Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
NML81
Trad climber
N Lake Tahoe
|
|
|
Dec 18, 2017 - 01:59pm PT
|
Mountain bikes today, drill rigs tomorrow.
|
|
Cragar
climber
MSLA - MT
|
|
|
Dec 18, 2017 - 02:10pm PT
|
I agree DMT and I am not necessarily pro-bike, even though I have been riding MTBs for 35+ years. Originally I learned to appreciate the outdoors via several forms of hunting and fishing. The MTB took me out there for other reasons and then climbing seemed to take the bike reasons and add a magnitude of elements that was all about bringing myself up to a challenge. To me my recreation/outdoor endeavors and lifestyle are a result of a philosophy, one that is my own and open for change when a good argument challenges me and makes me go hhhmmm, I've never thought/felt of it that way....lotsa pondering....thanks!
Not wilderness but an article about winter recreation and 2 very types of human activities and the impacts from a study. Just something to think about....
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/opinion/sunday/leaving-only-footsteps-think-again.html
|
|
Fat Dad
Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
|
|
|
Dec 18, 2017 - 02:22pm PT
|
Mountain bikes today, drill rigs tomorrow. Can't tell if this was intended as sarcasm but, if not, oh brother. I don't really want to see mts deep in the wilderness, but it's worth pointing out, as many others have on this thread, that others creating a much bigger impact either don't get or don't care that they are having a much greater one than a few dudes on a bike. There's going to be some contradictions and hypocrisy among authorized vs. unauthorized users. Having said that, I'm OK with advocating for limiting my own impact while others creating a far bigger impact are oblivious to their own and won't have their access limited. Life ain't always fair but I can live with that if it keeps the wild in wilderness. At least I'll know I'm not making it worse.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
|
Dec 18, 2017 - 02:48pm PT
|
I cannot live with that.
I have seen great trails in Pa bulldozed to suit drilling pads,long before any trail use arguments.
Same for McMansions here in WNY
|
|
Matt's
climber
|
|
|
Dec 18, 2017 - 03:24pm PT
|
as a climber and mountain biker-- it's hilarious how the people on this forum think that mountain biking would destroy the sanctity of wilderness, yet somehow climbing is some sort of low-impact endeavor that should be allowed and left unregulated...
my two cents--horses and bikes should not be allowed in wilderness areas...
matt
|
|
Mtnmun
Trad climber
Top of the Mountain Mun
|
|
|
Dec 18, 2017 - 03:25pm PT
|
There is definitely room for a few MT. Bike Trails in the Wilderness. Not all trails but some. Many are just unridable anyway.
|
|
johntp
Trad climber
socal
|
|
|
Dec 18, 2017 - 04:08pm PT
|
Doing the most with the least, a la Doug Robinson, is the best suited ethic.
Doug is an amazing person. A bit unusual. Spent time at his place in Round Valley and Rock Creek Lake. He taught me how to BC ski for which I am very grateful. Well, he did not really teach me. He dragged me up Half Moon Pass with a 45lb. load to stock a camp for his clients. It was all downhill from there. I wish he still posted here, he has stories to tell.
|
|
StahlBro
Trad climber
San Diego, CA
|
|
|
Dec 18, 2017 - 04:14pm PT
|
Opening trails on a selective basis seems ok to me. Make sure they can't be shuttled.
I don't support a blanket policy, even though (as several have stated) many will be unrideable for mere mortals.
|
|
ryanb
climber
Hamilton, MT
|
|
|
Dec 18, 2017 - 04:48pm PT
|
I'm curious about the political calculus behind this. It is a GOP bill and definitely has potential to drive a wedge in the typical political coalition of conservation and recreation groups. It may even help keep a few light pink or purple rural areas in the GOP fold.
Supporting anything that weakens wilderness seems short sighted at the moment.
On the other hand, as someone who lives a few miles outside the largest wilderness areas I definitely think new wilderness areas and wilderness expansion would get more support with allowances for recreational use.
Locally we've got super remote areas like the Little Blue Joint Wilderness Study Area:
http://www.hillmap.com/m/ag1zfmhpbGxtYXAtaGRychULEghTYXZlZE1hcBiAgICEuZuqCgw
This is a long standing Wilderness Study Area (WSA) that was open to biking until last year when it was ruled WSA's needed to be managed as wilderness. Its quite remote and lacks the kind of grand scenery and alpine lakes that tend to attract hikers.
