Montana Bicycle Guild files to intervene in support of Ten Mile-South Helena forestry project
The Montana Bicycle Guild has filed to intervene in support of a major forestry project near Helena.
Interesting twist for the "Public Hands" of Public Lands.
- Thread starter Sytes
- Start date
Nameless Range
Well-known member
The Montana Bicycle Guild wants to expand the amount of trails on public lands that they can ride on. That includes codifying rogue-built trails and building new trails in roadless areas. They are also opposed to being limited to system trails only.
They are singularly minded and are focused on their interests. Whether those interests are good for wildlife, hunting, and sustainable models of recreation is something worth thinking about IMO.
They are singularly minded and are focused on their interests. Whether those interests are good for wildlife, hunting, and sustainable models of recreation is something worth thinking about IMO.
@Nameless Range Would like to read further on that. You have a link or is this through meetings listening to them speak or?
Always appreciate your frequent objective take on subjects of mutual interest.
If, as you describe this is the case, what a royal disappointment! I hope it's not though routing from you... This is a bummer. Would be great to have a quality crew that promotes good land stewardship and can fend off the extreme vocal environmental nutters.
Always appreciate your frequent objective take on subjects of mutual interest.
If, as you describe this is the case, what a royal disappointment! I hope it's not though routing from you... This is a bummer. Would be great to have a quality crew that promotes good land stewardship and can fend off the extreme vocal environmental nutters.
onpoint
Well-known member
".....Whether those interests are good for wildlife, hunting, and sustainable models of recreation is something worth thinking about IMO ".
Some interested and so inclined Ht'ers might question their local MT wildlife bio's regarding current MFWP internal discussions about this very matter. The current leadership of Montana's wildife management agency has some interesting
views on these effects (of wildlife country mountain bikers) on wildlife security, habitat, behavior, and other such issues which hunters - who pay for the agency's activities - may have specific concerns about.
Some interested and so inclined Ht'ers might question their local MT wildlife bio's regarding current MFWP internal discussions about this very matter. The current leadership of Montana's wildife management agency has some interesting
views on these effects (of wildlife country mountain bikers) on wildlife security, habitat, behavior, and other such issues which hunters - who pay for the agency's activities - may have specific concerns about.
Nameless Range
Well-known member
@Sytes , an aspect of the project that HHA and the MWF are bringing lawsuit against is the building of roads(temporary in theory) and trails in the Roadless Areas south of Helena that are within this project’s boundaries.
helenair.com
If you want to get a good idea of the MBGs positions, one thing I do is follow them on Facebook. They reveal a fair amount.
I admit this is a complex issue, but like I said, they are focused on one thing.
Sportsmen groups sue over logging roadless areas near Helena
Two hunting conservation groups filed suit Tuesday challenging a logging and prescribed burning Forest Service project west of Helena.
If you want to get a good idea of the MBGs positions, one thing I do is follow them on Facebook. They reveal a fair amount.
I admit this is a complex issue, but like I said, they are focused on one thing.
As shared in prior discussions, I believe the blocked old roads should remain blocked from motorized traffic... Though open for non motorized.
However, roadless areas (excluding current trail use) or creating off trail type cycle use is not something I support currently... Though there is something to be evaluated considering bike tires cause less erosion than hooves...
However, roadless areas (excluding current trail use) or creating off trail type cycle use is not something I support currently... Though there is something to be evaluated considering bike tires cause less erosion than hooves...
antlerradar
Well-known member
I am not sure that it is true that bike tires cause less erosion than hooves. Bikes leave long straight ruts that tend to channel water allowing even small amounts rain water to run swiftly down hill. Hooves leave pock marks that tend to pool water and slow down the rate of flow. Somewhere I read a study on this a long time ago and it made sense to me. Could be other studies that say the exact opposite.
Last edited:
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
My wife and I backpacked the west side of the Bridgers north of Bozeman, starting at Fairy Lake, hiking over the ridge and then south along the Bridgers Foothills Trail, which has been heavily impacted by tires and wheels. There were stretches of the trail with steep sloped sides and flat narrow bottoms ... extremely difficult and risky to hike with a heavy backpack. It was impossible to hike in the bottom of the rut. It required either straddling the trail awkwardly or balance-hiking a rough narrow bank on either side. We vowed never to hike those stretches again!
