House bill moving forward to allow bikes in Wilderness

pointingdogsrule said:
Ben: Not sure that I have ever been to a "Wilderness area" (none in Iowa). If you make the above statement then what about horses and foot traffic causing trail erosion? I have been to Colorado elk hunting and some of the trails caused by people and horses are quite harmful (and these are in a place where NO bike would ever go). Secondly, (and this is serious) they better ban me from the "wilderness areas" because my clothes always have cockleburs or some other plant seed stuck to me. Ever see a horses tail and the junk that they carry?

As far a bikes..... well I'm just "too damn old" to think about riding those things :)

good luck to all
the dog
Click to expand...

It's a valid question. The FS requires weed free hay and most horse people are not going to run horses that have a bunch of weeds in the tail when they get to the trailhead. Picking up burrs, weed seed, etc in the wilderness is different than importing the stuff. Strict fines and loss of use can occur if you disobey the regs for horses.

That's not the case with bikes or for people, but bikes can cover a lot more ground in a shorter time frame than horses or foot traffic. That can spread weeds farther and faster than other methods of travel, and as Rob has pointed out, the erosion issue is much different than with horse or foot traffic. Horse traffic can cause trail issues, but the impacts are far less pronounced than bikers. As another poster pointed out, the number of bikers versus stock users also creates an increased impact.

As for the disabled and wilderness, I'll simply say that 99.9% of people who are disabled are not going to be physically able to get in to these places due to terrain, limitations on their equipment, etc. Plus, we're literally talking about 3% or so of public lands, and a minuscule amount of land open to hunting overall. Do we really need to have motors everywhere? There is a larger societal issue of keeping some of our wildest lands wild. We can keep wilderness wild and let the bicycles and others use the rest.

Lots of options for cyclists to get in on planning and create new designations like the Conservation Management Area along the RMF - which specifically guarantees biking opportunity and room for growth, where appropriate.

As fat man who loves wilderness and doesn't get into it as much as I'd like, I'm ok with keeping things the way they are. Even if it limits my use.
 
I haven’t been in many wilderness areas but the ones I have been in were way too steep for a bike or motorized wheel chair to get there. The main trails were way to narrow for a ATV or wheel chair. A bike could fit down it but most of them you would have to of pushed as much as road it.

As a Soldier who has friends in a wheel chair due to thier service I completely agree with them getting the opportunity to see what I did. The reality is this bill won’t open up that much more to them. Mechanical things have limits and that those with good legs do not. As far as bikes I understand the erosion part and agree. Bikes will lead to a lot of back country rescues and Darwin Awards from those not smart enough to respect the mountain or right away of a horse. So amending them from the bill is understandably is a good idea.
 
For those of you not worried about motorized wheelchairs causing issues due to rough terrain, you need to think down the line a little. If this bill should pass, at some point there will be demands for trails to be upgraded or created for wheelchair access. While I’m in favor of maintaining trails, wheelchair access is a slippery slope.
 
brymoore said:
For those of you not worried about motorized wheelchairs causing issues due to rough terrain, you need to think down the line a little. If this bill should pass, at some point there will be demands for trails to be upgraded or created for wheelchair access. While I’m in favor of maintaining trails, wheelchair access is a slippery slope.
Click to expand...

That's how I see it. ADA guidelines for Wilderness Areas? Dang.
 
brymoore said:
For those of you not worried about motorized wheelchairs causing issues due to rough terrain, you need to think down the line a little. If this bill should pass, at some point there will be demands for trails to be upgraded or created for wheelchair access. While I’m in favor of maintaining trails, wheelchair access is a slippery slope.
Click to expand...

I've been waiting for them to finish the escalator to the top of Granite Peak for years.
 
Addicting said:
I haven’t been in many wilderness areas but the ones I have been in were way too steep for a bike or motorized wheel chair to get there. The main trails were way to narrow for a ATV or wheel chair. A bike could fit down it but most of them you would have to of pushed as much as road it. .
Click to expand...
You would be surprised the trails bikes navigate, up Hyalite canyon for example. I also just saw on a biking page where a trail grade had been reduced for bicycles, which made the trail longer for everyone else.
 
I can see the ADA issue on main trails, but a main trail up a valley being improved can also help everyone. Meat eater just did a podcast on getting injured in the back country and the challenges of getting out where that could of increased response time and availability of rescue resources. Also the idea of having a little more line of sight in Grizzly country would of made it my mind a little more at ease verses seeing 10’ in front of me and being scared (expletive here) when a outfitter horse train almost runs you over.

Obviously, long term pushing of the grey area this bill would create/can cause a negative impact, but I have faith that groups like BHA will help keep that in check if it gets out of hand. They would have my support as it relates to that issue.

Bikes are a prime example of “just because we have it doesn’t mean you should use it”. That I guess is where it crosses my comfort line. I vote no on the bike portion.
 
Last edited:
I think we already have too many trails and too many users on the trails in our current wildernesses. The LAST thing we should be adding is more users. I would much prefer they work with the dirtbike/ATV groups to develop trails on the non-W lands.
 
The latest victim is Corbly. It's turned into a raceway of bikers. Kinda sucks but I'm old school.
Click to expand...
Lawnboy, I agree. My wife and I backpacked the Bridger Foothills Trail above Corbly along the west side of the Bridger Mountains north of Bozeman in August. Many miles of the trail are hammered by bikes, some motorized, into trenches four to eight inches wide flat on the bottom with twelve to eighteen inch steep shoulders. Try to hike in those trails and you will quickly form an opinion about lack of compatibility between hikers & horses versus bikes. I agree with the concept of mixed use and sharing the trails, but I think the practical solution is to designate certain trails for separation of the "mixed uses".

