Wilderness: Mountain bicycle vs Boots. Interesting read.

[jlmatthew]

Its riding a bike, not developing a shopping mall. And no I am not a bike rider, but rather proving a point that everyone see's things differently and holds bias.

 

[Straight Arrow]

The intent of the act was to preserve the land from the development that had consumed much of the continent, not prevent the use of any technology.

Depends on the definition of "technology". Obviously the Act has been interpreted through law and policy to preclude the intrusion of mechanization, to include the wheels discussed in this thread.

To further emphasize the point, consider that trail work involves the use of crossbuck saws, pulaskis, shovels and other hand tools ... not chainsaws, mini-excavators, generators or electrical devices.

 

[jmden]

Sytes, you talk a big game of "compromise" that many aren't going to buy. Its BS.

There are about 109 million acres of designated wilderness in the United States...about 640 million acres of federal public lands. Less than 1 out of 6 acres is wilderness. You can cry all day long about the need for wilderness advocates to "compromise" on the 109 million, but I think giving mountain bikers etc. 531 million acres of public lands to ride their bikes on is more than enough. If its not...well too friggin' bad, buy your own place to ride. If anyone should be asking for more compromise, its wilderness advocates, they should be demanding that more of the 531 million acres that is not wilderness should be designated. The case is much stronger that we haven't done a good job at all of designating lower elevation lands and there is a real lack of habitat diversity within the Wilderness Act. Again, a massive compromise that the wilderness advocates in 1964 conceded...a vast majority of the designated wilderness in 1964 had very little resource extraction value and a lot of it is higher elevation type habitat. Exactly why the Wilderness Act is often said to have a done a great job of "protecting rock and ice"...which isn't far from the truth.

As far as simply compromising away 54 years of having places where mechanized travel is prohibited to make a few johnie-come-lately mountain bikers happy...not one bit interested. Go ride your bike in the 531 million acres you have and leave the 109 million as they are.

I'm done compromising.

As far as Eric Melson...where was he and his mountain bike in 1964? He makes the claim he doesn't want to "swoop in at the last minute"...well, buddy, your 54 years late to the party. Take your mountain bike and your own advice and tell it to someone that cares.

Exactly!! They have plenty of other places to go. Let someplace be as much like 'it used to be' as possible!

NO MOUNTAIN BIKES IN WILDERNESS AREAS! NOT NOW! NOT EVER!

 

[PrairieHunter]

Given that you can't physically ride a bike, unless you are Danny Macaskill, on rock or ice it's probably like 8 million acres. The whole issues is centered around a few specific trails and/or a few places on the border of Wilderness.

People ride bikes in the strangest places these days. I was up at Curt Gowdy last year and a sheriff was on a bike back up on a little winding trail full of rocks headed for the waterfall that you could never actually ride through. I guess they must enjoy pushing their bikes down those trails.

I saw this in the sandhills this year where a game cart was allowed to go back in an area that was walking or horseback only. I thought to myself what's the difference in a game cart and one of those fat tired bikes that would go through sand????

We need to have places that people can't ride bikes. Especially with e-bikes and bikes with weed eater engines already pushing the spirit of some trails allowing regular bikes to operate.

 

[PrairieHunter]

One that gets me is the folks on "Last Alaskans" operating snowmobiles, chainsaws, generators, etc in wilderness.

 

[BuzzH]

One that gets me is the folks on "Last Alaskans" operating snowmobiles, chainsaws, generators, etc in wilderness.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe they are in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge...not wilderness.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

As it's Monday and far too early in the week for this level of keyboard warrioring let's take a short break to appreciate some beautiful scenery and amazing athleticism in Scotland...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQ_IQS3VKjA

... you may now continue waving pitchforks for you respective tribes...


* This commercial break brought to you by life, it's pretty short try to enjoy some of it.

 

[PrairieHunter]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe they are in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge...not wilderness.

Could be. I think only 8 million acres of the refuge are wilderness.

 

[sschultz]

God I love stirring the pot

 

[Sytes]

Charles have you ever set foot in the Blue Joint or Sapphire WSA’s?

Sapphire's, yes.

Buzz, I shared an article and the ever growing division between public land owners.
Off the bat, I'm not a fan of mtn bikes in our designated Wilderness areas however, over many respectful debates with fellow MTB - MMBA / IMBA members who are friends and fellow co-workers, I believe they have a basis for their position.