SA, I had the same experience due to mass horse pack strings through Bridger Teton Wilderness areas... Deep crappy - multiple ruts... a royal pita. ALL caused by those fancy four legged beasts that I enjoy as well.
I believe this is a basis for judging the whole based on a few. No matter the venue, participants, etc... there are always a few bad actors. Times are changing. At one time we thought horses would only be allowed... Now? With initial opposition, Llamas are more and more common place. Backcountry cycles will be a factor. It's a good time to find common ground, IMO. I would like to believe we can leave the extreme, "no way / all the way" crowds on either side and the majority meet to discuss. Though the extremes always yell the loudest. Example: Llamas, goats, horses, humans all able to route off trail. I believe a set speed limit, trail usage permissibility, etc would all be found with mutual interest.
Here is the study that was conducted by MSU on this subject:
https://scholarworks.montana.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1/6831/31762100885266.pdf;sequence=1
I believe this is a basis for judging the whole based on a few. No matter the venue, participants, etc... there are always a few bad actors. Times are changing. At one time we thought horses would only be allowed... Now? With initial opposition, Llamas are more and more common place. Backcountry cycles will be a factor. It's a good time to find common ground, IMO. I would like to believe we can leave the extreme, "no way / all the way" crowds on either side and the majority meet to discuss. Though the extremes always yell the loudest. Example: Llamas, goats, horses, humans all able to route off trail. I believe a set speed limit, trail usage permissibility, etc would all be found with mutual interest.
Here is the study that was conducted by MSU on this subject:
This is a .pdf. As you mention, there are various studies... a "pick your favored setting, unfortunately. Seems if there is an objective, peer reviewed study, some environmental group or the opposite side will tear it apart.
https://scholarworks.montana.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1/6831/31762100885266.pdf;sequence=1
Last edited:
Nameless Range
Well-known member
I am familiar with this issue because it is tangentially related to the Helena-L&C Forest Plan Revision as well as another proposal for the construction of mtn biking trails in the northern Elkhorns, called the Strawberry Butte Front Country Project.
I have read numerous studies regarding trail impacts of different types of recreation. Though you can kind of cherry pick a study to support a point, on the whole I think it is fairly established that mountain biking is no more impactful on trails than livestock. Lots of variables though involving amount of use, soils , time of year of use, etc.
One must also consider the impact on and displacement of wildlife too though. The few studies I can find on this issue seem more varied in their answers. Some show mtn biking having a greater displacement effect on ungulates than hiking and livestock, while others show mountain biking having the least impact on certain types of animals such as golden eagles compared to even hiking. A very important thing to consider though, is that bikers cover vastly more ground in a given time period than hikers or livestock, and thus can disturb more wildlife per the accumulation of unit times.
The idea that mountain bikers not be limited to trails is insane to me. It results in guys riding down elk trails, essentially building and clearing heir own, until they become an increase to system itself, and the FS decides to adopt rouge- built trails as they have proposed to do in the Elkhorns. Bikes should be limited to codified trails.
Ultimately, I am very concerned about this mad push for a recreational economy in our wildest places. Especially those adjacent to the fastest growing chunks of our country - urban areas of the west. Building new trails in roadless areas five minutes south of Helena‘s city limits - places I grew up hunting - is short sited and unsustainable for the land. Helena advertises itself as a mountain biking Mecca, and it is on its way, and one only need take a hike on trails in the northern Boulder Mountains to see that the pilgrimage has begun.
What it will look like 10,20, or 30 years from now when Montana has twice as many mountain bikers, is a question forest plans and projects need to be designed around IMO.
I have read numerous studies regarding trail impacts of different types of recreation. Though you can kind of cherry pick a study to support a point, on the whole I think it is fairly established that mountain biking is no more impactful on trails than livestock. Lots of variables though involving amount of use, soils , time of year of use, etc.
One must also consider the impact on and displacement of wildlife too though. The few studies I can find on this issue seem more varied in their answers. Some show mtn biking having a greater displacement effect on ungulates than hiking and livestock, while others show mountain biking having the least impact on certain types of animals such as golden eagles compared to even hiking. A very important thing to consider though, is that bikers cover vastly more ground in a given time period than hikers or livestock, and thus can disturb more wildlife per the accumulation of unit times.
The idea that mountain bikers not be limited to trails is insane to me. It results in guys riding down elk trails, essentially building and clearing heir own, until they become an increase to system itself, and the FS decides to adopt rouge- built trails as they have proposed to do in the Elkhorns. Bikes should be limited to codified trails.