But I am adamant in my opinion supporting the Wilderness Act in voicing opposition to any provisions revising the wilderness designation to allow any kind of mechanization.
 
Last edited:
Woah buddy... totally agree with you on bikes in wilderness, but the average speed of a bike on single track is 7mph, the max you could achieve on a steep as chit road is 45mph and that would be one hell of a ride.
Click to expand...
Obviously you have not seen the impressive launches off the bike trail bump-jumps up Leverich Canyon. Those high flying bikes take off at scary speeds and get an incredible amount of "air"!
 
Leverich is quite sendy... not sure if banked corners and built jumps are typical fare for your average NF mixed use trail :cool:
 
RobG said:
Horses have problems, but their hoof prints are divots that hold water.
Click to expand...
And that makes mud, so the next horse, or boot, or bike tire now has muddy saturated soil to deal with and that is the most damaging condition to deal with and is what most trail maintenance is, removing water traps.. I am not for or against the bike in wilderness but IMO to say horses do less damage than a bike is BS. I maintain public trails in WI for both and I can tell you the horses do far more damage. A half ton animal with a small footprint is damaging compared to the rolling weight of a pneumatic bike tire. The newest trend is "fatbikes" and those tires are even less damaging to trails than the standard MTB tire. Anyone who wants to argue this can try this: ride a MTB through your lawn or wifes flower bed after an all day soaking rain, then ride a horse through it and let the wife decide what is more damaging, because she is always right.
 
Last edited:
We have enough screwed up places in my opinion

I share your opinion..........spend a lot of time in "Wilderness". Unabashed, unapologetic, unwavering advocate for it. Even "belong" to a wilderness association:eek:
 
I live pretty close to the Bitterroot-Selway and am in there a bit. The bike riders are encroaching on the line in my experience. It will only get worse. mtmuley
 
Wilderness has, to me, always been a place to go slow and really observe and appreciate. Bombing around on mountain bikes seems antithetical to that. But I could see “conquering” one Wilderness after another becoming a thing for the mountain bike crowd like “conquering” peaks is for certain mountaineers. It’s only going to get more crowded. I don’t like it.
 
I'm not going to argue that a horse doesn't do more damage than a mountain bike but I will argue that you wouldn't have 90% of the trails you have without having the horses that help build them. I will argue that about less than 1% of bikers are clearing the trails when they come up to blowdown knee high. Some do but very very few. How do I know? because of living in this community and having the bikers ride right by you as you are attempting to saw a log with the saw you brought. They simply stop lift the bike over and ride on. I'm not bashing them as I have one and enjoy riding it as well. But lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater. The backcountry horsemen in our area are weekly doing trail maintenance long distances and thats not including the average rider like I mentioned who does have a saw along on every ride. South of Bozeman now sucks to ride a horse in because of literally hundreds of bikes. It's too risky to get spooked and bucked off. Just a fact.
 
...you wouldn't have 90% of the trails you have without having the horses that help build them.
Click to expand...
That is a valid, easily substantiated opinion. Another consideration is that the long history, legacy, and backcountry trail use and maintenance is done with horses and mules across the country. The legacy of the real western outfitter, guide, ranger, trail manager, and backcountry horseman is what has established, supported, and maintained most of the trail systems we hunt, hike, and backpack over.

To make the point that horse traffic causes as much or more trail erosion than bikes, atv's, or motorized wheelchairs is absurd and ignoring history, legacy, and reality.
 
Straight Arrow said:
That is a valid, easily substantiated opinion. Another consideration is that the long history, legacy, and backcountry trail use and maintenance is done with horses and mules across the country. The legacy of the real western outfitter, guide, ranger, trail manager, and backcountry horseman is what has established, supported, and maintained most of the trail systems we hunt, hike, and backpack over.

To make the point that horse traffic causes as much or more trail erosion than bikes, atv's, or motorized wheelchairs is absurd and ignoring history, legacy, and reality.
Click to expand...

The "new west" crowd do not think much of the history and legacy of horse's in the wilderness. They bitch about horse use all the time.

https://books.google.com/books?id=Y...nepage&q=horse damage in bob marshall&f=false
 
As a former very active Mountain Biker and Treasurer of a Mountain Biking club. You would definitively NOT want to see us in your wilderness.

Our club was about getting 10 to 12 guys on our bikes and racing each other in informal style. We ran as a group that could stretch out a hundred yards or more. We Kamikaze'd every down hill, reaching speeds of 30 mph or faster. We made a lot of noise and yelled and laughed. When we ran into hikers, more often than not, they had to move off the trail to make way for the careening peloton.

In retrospect, we often were idiots and took advantage of the fact that we had bikes.

The payoff for getting older is wisdom. Knowing what I did as a younger MTB rider, now I would never want to see Mountain Bikes in a Wilderness.

Don't give up your Wilderness, not to bikes, not to the Extraction Industry.

It is your Wilderness and if you want to be able to hike somewhere free of contraptions, free of roads, free of Oil Drilling and Mining Equipment, you better fight to keep it that way.

Cheers,

Mark

Ye Shall Be Free To Roam.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

O
Simpson’s Boulder White Clouds Passes Senate Bill now heads to the President’s Desk
Replies
11
Views
3K
Elkmagnet
Elkmagnet
Ben Lamb
Public Lands Package moves forward in Congress
3 4 5
Replies
89
Views
17K
Topgun 30-06
Topgun 30-06
Gerald Martin
Does This Bill Have a Chance?
Replies
5
Views
1K
Gerald Martin
Gerald Martin
J
House Bill 176
Replies
3
Views
2K
Big Fin
Big Fin
T
"Map-21" Bill in Congress
Replies
0
Views
2K
texrope
T
GOHUNT Insider

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
111,041
Messages
1,944,771
Members
34,985
Latest member
tinhunter

Share this page

Back
Top