It does have epic long trails that swoop through old burns along dry ridge lines perfect for long days on a bike. So until the recent ruling bikers were organizing annual volunteer events to clear trail and were really the only ones out there outside of a few hunters in the fall.
Similar stories are playing out across the state. I believe Steve Daine's, Montana's GOP senator also recently introduced legislation to force the release of WSA's and proposed wilderness that hasn't become a wilderness. This is certainly something I don't support.
I'd like to see some really close legal analysis of this bill and what other things might get tacked onto it. Ideally I'd like most/all existing wilderness to remain protected to current standards while allowing for new designations that protect from development while allowing for existing recreational use. I'm not sure I trust anyone in Washington to do that at the moment.
|
|
Lituya
Mountain climber
|
|
|
Dec 18, 2017 - 05:27pm PT
|
Supporting anything that weakens wilderness seems short sighted at the moment.
It seems to me anything that encourages wilderness use--within the confines of the original 1964 Act--will ultimately strengthen support.
|
|
guyman
Social climber
Moorpark, CA.
|
|
|
Dec 18, 2017 - 05:41pm PT
|
Lots of the "new wilderness" (the stuff that was "saved" by the last 5 Presidents and California Senators.... ya Barbara Boxer) is covered by old dirt roads anyway.
What would be so wrong and damaging if they let people Mtb down to the east bank of the So fork of the Kern River? Or ride old dirt roads out in the Mohave, by Barstow?
I do agree that no Mtb or Stock should go into the hi-mts, places like Mineral King, Sequoia, middle fork of the Kings or the Valley/TM... you know the old wilderness- the real wilderness.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Dec 18, 2017 - 09:04pm PT
|
I guess I just have trouble with the concept of bicycles
So get over yourself.
So what you are saying is that I am not entitled to my opinion, based upon my own experiences? I'm not sure what your status is, to be able to dictate that.
I have no experience on the Bob, although I do on the Selway-Bitterroot and Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness, where my friend was the ED of the Foundation. He paints a different picture than you.
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
Dec 19, 2017 - 06:38am PT
|
Mountain bikers are free to use the wilderness. Nobody is stopping them. They just have to walk like everybody else.
Meanwhile, in the You are Known by the Company you Keep Dept...
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-n...t=oft12aH-1li3
When their vision of creating a scenic cycling trail through a protected alpine backcountry hit a snag, San Diego area mountain bikers turned to an unlikely ally: congressional Republicans aiming to dilute conservation laws.
The frustrations of the San Diego cycling group and a handful of similar organizations are providing tailwind to the GOP movement to lift restrictions on the country’s most ecologically fragile and pristine landscapes, officially designated “wilderness.”
Resentment of these cyclists over the longstanding ban on “mechanized” transportation in that fraction of the nation’s public lands presents a political opportunity for Republicans eager to drill fissures in the broad coalition of conservation-minded groups united against the GOP environmental agenda.
|
|
kpinwalla2
Social climber
WA
|
|
|
Dec 19, 2017 - 07:58am PT
|
My wife and ride our mountain bikes more than climb these days. Not sure what I think about this. Part of me is suspicious of a potential Republican "divide and conquer" mentality - induce internal discord and reduce the size of the pro-wilderness voting block by setting distinct user groups against one another. On the other hand, every time I see a wilderness trail destroyed by horse travel and stinking piles of fly-covered manure in the middle of the trail I think, "this is allowed and bikes are not?" I remember seeing a cartoon back in the 80's that showed the "wilderness-approved mountain bike". Each wheel had 6-8 spokes ending in a horseshoe. There was a special bag on the back that spread excrement and shears on the front that lopped off native vegetation, and a small bag of seeds to spread non-native vegetation. I suppose that horses were allowed in the original bill to placate ranchers who lived adjacent to proposed wilderness areas. I guess I'm happy with keeping the ban, and would be even happier seeing it extended to horses. Like everything, there's probably a middle ground - like opening up some trails on a case-by-case basis. Until then, the picture below might provide an interim solution - foot powered and no drive train so not truly "mechanical".
|
|
Don Paul
Mountain climber
Denver CO
|
|
|
Dec 19, 2017 - 08:49am PT
|
It seems to me anything that encourages wilderness use--within the confines of the original 1964 Act--will ultimately strengthen support.
