Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 20 of 94 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,869 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Here's an idea who's time is right, and long overdue (dang sierra club)..... properly managed wilderness that would allow (responsible, I hope) cyclists???

http://www.hoodrivernews.com/News%20stories/059%20wilderness.htm

This sounds too good to be true, and I plead all Oregonians to help the cause as much as possible (as I will from afar in NM), as the precedent set could be huge one day.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,040 Posts
wow!

that would be huge.

Something you could do locally is write Heather Wilson. Timo spoke with her about the MTBing in Wildernss issue (on our Otero hike) and she seemed receptive to looking futher into it. If you wrote her and sent her this artical it would be a good step to gaining her support in opening up somemore MTb areas. Espically since it seems every mountain top in NM is wlderness.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
112 Posts
glenzx said:
Here's an idea who's time is right, and long overdue (dang sierra club)..... properly managed wilderness that would allow (responsible, I hope) cyclists???
Come on... Wildneress land accounts for only a very small fraction of public land, and I hope (and will fight) to keep it protected from mechanized vehicles, be it strollers or hang-gliders or bikes.

I am sure I will be roundly castrated for the blasphemy on this board… but I am also a hiker and wilderness fanatic.

The idea behind wilderness was to preserve the land in way before machines had their way with the land. We barely have any of this land left in this country, and I hope we can save just a little of it for the future generations.

It is important to me for me children to see what the world looked like before the machines, as Jim Morrison once famously put, "ripped her and bit her and tied her with fences."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,040 Posts
did you read the artical????

the land in oregon is NOT what you call wilderness. it's land that has been used by "MAN" that is now being taken way.

True wilderness should be protected. But if it is truely entened to remain wilderness then people (hiking or on horse) should NOT be allowed there. if they are allowed to hike or ride a horse then I should be allowed to ride my bike.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,876 Posts
round00 said:
Come on... Wildneress land accounts for only a very small fraction of public land, and I hope (and will fight) to keep it protected from mechanized vehicles, be it strollers or hang-gliders or bikes.

I am sure I will be roundly castrated for the blasphemy on this board… but I am also a hiker and wilderness fanatic.

The idea behind wilderness was to preserve the land in way before machines had their way with the land. We barely have any of this land left in this country, and I hope we can save just a little of it for the future generations.

It is important to me for me children to see what the world looked like before the machines, as Jim Morrison once famously put, "ripped her and bit her and tied her with fences."
As you can see in the article the MTB's would be on a very small fraction of the "very small fraction" of wilderness land. The wilderness bill cuts access for MTB's where they have been allowed before therefore I am against it.
 

·
beer thief
Joined
·
4,926 Posts
round00 said:
Come on... Wildneress land accounts for only a very small fraction of public land, and I hope (and will fight) to keep it protected from mechanized vehicles, be it strollers or hang-gliders or bikes.....
I'm not going to rip into you, but I offer this. The Wilderness Act (1964) was defined long before MTBs were in use and was written to prevent motorized use. The Act is flawed - any legislation that allows horses but prohibits bikes is not based on scientific analysis of environmental impacts.

Mountain biking is compatible with other non-motorized uses. Mountain biking has been good for the National Forests, good for the local economies and is a significant source of volunteer support for caring for USFS trails. This should be nurtured, and not shut out because of the flaws in the Wilderness designation.

Now you can put on your flame-proof suit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,530 Posts
glenzx said:
Here's an idea who's time is right, and long overdue (dang sierra club)..... properly managed wilderness that would allow (responsible, I hope) cyclists???

http://www.hoodrivernews.com/News%20stories/059%20wilderness.htm

This sounds too good to be true, and I plead all Oregonians to help the cause as much as possible (as I will from afar in NM), as the precedent set could be huge one day.
Here's another article about the same issue:

http://cotamtb.org/news.php?040722131411t
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
112 Posts
radair said:
I'm not going to rip into you, but I offer this. The Wilderness Act (1964) was defined long before MTBs were in use and was written to prevent motorized use. The Act is flawed - any legislation that allows horses but prohibits bikes is not based on scientific analysis of environmental impacts.
Actually, if you look at the legislative history, bikes, gliders, and chain saws were all mentioned...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
112 Posts
brianc said:
the land in oregon is NOT what you call wilderness. it's land that has been used by "MAN" that is now being taken way.

True wilderness should be protected. But if it is truely entened to remain wilderness then people (hiking or on horse) should NOT be allowed there. if they are allowed to hike or ride a horse then I should be allowed to ride my bike.
To be intellectually honest, there is virtually no land that has not been "used by "MAN" as you say...

Many designated wilderness areas are just the same as the lands discussed in this article in terms of its natural state.

Take Dolly Sods wilderness in West Virginia for example - it was once logged and used as a military weapons testing range (hence the signs when you enter warning to watch out for unexploded ordinance).

