Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Steve Johnson
Trad climber
Telluride, Colorado
|
|
Slippery Slope.
Mountain bikes cause far more wildlife disturbance than horses or hikers.
Keep that in mind in wilderness settings.
Check out Hershey
Implications of Back-country Travel on Key Big Game Summer Range in the Bighorn-Weitas Roadless Area, Clearwater National Forest
Terry Hershey, Wildlife Biologist, Salmon, Idaho 18 January 2011
|
|
monolith
climber
state of being
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2018 - 07:08am PT
|
Steve, I saw no evidence that the paper you cited covered bikers. Do you have a link to the actual paper?
The science is mixed on bikers disturbing the wildlife. Hikers actually disturb more regarding Eagles and Bighorn sheep.
https://www.imba.com/resources/research/trail-science/natural-resource-impacts-mountain-biking
Papouchis, Singer, and Sloan: Hikers have greatest impact on bighorn sheep
Gander and Ingold: Hikers, joggers, and mountain bikers - all the same to chamois
Spahr: Hikers have greater impact on eagles than cyclists
Herrero and Herrero: Bikers more likely to suddenly encounter bears
|
|
Roughster
Sport climber
Vacaville, CA
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2018 - 07:32am PT
|
Definitely a lot of fear mongering and slippery slope arguments from the, keep bikes out crowd. I honestly think both sides are closer to alignment than they think. MTB'ers don't want to dominate the trails or land and have shown over and over that they are the best trail stewards of any user group. Almost every single multi-use trail in California, where MTBs are allowed, are managed and maintained by MTB'ers.
Let's just stick a fork in the DH crowd being in the backcountry. This is a terrible example as anyone who has actually ridden one would tell you, they are not suited (too heavy, too cushy suspension, wrong geometry for climbing, would require significant stretches of hike a bike, etc.) for backcountry travel. The vast majority of potential backcountry MTB'ers would be XC and bikepackers. Think of both of these groups as the trad-climber equivalent of the MTB world. Just as sport climbing is regulated in the wilderness, any potential threat from DH'ers could also be managed / regulated for the "just in case" element.
I did the JMT this summer with my daughter, and we talked with a lot of other hikers along the way from all over the country. The vast majority of them also MTB and a lot of us talked about how sweet some sections would be on a bike. Not that I am proposing MTB's on the JMT. I think historical / significant hiking only trails should stay that way.
[Click to View YouTube Video]
The user groups that will be most against MTB is equestrian / pack animal users and purists for conservationism. As pointed out above, bike bells, and common courtesy can go a long way in smoothing / preventing trail conflicts between cyclists and equestrian users. The purists want all user groups out, so all active users are aligned against them.
The start is to remove the ban, adopt a case by case decision possibility, and regulate the undesired behaviors / usages that will cause conflicts. I am with the numerous people above who have stated that anything we can do to get Americans off the couch and outside is a positive thing. When less and less people go to and see these places, the less support there will be to manage them as wilderness areas. Trump and Zinke have proven that to them, they are just an untapped commodity. Without public support, there will be nothing to stop them.
|
|
cragnshag
Social climber
san joser
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2018 - 04:45pm PT
|
F%#k mountain bikers, and keep those idiots out of the wilderness.
I've done more idiotic things on rock than on a mtn bike. I routinely go as fast as I can down on the downhill, but only on trails where there are good sight lines and no other trail users. If I see another user I'll slow down to a safe speed or stop altogether for equestrians. I don't "hoop and holler" as I go down, either. I don't skid or slide. And I put time into maintaining the trails I ride.
Point is, you can't lump everyone in the same boat. Every group has it idiots.
As for actual degradation of the wilderness, I don't see that happening simply because most folks are unwilling to put out the physical effort to go more than 10 miles or 2000' of elevation gain. The select few who have the fitness and wherewithal to get themselves deeper into the wilderness would likely not be the "idiot" type.
I regularly ride at Henry Coe State Park which has close to 250 miles of mtn bike-legal dirt roads and single track. The trailhead is within an hour drive of 3 million bay area residents. But once I'm 5 miles out from the parking lot I see neither hikers nor bikers. I have the whole place to myself. Folks just don't want to put out the effort it takes to go deeper. I guess my point is that distance, elevation, and rough terrain would prevent bikes from having much impact in many designated wilderness areas because bikes would be a rarity.
Same goes for climbs, right? Never a line at the base of a route if you have to hike in an hour...
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2018 - 06:58pm PT
|
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?
Nice dig. But my response is that a process that doesn't list the actual amended bill in any official document, and has to be searched out via google, is pretty lame.
|
|
monolith
climber
state of being
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2018 - 07:02pm PT
|
Yes, Ken, it's a giant conspiracy. The pro-bikers faked the amendment. It really doesn't exist, right?
You would think an anti-bike group would detect the fake amendment. Good thing we have you to point it out.
And as far as a lame process, welcome to congress. Don't expect the guv web sites to be updated as quickly as you desire.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2018 - 07:04pm PT
|
I've struggled to find the words to encompass my distaste for this.
It all comes down to Wilderness. The concept has to do with wildness, primitiveness, being able to see something that exists much as it did 1,000 years ago.
Part of the reason we don't run chainsaws is that the very loud sound can be heard for miles, and it clearly is not the natural sound. The concept of continuously ringing bike bells seems laughable in that light.
