MTB in wilderness? Maybe the time is now?

[tromano]

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=40768459&ni...ing-be-allowed-in-designated-wilderness-areas

Utah Republican Sens. Mike Lee and Orrin Hatch introduced abill this month that would give public land managers a two-year discretionary period of deciding what wilderness areas are open or closed to mountain biking. After that, areas not addressed would become open to biking on established trails by default.

Write your congress person.

ETA: more linkage http://www.sustainabletrailscoalition.org/press-releases/

 

[Mike Thomas]

I used to want bike access to wilderness designated areas. After all, if people could ride horses to go there why shouldn't I be allowed in on a bicycle? A bicycle does less damage than a horse. Now I feel the opposite. If the wilderness designation is there to allow for nature to be left wild, and I am kept out on a bicycle, why is anyone allowed in? Let's keep everyone out completely, no access at all- let nature have it, we humans ruin everything we touch.

 

[Erik Timmerman]

I don't know if the bill is perfect or not, but I'm all for it. IMBA just came out against it. Fuck those guys.

 

[Philpug]

I just read some of the comments...:shaking head:. Mountian bikes cause no more damage that horses, and they don't leave piles on the trail either. I know this is not a horses verses bike matter but what the do out here, bikes are allowed on even days and horses on odd ones, this protects the horses from getting spooked. One thing that is not being addresses for the mountain biking is the health issue. There is enough concern about this country getting fat and this will prohibit an activity where people are actually going out an excersizing.

 

[skibob]

I don't know if the bill is perfect or not, but I'm all for it. IMBA just came out against it. Fuck those guys.

Really? What reasons could they have for being against it? Only thing I can think of is holding out for something that grants even wider access?

 

[scott43]

I'm of two minds on this..maybe cuz I'm from a place where we have true wilderness...where nobody really wants to go.. I suspect that "wilderness" areas that they're speaking of have parking lots and trails in them. And this is about access where there is already access to hikers who drive there to hike. Or horseback riders who are nearby. So it's really just park access. At which point, yeah, if there are hikers and horses, why not mountain bikes? All or nothing. I can see hikers only..but after that, I don't see much difference.

 

[pais alto]

I'm not going to argue this, just state my position. I'm against it. Bikes are incompatible with wilderness values of quiet, contemplation, and natural qualities. I'm convinced that the more time you spend in wilderness areas, the more you will want bikes excluded. IME the people that want to ride bikes in wilderness areas don't spend much time there off of bikes.

The fitness/health issue doesn't wash for me - people that need to work out aren't going to ride in wilderness areas.

I wish horses weren't allowed (or cows either!), but they've been there longer than there have been designated wilderness areas and horseshit on the trails is really a minor annoyance noticed mostly by people that are only focused on the trails instead of all the landscape that surrounds them. Hikers came much, much later. Livestock was a necessary compromise made when the Wilderness act was being created.

All the "but they allow xxxxx which isn't/aren't as bad as bikes" arguments don't sway me. There is an explosion of bike trails and bike parks going on, both, rural and urban, there is no explosion of places where people can go hike without them.

 

[skibob]

I'm not going to argue this, just state my position. I'm against it. Bikes are incompatible with wilderness values of quiet, contemplation, and natural qualities. I'm convinced that the more time you spend in wilderness areas, the more you will want bikes excluded. IME the people that want to ride bikes in wilderness areas don't spend much time there off of bikes.

The fitness/health issue doesn't wash for me - people that need to work out aren't going to ride in wilderness areas.

I wish horses weren't allowed (or cows either!), but they've been there longer than there have been designated wilderness areas and horseshit on the trails is really a minor annoyance noticed mostly by people that are only focused on the trails instead of all the landscape that surrounds them. Hikers came much, much later. Livestock was a necessary compromise made when the Wilderness act was being created.

All the "but they allow xxxxx which isn't/aren't as bad as bikes" arguments don't sway me. There is an explosion of bike trails and bike parks going on, both, rural and urban, there is no explosion of places where people can go hike without them.

It does beg the question of what kind of use. I started mountain biking in the midwest 30 years ago (no mountains!). It was for me, and pretty much everybody else on mountain bikes, a way to explore off road. Cover greater distances. Touring, w/o pavement. If you wanted jumps and what not, that was what BMX bikes were for.

