - much like Bighorn sheep are highly disturbed by canids, so bringing a dog in the Wilderness is no big deal in many areas, but potentially deadly to Bighorn sheep in marginal living conditions.
Most trails in Wilderness would not be cool for bikes, from user conflict to just super rough & steep terrain. On the other hand I think some Wilderness trails would probably be fine for bikes - kind of like the newer policies with bolts in NPS Wilderness where they state "that bolt-intensive “sport climbs” are incompatible with Wilderness” ( https://www.accessfund.org/open-gate-blog/what-the-new-nps-wilderness-climbing-policy-means-for-climbers-bolting ) - I bet a lot of us know some Wilderness crags where sport climbs don't disturb anything.
How about biking from 120 on the old roads to the top of North Dome? Some of those roads are still pretty well paved! I personally think that Yosemite has too much traffic for bikes even on old roads, but I certainly would have zero problem about seeing wheelchairs or strollers out on those trails/roads.
Anyway, much like debating climbing bolts, it seems to me that the best answer is always “It depends.” Bikes in Wilderness areas would really depend on the particular area, the trail, the current (and projected) trail use patterns, the wildlife, the season, etc.
And as much as I’d like to be able to bike in a few (remote) Wilderness areas, the simple fact that Hatch and company sponsored this should be a HUGE red flag to anyone who doesn’t want to see oil rigs and housing developments in repealed Wilderness areas in the future.
On the other hand, with smartphones and screen time the new national past time, anything that gets people out enjoying the Wilderness should be encouraged. People tend to forget that the Wilderness Act was passed by a coalition of the Sierra Club and the NRA - hunters don’t want the woods destroyed for mines or oil rigs! Hunting participation has been steeply declining, hiking is strong but backpacking is way down, and more people fighting to keep the wilds wild is good. So regardless of whether this particular legislation goes anywhere (I doubt it), we all want to keep climbing, hiking, biking, and enjoying the remote areas of the planet - whether we can bike a few miles closer to the Incredible Hulk or not...
|
|
monolith
climber
state of being
|
|
|
Dec 30, 2017 - 01:12pm PT
|
You mean this is not what a typical runner does in the wilderness?
And no Ken, it was marked up and then reported to be amended.
December 13: Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 22 - 18.
I don't think any of you anti-bike guys need to worry about this bill passing on it's own. Liz Cheney is very influential and is voting no cuz she doesn't want further competition for the wilderness for the horse and mule pack train outfits, and there is probably at least 1 democratic senator who will filibuster and require 60 votes. The only remote possibility is if it gets included in a much larger bill package like infrastructure.
And speaking of Liz Cheney, here she is sponsoring a bill to allow all sorts of 'mechanical' activity, including dirt bikes in a Wilderness Study Area due to historical use. This same argument could be used for the newly enacted wilderness areas that took away hundreds of miles of single track from mtb riders.
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2017/dec/25/cheney-bill-would-boost-heli-skiing-in-wyoming/
|
|
matisse
climber
|
|
I have crappy knee joints. I can't hike more than a few miles so I spend a lot of time on my mountain bike (yeah I'm back riding after my broken leg, last year). I also live within a mile of two canyon systems that are designated mixed use that I ride regularly when I don't have time to go further afield.
This kind of discussion is depressing for me and it is typical of discussion that involve bikes because cyclists are held to higher standards than other user groups.
I'll give you two examples from my recent ride (albeit not wilderness):
There were 11 unleashed dogs on the trail, in an area that allows dogs but they must be on leash. There were also three tied up bags o' sh*t waiting for the sh*t fairy to take them home. By the logic expressed by some here all dog owners should be banned.
There were two sets of commercial photographers set up across the trail, without a permit for the commercial activity. By the logic expressed by some here all photographers should be banned.
As other have pointed out you are no more going to see a full face shield 45lb DH bike toting yabbo 25 miles and 4k of climbing away from the road than you are a gaggle of pad people, with boom boxes, little pieces o' carpet and their dogs (dogs at the crag y/n).
Also there are things that cyclists can do including using a bell like this one:
https://www.mtbbell.com/about.html.
you sound a little bit like Santa Claus out there but it is a way to gently let others know you are coming. I've started using it when I'm likely to encounter others. I turn it off when I'm alone so I don't startle the bobcats. A bobcat sighting is a rare treat in my local ride.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
Monolith, I don't think your interpretation is right about the final bill.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1349/text
I believe there was an amendment, but I think it was minor language.
Anticipated Amendments
• Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) – Clarify that land managers may allow bicycles, strollers,
wheelbarrows, survey wheels, measuring wheels, or game carts on wilderness lands.
Clarify that the allowed wheeled implements must be non-motorized. Incorporate
definition of wheelchair from Americans with Disabilities Act.
.
|
|
monolith
climber
state of being
|
|
Ken M, I'll help you out by providing you with a google search using the new language. Notice the dates quoting the new language are all on or after December 13.
December 13 Wilderness Amendment
Why do you struggle so much on such simple concepts?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!