Ultimately, I am very concerned about this mad push for a recreational economy in our wildest places. Especially those adjacent to the fastest growing chunks of our country - urban areas of the west. Building new trails in roadless areas five minutes south of Helena‘s city limits - places I grew up hunting - is short sited and unsustainable for the land. Helena advertises itself as a mountain biking Mecca, and it is on its way, and one only need take a hike on trails in the northern Boulder Mountains to see that the pilgrimage has begun.
What it will look like 10,20, or 30 years from now when Montana has twice as many mountain bikers, is a question forest plans and projects need to be designed around IMO.
Last edited:
onpoint
Well-known member
Hunters, read Nameless's above comments over and over again. And attempt to comprehend the serious nature of the relevance of this topic to hunting in MT, especially near the "gee, I love Bozo, Helena, Msla - don't see what people are pissing and moaning about " population centers.
Like it/admit it or not, non consumptive users are becoming a force to be reckoned with - in larger numbers than the old hunting/fishing curmudgeons. Hell, lots of hunters/anglers are the same folks who want bike access to the same places they may bow hunt, bird hunt, etc. As NR stated - it's getting more and more complex out there in the boonies.
This is another issue hunters would do well to pay close attention - AND COMMENT on.
Uniting hunters on this one is probably a pipe dream - for reasons already illustrated and discussed. A lotta' Colter's wear the same flat hat while one day considering himself an extreme bowhunter and the next an extreme biker. He may not be biking where he hunts - but he may be biking where you hunt.
And, yes, the erosion/trail issues are indeed part of the big picture, but from a hunters standpoint - the displacement, disturbance, etc., of the critters is a bigger deal (to me).
The Elkhorns being the shining example - this is a Public Lands Issue. As hunters we don't get the last word. The user base continually and progressively gets larger and more complex as these wonderful attractive MT towns become CITIES.
I only have maybe twenty years left of actually being able to get into those areas affected by this issue. Lotsa MT people on here (& their kids) have a longer hunting lifetime ahead - disregard at your own peril........
Come next Friday, one maybe two, HT'ers will even remember the content of this thread - but Friday Tunes will get 21 MT forum members more reaction points for their totals..........
Like it/admit it or not, non consumptive users are becoming a force to be reckoned with - in larger numbers than the old hunting/fishing curmudgeons. Hell, lots of hunters/anglers are the same folks who want bike access to the same places they may bow hunt, bird hunt, etc. As NR stated - it's getting more and more complex out there in the boonies.
This is another issue hunters would do well to pay close attention - AND COMMENT on.
Uniting hunters on this one is probably a pipe dream - for reasons already illustrated and discussed. A lotta' Colter's wear the same flat hat while one day considering himself an extreme bowhunter and the next an extreme biker. He may not be biking where he hunts - but he may be biking where you hunt.
And, yes, the erosion/trail issues are indeed part of the big picture, but from a hunters standpoint - the displacement, disturbance, etc., of the critters is a bigger deal (to me).
The Elkhorns being the shining example - this is a Public Lands Issue. As hunters we don't get the last word. The user base continually and progressively gets larger and more complex as these wonderful attractive MT towns become CITIES.
I only have maybe twenty years left of actually being able to get into those areas affected by this issue. Lotsa MT people on here (& their kids) have a longer hunting lifetime ahead - disregard at your own peril........
Come next Friday, one maybe two, HT'ers will even remember the content of this thread - but Friday Tunes will get 21 MT forum members more reaction points for their totals..........
Last edited:
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Should this bike group be able to intervene in this lawsuit? Absolutely. Just like all the other groups involved have that right.
onpoint
Well-known member
Not sure where I saw on this thread where anyone suggested otherwise, but do carry on...........
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Just making a valid point, carry on.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
It’s definitely a balancing act between the groups, I think the more folks you get that participate in multiple activities the better as they learn to look at issues from several points of view. I bike a lot, but because I hunt I would rather see a lot of people on the bike trails so I see less people while hunting.
Thoughtful planning like directional trails makes a huge difference, there are backs seem far more crowded than loops and provide far more opportunities for negative interactions between users groups.