Now there is a whole lot of BMX in mountain biking. That's fine, but its not my thing. I'd love to get out into wilderness and ride. What I really want is an alternative to "downhill" mountain biking that is prevalent here.

Either way, I sure as hell wouldn't want to see a "bike park" in a wilderness area.

 

[Mike Thomas]

All the "but they allow xxxxx which isn't/aren't as bad as bikes" arguments don't sway me. There is an explosion of bike trails and bike parks going on, both, rural and urban, there is no explosion of places where people can go hike without them.

Those trails have been fought tooth and nail for (and FUNDED) by mountain bikers. When we are able to build these trails on public lands, they are ALWAYS designated 'multi-use', they are never 'bike only'. When we have new trails, hikers/runners/ dog walkers have new trails. Y'all need to simply say 'thank you'... and then pick up a shovel and start helping.

 

[scott43]

Those trails have been fought tooth and nail for (and FUNDED) by mountain bikers. When we are able to build these trails on public lands, they are ALWAYS designated 'multi-use', they are never 'bike only'. When we have new trails, hikers/runners/ dog walkers have new trails. Y'all need to simply say 'thank you'... and then pick up a shovel and start helping.

I don't think most people want to hike on MTB trails for fear of being run over and taking crap from MTB'ers. To me, building a trail is anathema to wilderness area. We have hundreds of thousands of square miles of wilderness up here. But mountain bikers won't go there..cuz there ain't no trails..and no parking lot..and no bike wash..

 

[pais alto]

Those trails have been fought tooth and nail for (and FUNDED) by mountain bikers. When we are able to build these trails on public lands, they are ALWAYS designated 'multi-use', they are never 'bike only'. When we have new trails, hikers/runners/ dog walkers have new trails. Y'all need to simply say 'thank you'... and then pick up a shovel and start helping.

Hey, I'm fine with that. You guys have fun on the (legal) trails you built. I'd say thanks if I used them...

 

[tromano]

The wilderness act was originally designed as the highest level of protection for wild lands. The goal was to preserve recreation and public access and to prohibit development or motorized uses. There are numerous wilderness areas, where some portion of trails have historically been used by mtb and are suitable for management as shared use trails. MTB are not an inherant threat to the natural landscape nor to wild lands nor is the activity fundamentally incompatible with the highest available public lands protections we have. Mtbs were wrongly banned in the first place. So I don't agree with those who say this is reducing the protections on wilderness.

 

[Tom K.]

I used to be fine without being allowed in Wilderness areas, until we started losing areas and trails that were legal for decades to both new wilderness areas and the "wilderness study area" designation, which has very little oversight before being implemented.

After recent huge losses in Idaho, Montana, and others, I'm all for this bill, and am a financial supporter of STC, which is the organization behind it.

Question: Somebody said IMBA has come out against the bill? I thought that was their old stand, and that IMBA and STC were playing nicely, now.

Finally, I would observe that this bill won't go anywhere. It's just the opening act in what will be a long drama. Gotta get started somewhere. Tired of going backwards!

 

[Josh Matta]

I don't think most people want to hike on MTB trails for fear of being run over and taking crap from MTB'ers. To me, building a trail is anathema to wilderness area. We have hundreds of thousands of square miles of wilderness up here. But mountain bikers won't go there..cuz there ain't no trails..and no parking lot..and no bike wash..

What about trails that are already built, people are already riding them, and then it get turns to wilderness? Now bikes are not allowed. This has happened. Heck it happened to riding spot down in WV that was even part of multiple races the now named Dolly Sods wilderness.

 

[Josh Matta]

It does beg the question of what kind of use. I started mountain biking in the midwest 30 years ago (no mountains!). It was for me, and pretty much everybody else on mountain bikes, a way to explore off road. Cover greater distances. Touring, w/o pavement. If you wanted jumps and what not, that was what BMX bikes were for.

Now there is a whole lot of BMX in mountain biking. That's fine, but its not my thing. I'd love to get out into wilderness and ride. What I really want is an alternative to "downhill" mountain biking that is prevalent here.

Either way, I sure as hell wouldn't want to see a "bike park" in a wilderness area.

I am certain no one is going to bike park the wilderness. The cost and logistics to do so is prohibitive. There is 1000s of miles of singletrack that bike can ride on in widlerness areas out west. In fact bikes do ride it still. There is poster on TGR from montana that has just kept riding trails in wilderness area out there. He almost never see anyone and its fairly hypocritical that forest rangers will actually cut down 1000s of trees to block of MTB trails when given the chances.