I think you are confused as to the meaning of "wilderness" as intended by the drafters of the 1964 wilderness act. Wilderness does not mean "land where no people tread," it means land that is not maintained and where no mechanical (not "motorized") vehicles tread. Read the act and the legislative history (there are thousands of pages of committee reports, committee minutes...) and then you can speak of wilderness in an educated manner.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,869 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Hold on now.... 1964? No, it was in the 80's.....

...that the sierra club pushed (HARD!) to have the language "amended" to say "mechanized" in place of "motorized"!!! This was a pre-emptive attack on mtbiking in it's infancy if i recall correctly.

this is why I will detest the sierra club and all involved in the infamous legislature that allows a pack train into "wilderness" but not my 25 lb. bicycle. totally ridiculous. here in NM there are vast areas of wilderness that should be protected from man, on foot, horse or bicycle. There are also vast areas of wilderness that ideally would be 'graded' to allow for some access to cyclists. The trails that have primarily rocky treads, sustainable routes, and reasonable grades and are not "pristine" if you will, should be able to be ridden, IMO. Really, I believe that if horses are allowed, cyclists should be allowed, unless the trail is ridiculously technical or would be harmed by cyclists, MORE than by horses. Say for example, a very rocky/babyheady/steep/off-camber series of switchbacks in a trail that is primarily unsuitable for cycling anyhow... though a horse is sure to damage that sort of trail anyhow!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
935 Posts
round00 said:
The idea behind wilderness was to preserve the land in way before machines had their way with the land. We barely have any of this land left in this country, and I hope we can save just a little of it for the future generations.
I don't agree with this. In my opinion, the function of wilderness areas is to protect remote areas from heavily invasive endeavors such as mining and logging (at least how we currently allow logging: cut everything down and let all of the silt and soil run downhill, thus choking the rivers and sterilizing the slopes). Mountain bikes, like horses and hikers so minimally impact these areas (some soil erosion, that's about it) that their use should not be restricted. If these uses aren't permitted, then the entire area is closed from human use-that's not right, nor fair.

I do agree with radair:
"I'm not going to rip into you, but I offer this. The Wilderness Act (1964) was defined long before MTBs were in use and was written to prevent motorized use. The Act is flawed - any legislation that allows horses but prohibits bikes is not based on scientific analysis of environmental impacts."

I can see the attraction of hiking and having exclusive access to pristine areas. But, if you're not willing to reciprocate by providing equally pristine areas to be solely used by mountain bikers, then, your support of the currently defined use of wilderness is, in my opinion, inappropriate. I base that statement on my earlier one where I claim that the enviromental impact of hikers/bikers/equestrians is miniscule compared to clearcut logging and strip mining.

The wilderness act should be reinterpreted to allow mountain bikers on mountain trails. Is that so unreasonable?
 

·
beer thief
Joined
·
4,926 Posts
No, the original language in the 1964 Act reads as follows:

"PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN USES
(c) Except as specifically provided for in this Act, and subject to existing private rights, there shall be no commercial enterprise and no permanent road within any wilderness area designated by this Act, and except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of this Act (including measures required in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the area), there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any such area."

This was interpreted in 1986 to include bicycles & hang gliders as prohibited use, but XC skiing was deemed OK.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
112 Posts
radair said:
Sure, by someone's interpretation in 1986.
It's not an interpretation. Legislative history is used to determine the intent of the legislatures who drafted/enacted the legislation.

The legislatures who wrote and enacted the wilderness act clearly intended to exclude all mechanical vehicles... No interpreation involved.

Again, there are thousands of pages of committee reports, minutes, and further, there are entire articles and books written on the subject. You can see for yourself.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,131 Posts
Damn..who cares? It's a double standard and it's BS as long as pack-animals are allowed and bikes are prohibited.

Multiple studies show bikes to be no more harmfull than hikers.

Multiple studies show horses to cause damage on par with motorcycles.

Ban horses and allow hikers and bikes, or ban them all -is my stance on the issue.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
112 Posts
rippling over canyons said:
I don't agree with this. In my opinion, the function of wilderness areas is to protect remote areas from heavily invasive endeavors such as mining and logging (at least how we currently allow logging: cut everything down and let all of the silt and soil run downhill, thus choking the rivers and sterilizing the slopes).
We aren't talking about your definition of wilderness. We are talking about wilderness as defined by the Wilderness Act.

rippling over canyons said:
I can see the attraction of hiking and having exclusive access to pristine areas. But, if you're not willing to reciprocate by providing equally pristine areas to be solely used by mountain bikers, then, your support of the currently defined use of wilderness is, in my opinion, inappropriate. I base that statement on my earlier one where I claim that the enviromental impact of hikers/bikers/equestrians is miniscule compared to clearcut logging and strip mining.
Reciprocate? Designated wilderness comprises less than 2% of public lands in the United States. See the included maps - it is a good illustration of how little land is designated wilderness. Also, nearly 50% of the designated wilderness is in Alaska.

Have you ever ridden Fruita, Colorado? Of the greater Fruita area, nearly all of the public land is open to mountain bikers. Only Colorado National Monument and a few very small Wilderness Study Areas are off limits to bikers.