They also know I am an avid believer in the true, "Public Lands in All Public Hands". They've challenged me on this point, shared reasonable context for their belief to access the Wilderness, etc.

They've been smacked over and over... Lost several hundreds of miles of mtn bike trails over the last 10 years in MT alone. It has caused them to become more unified in their voice and MT has become the epicenter for our Public Land Owners.

From RWA's and WSA's that BHA, Earthjustice and the likes of the Sierra Club keep fighting them over - it's caused them to unify nationally to defend their activities on our public lands from the assault on their love for our public lands. Now they are in a fight that was shoved on them. Hense, my position the division is growing.

And here it weaves back to the opening post. It's still possible to recover and likely strengthen however, since BHA vocally opposed this small group of riders in the Sapphire's and Blue Joint WSA's - I doubt BHA is strong enough to reverse their position and hold valued discussions to support the trails originally legal to ride. 3100 comments noted in support of this small group of Backcountry bicycle riders. Ya, ya... Bet that means jack shit to your process of thought. Interesting enough, small portions, between your piss personal comments, are reasonable to read.

 

[jmden]

We need to have places that people can't ride bikes. Especially with e-bikes and bikes with weed eater engines already pushing the spirit of some trails allowing regular bikes to operate.

They have plenty of great places to ride bikes. We have very few places to try and experience true wilderness on foot or hoof. The mtn bike hoardes/armies will totally screw up the wilderness areas. NO! I've seen mtn bikers in some of the most pristine areas of alpine country there is here in WA--right on the edge of designated wilderness or national parks trails. The have no need for anymore country to ride in. There is absolutely no reason they need more places to go.

Ridiculous...

NO MOUNTAIN BIKES IN WILDERNESS AREAS! NOT NOW! NOT EVER!

 

[Mountainguide]

If bikers and other means of mechanized travel is ever pushed through to allow travel in designated wilderness, you will find me traveling with a hacksaw with a metal blade cutting apart all the things metal I cross paths with. Absolutely no place for them in places like that. People need to realize once we lose the few places we have, there’s no getting it back, everybody will get there hands in it at some point or another. Some people will always want more until they have exhausted that particular resource til it’s gone for everybody, then move on and ruin another interest groups resource. So again explain to me where you want me to consider my opinion on entertaining the idea of multiple use in wilderness areas I choose to explore where the exact reason I’m there is to avoid goons with wheels and attitudes of self entitlement?

 

[Sytes]

...and attitudes of self entitlement?

Meh...

 

[Straight Arrow]

Off the bat, I'm not a fan of mtn bikes in our designated Wilderness areas ...

Your rhetoric says otherwise.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

Your rhetoric says otherwise.

Yep, it sure does!

 

[Sytes]

Your rhetoric says otherwise.

Straight Arrow,

Open mind to evaluate various positions leads to a better understanding. Your bias limits your ability to constructively review. I understand - and this is a core reason for the division gaining momentum.

Such statements, as mentioned, by the late Senator, Frank Church a sponsor of the original Wilderness Act of 1964 pre bicycle ban, stated the following:

..it was not the intent of Congress that wilderness be administered in so pure a fashions to needlessly restrict its customary use and enjoyment. Quite the contrary, Congress fully intended that wilderness should be managed to allow its use by a wide spectrum of Americans.

Emphasis on, "allow its use by a wide spectrum of Americans"...

My bias is opposed to mtn bikes in the designated Wilderness protected areas however this does not preclude me from evaluating all sides to an argument. I believe, if effective dialog took place, a compromise could take place regarding wilderness STUDY areas and these pseudo, Recommended Wilderness Areas, would be GREAT areas to find trails to accommodate our public land users...

 

[Deleted member 20812]

And here it weaves back to the opening post. It's still possible to recover and likely strengthen however, since BHA vocally opposed this small group of riders in the Sapphire's and Blue Joint WSA's - I doubt BHA is strong enough to reverse their position and hold valued discussions to support the trails originally legal to ride. 3100 comments noted in support of this small group of Backcountry bicycle riders. Ya, ya... Bet that means jack shit to your process of thought. Interesting enough, small portions, between your piss personal comments, are reasonable to read.

You are interweaving Wilderness Areas and WSA. It’s simple in my mind.

Absolutely no amending the Wilderness Act, and evaluate WSAs on a case by case basis.