Were there people in the mountains 1,000 years ago? sure.
Were there horses? Almost certainly.
Were there mountain bikes? They were invented in 1978, and there is nothing natural about them.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2018 - 07:26pm PT
|
Mike, I was hiking in the Sierra, in areas that became wilderness areas in '64, and I can testify from personal experience that there were no bikes there then.
I am definitely not ignorant of your attempt to simply make up stuff.
Joe Breeze is normally credited with introducing the first purpose-built mountain bike in 1978. Tom Ritchey then went on to make frames for a company called MountainBikes, a partnership between Gary Fisher, Charlie Kelly, John Frey (Marin County mountain biking innovator) and Tom Ritchey.
|
|
monolith
climber
state of being
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2018 - 07:30pm PT
|
Bikes were allowed in wilderness areas from 1964 to 1977 to 1984. depending on area.
And of course Ken was in every wilderness area at all times and can testify they were never there.
|
|
Todd Eastman
Social climber
Putney, VT
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2018 - 05:23am PT
|
In order for trails to receive minimum erosion and treadway degradation from any user types, they must be built and maintained to very high standards...
... that does not happen in Wilderness.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2018 - 05:43am PT
|
Trail damage?
Trails are damage.
Look at one from above or afar, and you'll see a scar on an otherwise pristine landscape.
|
|
stevep
Boulder climber
Salt Lake, UT
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2018 - 06:56am PT
|
And one technical correction to Ken...
Horses did not exist in North America prior to their introduction by the Spanish in the 1500s. So they weren't actually around 1000 years ago.
|
|
matisse
climber
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2018 - 11:32am PT
|
First, there is a real incompatibility between bikes and other uses. It has to do with the speed of bikes, particularly downhill. I've seen many collisions with hikers. With stock, it scares them, and they go wild, bucking, etc. Very dangerous
and
Part of the reason we don't run chainsaws is that the very loud sound can be heard for miles, and it clearly is not the natural sound. The concept of continuously ringing bike bells seems laughable in that light.
I rest my case.
A suggestion to mitigate the issue raised in the first comment is met by the second. They CAN be turned off. and they don't ring they jingle. just like the bear bells that hikers use in some places.
|
|
Ballo
Trad climber
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2018 - 11:42am PT
|
I'm surprised to see so many anti-bike posts. Also surprised to see so many toolish posts.
There are many facets to this issue. Here are some:
1) The Wilderness Act was written in 1964 and the Western Wilderness Act was passed in 1974. There were no mountain bikes in 1974. The mtbike ban is based on an interpretation of the Wilderness Act, not a statute banning mtbikes.
2) As many of us are painfully aware, what is actually permissible in Wilderness (and national parks for that matter) is largely based on the superintendent and wilderness ranger (who probably has a fancy, pointy hat). For example some trail crews can use chainsaws, while others have to use crosscut saws. Some areas you can replace bolts while others there is an outright bolt ban (which is going to end up in fatalities).
3) Horses and mules f*#k up trails many fold more than mtbikes ever could. This is true with hard pack, loamy ash, and rock. Any concern over the quality of trails and their degradation without addressing pack animals has no leg to stand on.
4) Many areas in which environmentalists lobbied for inclusion into Wilderness protection have been counter-lobbied by mtbikers for obvious reasons. If there was more flexibility such as having mtbike-friendly wilderness areas we wouldn't be fighting each other as much.
5) If hikers complain about mtbikers on a particular trail, you can easily lobby for a mtbike ban on that particular trail. No new legislation needed as I've pointed out it's all based on what the super deems best. Hikers do outnumber bikers (good luck banning horses though, they have political clout for some reason).
Bottom line i don't see the sky falling if I'm allowed to cycle some wilderness areas. My knees would enjoy the respite from having to hike my gear in, and honestly why do you even care?
|
|
fear
Ice climber
hartford, ct
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2018 - 11:54am PT
|
I blame the big bike lobby.
The evil NBA.....
|
|
looking sketchy there...
Social climber
Lassitude 33
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2018 - 12:48pm PT
|
Ballo, Thanks for the more reasoned and nuanced response.
As pointed out by others, the farther from the trail head, the fewer thoughtless users. If you want to cast stones, there are really bad actors in every user group.
Providing for some flexibility, particularly in proposed and recently designated Wilderness areas (which had a pre-existing mixed use) only makes sense - and makes allies of outdoor users.
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2018 - 02:09pm PT
|
It's not a matter of erosion. Bikes, and other contraptions don't belong in wilderness.
It's bad enough that you can't hike anywhere in California without hearing an engine. There are plenty of bike trail, why can't a bit of wilderness be set aside? What's so bad about that?
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2018 - 04:05pm PT
|
1978 is when the common term mountain bike was coined, not the activity of off-road cycling. And your assertion that, because you in the Sierra in 1964 didn't detect a bike there, bikes were absent in Wilderness? Read what you wrote one more time and see if it doesn't sound utterly ridiculous.
Read it, and stand by it. I'd be interested in anyone on the bike side testifying that they rode bikes in Wilderness areas before 1978. All the rangers that I know who spend years out on the trails, never saw one.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Portable MP3 speakers? 
Let us know!