I think the main difference on impact between horses and bike is that for the most part bikers will avoid trails when wet, but riders will not. That makes a huge difference. Obviously there are a-holes in every group but I think there are probably 30x as many bikers as riders and .5% will use a trail when wet/muddy while maybe 70% of riders will... which makes sense, if I’m going hunting I’m going to use a trail no mater the condiditions... if I’m just going on an afternoon ride I will wait.
Thoughtful planning like directional trails makes a huge difference, there are backs seem far more crowded than loops and provide far more opportunities for negative interactions between users groups.
I think the main difference on impact between horses and bike is that for the most part bikers will avoid trails when wet, but riders will not. That makes a huge difference. Obviously there are a-holes in every group but I think there are probably 30x as many bikers as riders and .5% will use a trail when wet/muddy while maybe 70% of riders will... which makes sense, if I’m going hunting I’m going to use a trail no mater the condiditions... if I’m just going on an afternoon ride I will wait.
onpoint
Well-known member
I hope the following portion(s) of NR's post doesn't get lost in the cloud(s) of responder's varying agenda's, ideas, and perceptions. It is very specific and concise. And pertinent on a forum for DIY public land hunters. I've had mountain bikers blast through a ridgeline park, off trail, blowing the blue grouse there off the ridge - to set their wings and glide down to the lower oblivion. It is public land, we get what we get when we use it. I won't even whine because they were off trail. Hell, there's been those issues with ATV for years - I'm use to it.
But I'm a hunter, and I see things through that lense. I won't go on a mountain biking website and inject my views there. Because I'm a hunter..............
"............One must also consider the impact on and displacement of wildlife too though. The few studies I can find on this issue seem more varied in their answers. Some show mtn biking having a greater displacement effect on ungulates than hiking and livestock, while others show mountain biking having the least impact on certain types of animals such as golden eagles compared to even hiking. A very important thing to consider though, is that bikers cover vastly more ground in a given time period than hikers or livestock, and thus can disturb more wildlife per the accumulation of unit times.
The idea that mountain bikers not be limited to trails is insane to me. It results in guys riding down elk trails, essentially building and clearing heir own, until they become an increase to system itself, and the FS decides to adopt rouge- built trails as they have proposed to do in the Elkhorns. Bikes should be limited to codified trails.
Ultimately, I am very concerned about this mad push for a recreational economy in our wildest places. Especially those adjacent to the fastest growing chunks of our country - urban areas of the west."
But I'm a hunter, and I see things through that lense. I won't go on a mountain biking website and inject my views there. Because I'm a hunter..............
"............One must also consider the impact on and displacement of wildlife too though. The few studies I can find on this issue seem more varied in their answers. Some show mtn biking having a greater displacement effect on ungulates than hiking and livestock, while others show mountain biking having the least impact on certain types of animals such as golden eagles compared to even hiking. A very important thing to consider though, is that bikers cover vastly more ground in a given time period than hikers or livestock, and thus can disturb more wildlife per the accumulation of unit times.
The idea that mountain bikers not be limited to trails is insane to me. It results in guys riding down elk trails, essentially building and clearing heir own, until they become an increase to system itself, and the FS decides to adopt rouge- built trails as they have proposed to do in the Elkhorns. Bikes should be limited to codified trails.
Ultimately, I am very concerned about this mad push for a recreational economy in our wildest places. Especially those adjacent to the fastest growing chunks of our country - urban areas of the west."
RobG
Well-known member
You can't see how steep the trail is in the above picture.
Emerald Lake near Bozeman. Horses are often prohibited from being close to a mountain lake. I'm not sure here, but at least the have the sense to stay off this part.
I suppose it wouldn't take many horses to do similar damage, but that doesn't mean we should increase the number of users destroying our land. As Bozeman's population increases mountain bikers will exceed horse users by a large margin and they can get in the backcountry much easier and go farther when they get there. While horses can help people who can't hike, if you can ride a mountain bike you can walk.
R
rwc101
Guest
My bike doesn't come off the rack if I find a trail I was planning to ride is wet. Most mountain bikers do the same, but it only takes a few inconsiderate or thoughtless people to leave ruts. At the very least, I have never left big piles of shit on the trail.
RobG
Well-known member
I've also noticed that they tend to channelize water crossings, causing the water to divert onto the trail.
RobG
Well-known member
That's the problem: it only takes a small percentage. With increased population and the availability of bikes the number of stupid people will increase even if the percentage stays constant. And no matter how hard you try you can't fix stupid.
Similar threads