Have you ever ridden Moab? Of the greater Moab area, besides Arches and Canyonlands (well, the trails, you can still ride the "roads" including the White Rim) bikers can ride anywhere - where anywhere equals at least 85 % of the public lands within an hour of Moab.

Have you ever ridden the Central Colorado Rockies? Same goes there....

Have you ever ridden the Monongahela National Forest in West Virginia? Again, thousands of miles of trails and only a few of the trails are in designated wilderness...

Shall I go on?

rippling over canyons said:
The wilderness act should be reinterpreted to allow mountain bikers on mountain trails. Is that so unreasonable?
Yes, in light of the statistics, it is very unreasonable. It is only reasonable to people who have a "me!, me!, me!" attitude.
 

Attachments

·
Banned
Joined
·
11,257 Posts
round00 said:
Come on... Wildneress land accounts for only a very small fraction of public land, and I hope (and will fight) to keep it protected from mechanized vehicles, be it strollers or hang-gliders or bikes.

I am sure I will be roundly castrated for the blasphemy on this board… but I am also a hiker and wilderness fanatic.

The idea behind wilderness was to preserve the land in way before machines had their way with the land. We barely have any of this land left in this country, and I hope we can save just a little of it for the future generations.

It is important to me for me children to see what the world looked like before the machines, as Jim Morrison once famously put, "ripped her and bit her and tied her with fences."
EXACTLY. WHY do people need to ride their MTBs in Wilderness? Don't they know how to walk? Can't they hike/backpack?

Yes, I'm a rider, a passionate one, I ride XC, FR, DH on hardtail, SS, FS rigs. I live near several Wilderness areas. I have NO INTEREST in getting access to the Wilderness. I can walk in any time I like, and that's good enough for me.

It should be good enough for EVERYONE.

I still have NOT heard a good argument for opening Wilderness to MTBs. Anyone care to try?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
112 Posts
Jm. said:
Damn..who cares? It's a double standard and it's BS as long as pack-animals are allowed and bikes are prohibited.

Multiple studies show bikes to be no more harmfull than hikers.

Multiple studies show horses to cause damage on par with motorcycles.

Ban horses and allow hikers and bikes, or ban them all -is my stance on the issue.
I agree with you that horses cause just as much damage. The differnece with horses is that they are not ridden by (not saying all bikes are, just there is a different ethic) by agro-fuks who want to warp down the trails.

I hate riding trails with hikers. I love bike only trails. Why would I want to worry about plowing into some guy with a 40 lb. pack hoofing it up a long hill?

To be honest, though, after hiking several thousand miles over 20 some years in wilderness areas, I have not seen too many horses - sure I have seen some and sure there are places where there are more than others. But overall, there just aren't a lot of horses tramping around wilderness areas.

Finally, in regards to wilderness areas in proximity to urban areas: it would ruin the wilderness. Quite a few bikers do not share the wilderness ethic. To be sure, I don't want a bunch of agro-fuks zooming by me in the wilderness or national parks.

Mountain bikers can already bike on a lion's share of public lands... the existence of a small percentage of land that is not for moutain biking is not going to hurt you.

This is exactly why I would hike in the Canyonlands and not along the Slick Rock Trail.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,131 Posts
gonzostrike said:
EXACTLY. WHY do people need to ride their MTBs in Wilderness? Don't they know how to walk? Can't they hike/backpack?

Yes, I'm a rider, a passionate one, I ride XC, FR, DH on hardtail, SS, FS rigs. I live near several Wilderness areas. I have NO INTEREST in getting access to the Wilderness. I can walk in any time I like, and that's good enough for me.

It should be good enough for EVERYONE.

I still have NOT heard a good argument for opening Wilderness to MTBs. Anyone care to try?
Why should you be allowed to walk into wilderness?

And if your answer is in any way supportive of doing so, since it is PROVEN that mountain bikes cause no more damage than hikers, why should they be prohibited?

The reason why people want to mountain bike in wilderness is simple.

There is singletrack there.
 

·
More Chasmism
Joined
·
798 Posts
round00 said:
Have you ever ridden Moab? Of the greater Moab area, besides Arches and Canyonlands (well, the trails, you can still ride the "roads" including the White Rim) bikers can ride anywhere - where anywhere equals at least 85 % of the public lands within an hour of Moab.
The truth is a little more nuanced then this. There is a lot of land around Moab that is merely BLM or State Land, but there are also several large plots that carry a Wilderness Study Area designation. The 24 Hours of Moab Course borders one of these. Biking is illegal in a WSA, except on the few sections of trail which existed before the WSA designation (such as Hidden Valley and the singletrack at the end of Porcupine). I'm glad that the WSA designation exists, and I'm satisfied with the current proportion of wilderness to non-wilderness land around Moab. Hikers have a point in saying that bikes don't need to go everywhere.

hfly
 
1 - 20 of 94 Posts
Top