Just remember Democracy is a system in which Majorities rule over minorities though use of state violence, in the case of the blanket ban on bikes in wilderness area it has far more to do with special interest and user groups then bikes themselves. There is no reasonable reason to deny bike wilderness access. The only reason I hear is not compatible, and lots of hikers and horse back rider simple feel offended by the presence of a bike. Bike are not going to start populating steep fall line trails that people hike on. Case in point. There are Tons of hiking trails around here in Northern Vermont that bike are allowed on but simply do not go because they are unridable. If hikers can not stand sharing the trail with someone else they can alway find a trail that is steeper than what allows biking to happen. The Sierra Club, IMBA and horse pack operators are not friends of MTBers. STC is the only group actually fighting for access.

 

[Josh Matta]

I'm not going to argue this, just state my position. I'm against it. Bikes are incompatible with wilderness values of quiet, contemplation, and natural qualities. I'm convinced that the more time you spend in wilderness areas, the more you will want bikes excluded. IME the people that want to ride bikes in wilderness areas don't spend much time there off of bikes.

The fitness/health issue doesn't wash for me - people that need to work out aren't going to ride in wilderness areas.

I wish horses weren't allowed (or cows either!), but they've been there longer than there have been designated wilderness areas and horseshit on the trails is really a minor annoyance noticed mostly by people that are only focused on the trails instead of all the landscape that surrounds them. Hikers came much, much later. Livestock was a necessary compromise made when the Wilderness act was being created.

All the "but they allow xxxxx which isn't/aren't as bad as bikes" arguments don't sway me. There is an explosion of bike trails and bike parks going on, both, rural and urban, there is no explosion of places where people can go hike without them.

So your saying that because you personally do not feel that way you ban an entire means of transportation to vast area of land? So in the end what your saying is you think state violence should be used against those who wish to ride bike in these area? Do you really think that is necessary. What give hikers the right to their own trails anyway? Outside of tradition which is the worse reason for anything ever there is no reason.

Like I said if you want no bikes, find a steeper hiking trail. The only time I hike somewhere is when my bike will not work well.

 

[Erik Timmerman]

IMBA - https://www.imba.com/blog/mike-van-...ed-wilderness-dream-some-and-nightmare-others

 

[Tricia]

So your saying that because you personally do not feel that way you ban an entire means of transportation to vast area of land? So in the end what your saying is you think state violence should be used against those who wish to ride bike in these area? Do you really think that is necessary. What give hikers the right to their own trails anyway? Outside of tradition which is the worse reason for anything ever there is no reason.

Like I said if you want no bikes, find a steeper hiking trail. The only time I hike somewhere is when my bike will not work well.

Its unfair to say that Pais Alto is "for state violence" just because he has stated his opinion, (which he clearly says is just his opinion).

What I think is interesting is the difference in views in this thread from people who live in significantly different areas of the country.
I would think differently about this topic in Michigan than I do for the area here in Tahoe.

@skibob I took a mt bike clinic a few weeks ago near Tahoe Donner and found some really nice trails that I had no idea were there.

 

[pais alto]

So your saying that because you personally do not feel that way you ban an entire means of transportation to vast area of land? So in the end what your saying is you think state violence should be used against those who wish to ride bike in these area? Do you really think that is necessary. What give hikers the right to their own trails anyway? Outside of tradition which is the worse reason for anything ever there is no reason.

Like I said if you want no bikes, find a steeper hiking trail. The only time I hike somewhere is when my bike will not work well.

"state violence"?!? Sober up Josh, I didn't say anything like that. In fact, you're the only one that did. Try really hard not to fall into your old pattern of losing your shit because you didn't (or can't) read carefully. Mmmkay?

And my POV is no less valid or any more selfish than yours.

I will say though that if new wilderness areas are designated where there is a history of bike use, bikes should probably be grandfathered along those corridors. But that's not even close to what the Lee/Hatch bill says.

 

[scott43]

And my POV is no less valid or any more selfish than yours.

And that's what it really boils down to. There are different points of view..and likely they will be debates and a consensus will be made, probably according to the majority. And that's how things work. People are fundamentally selfish and will try to get what they want, then complain when they don't. Marin county has gone through this for 30 years. It's quite a narrative.