 

[Sytes]

You are interweaving Wilderness Areas and WSA. It’s simple in my mind.

Absolutely no amending the Wilderness Act, and evaluate WSAs on a case by case basis.

I am sharing the entirety of the setting based on the mtn bike coalition forming and BHA's position, along with cronies such as Earthjustice, etc. BHA has directly opposed the WSA's mtn bike use in the Sapphire Blue Joint, even though it was originally open to mtn bike use. This causes a rift.

 

[BuzzH]

Sapphire's, yes.

Buzz, I shared an article and the ever growing division between public land owners.
Off the bat, I'm not a fan of mtn bikes in our designated Wilderness areas however, over many respectful debates with fellow MTB - MMBA / IMBA members who are friends and fellow co-workers, I believe they have a basis for their position.

They also know I am an avid believer in the true, "Public Lands in All Public Hands". They've challenged me on this point, shared reasonable context for their belief to access the Wilderness, etc.

They've been smacked over and over... Lost several hundreds of miles of mtn bike trails over the last 10 years in MT alone. It has caused them to become more unified in their voice and MT has become the epicenter for our Public Land Owners.

From RWA's and WSA's that BHA, Earthjustice and the likes of the Sierra Club keep fighting them over - it's caused them to unify nationally to defend their activities on our public lands from the assault on their love for our public lands. Now they are in a fight that was shoved on them. Hense, my position the division is growing.

And here it weaves back to the opening post. It's still possible to recover and likely strengthen however, since BHA vocally opposed this small group of riders in the Sapphire's and Blue Joint WSA's - I doubt BHA is strong enough to reverse their position and hold valued discussions to support the trails originally legal to ride. 3100 comments noted in support of this small group of Backcountry bicycle riders. Ya, ya... Bet that means jack shit to your process of thought. Interesting enough, small portions, between your piss personal comments, are reasonable to read.

The Division happens only because of people like you.

You're too short sighted, and supposedly "care" about the mountain bike groups, all the while proving nothing more than being a useful idiot to those that are causing the division. Backcountry hunters, backcountry horsemen, etc. are not the group looking to change 54 years of the wilderness act and its intention of providing non-mechanized travel into them. Its mountain bikers trying to demand that all those users, all those people that fought for wilderness nearly 6 decades ago...concede and give them their way. Well F-them...if not for the work of those dedicated to the idea of Wilderness wayyyy before many of them were born, they wouldn't have wilderness areas to cry abut not being able to ride their bikes in.

The division you are crying about is self-induced by the groups looking to trash established wilderness law.

Wilderness advocates defending their position and what they fought tirelessly for is not a divisive stance.

Just like NR hunters that cry they aren't going to defend public lands if they don't have equal access with Residents for the State wildlife resources...I'm not going to put up with that chit. Just like I'm not going to put up with being threatened that mountain bikers wont advocate for public lands if they cant ride their bike everywhere they want. If you/they only want to be an advocate out of convenience and threaten to divide the cause if you don't get your way...well, IMO, you're a sorry excuse for a human being and never were an advocate to start with. At that point, you're part of the problem and I deal with problems all day long...

 

[Sytes]

Buzz, your personal attacks, as the Wyoming BHA Chairman are supportive of your interest to counter anything outside the boots only position of Public Land Owners. You have caused some to question your public persona while others to cheer at your aggressive behavior. It's evident this is in BHA's interest so cheers for doing your bull dog-ish part for their cause. Well supported by your BHA brethren here though, a few pm's share otherwise. I bet you bring in more than you lose though...

You are flatly incorrect on your attempt to falsely present 54 years prior when this was written. U.S. Forest Service in 1966 stated the following:

“Mechanical transport,” as herein used, shall include any contrivance which travels over
ground, snow, or water on wheels, tracks, skids, or by flotation and is propelled by a
nonliving power source contained or carried on or within the device.

Call whatever names you want and throw your BHA tirade at me all you want - I'll be your huckleberry... though you know this is true... you are simply the bat of aggression and refuse to acknowledge such. It was far later that the change was made... AFTER Frank Church's comment;

..it was not the intent of Congress that wilderness be administered in so pure a fashions to needlessly restrict its customary use and enjoyment. Quite the contrary, Congress fully intended that wilderness should be managed to allow its use by a wide spectrum of Americans.

Spin away, Buzz.

though as you say, carry on... as will I.