Very interesting paradox to think about. I bet the reason Indian Creek was spared from the Bears Ears land grab is because there are guidebooks and thousands of climbing routes, and a history. Plus, rock climbers can be somewhat scary to other people. Your main point is well-taken, that the land grabs going on are based on the perception that these areas are not being used.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Dec 19, 2017 - 12:32pm PT
|
Note the dodge to talking about horses, when this bill has nothing to do about horses. Another effort to divide the outdoor community.
For those of you who do not participate in trail maintenance, there are many trails that could not be maintained without stock support, particularly in the deep backcountry.
Here is an example of some work that required pack support, done by two of my mentors, Dolly and John:
https://www.wilderness.net/toolboxes/documents/tools/trail_work_H-T_dolly.pdf
|
|
stevep
Boulder climber
Salt Lake, UT
|
|
|
Dec 19, 2017 - 12:50pm PT
|
Many of us aren't excited about horse crap and associated messes, whether we're bikers or hikers. And we see a relatively small amount of x-country biker traffic in the far backcountry as less invasive than horses. I agree that full on shuttle DH riding isn't appropriate, but for the most part, that's not what's being advocated for.
And the proposed rule specifically calls out use of wheelbarrows for trail maintenance. Which is also likely less impactful than horses.
I agree, there is some splitting among user groups here. But the split has existed for some time...frankly a lot of mt bikers aren't happy about hikers and environmentalists not only excluding them instead of horses, but actually taking away land that they had been able to ride on.
|
|
kpinwalla2
Social climber
WA
|
|
|
Dec 19, 2017 - 01:02pm PT
|
Mentioning the effects of horses is not a "dodge" at all. Presumably, bicycles are not allowed in wilderness because they potentially detract from the wilderness experience of others. It appears to me (and many others) that if that's the case, then horses should also not be allowed, since they detract from the wilderness experience when they destroy trails, spread stinky poop, and introduce exotic species. That's why the issue of horses in wilderness is invariably raised whenever the question of bicycle access comes up, since it strikes many as a glaring inconsistency. I'm fine with horses, on behalf of the FS, bringing in supplies to repair trails, etc., but I'd be even happier if horses were banned and the supplies ferried in on a helicopter. I'll take a little short-term noise over a rutted-out, pooped on trail anytime. Presumably, helicopters are already allowed in wilderness to rescue seriously injured folks.
|
|
t-bone
climber
Bishop
|
|
|
Dec 19, 2017 - 01:45pm PT
|
Presumably, bicycles are not allowed in wilderness because they potentially detract from the wilderness experience of others.
No, the Wilderness Act was drafted before anyone conceived the idea of "mountain biking" on trails. If human overcrowding is not an issue, biking is well within the intent of the original Act.
I think everyone always gets worked up over nothing with this issue. There are plenty of areas out there where bikers won't be running down hikers (or horses).
The bill would amend the Wilderness Act of 1964 to empower federal land managers to allow mountain bikes and other wheeled, human-powered vehicles in federally designated wilderness areas if it’s done in a way that protects those areas’ wild values.
Read more here: http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/letters-from-the-west/article190084409.html#storylink=cpy
|
|
Sierra Ledge Rat
Mountain climber
Old and Broken Down in Appalachia
|
|
|
Dec 19, 2017 - 01:52pm PT
|
One of the major reasons that I quit mountain biking is there were too many MB retards who completely disregard all wilderness laws, and who disrespect Mother Nature and everyone else.
I can't count the number of times I ran into mountain bikers in designated wilderness who felt entitled to disregard federal law and ride their machines in the wilderness.
Did the MB ever slow down when passing hikers on a WILDERNESS trail? NEVER. It seemed to be a game for MB, to see how fast they can pass hikers on a narrow trail, and to see how close they can get without actually knocking over a pedestrian.
F%#k mountain bikers, and keep those idiots out of the wilderness.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!