Bill S3205 Human Powered Travel in Wilderness Areas

[gunney]

This bill could possibly allow bikes into the wilderness areas, it now awaits review by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

I personally do not feel they or any other mechanical travel means belong in our wilderness but I am interested in others points of view.

 

[Mountainguide]

I say no. I always thought the wild in wilderness was there for a reason. I personally don't think the cabins or bridges should be in there either but that's just mho.

 

[rmyoung1]

I know the mountain bike crowd will claim that they're easier on the trails than horses, but I think there's a lot to be said for wild places where people and animals travel only as fast as their feet carry them, places where the pace slows down. Wilderness areas are national treasures and I am not at all interested in seeing the definitions changed. One day I realize I won't be able to travel those trails any longer, but I hope we still have places like that out there for my kids and grandkids to travel at a walking pace.

 

[schmalts]

Human powered only on established trails. My thoughts is it's more human than riding a horse. E-bikes no. Really no push for or not. Is the current rules based on wheels or motorized or neither? And I do agree horses do more damage than mountain bikes. I will also add that bikes have little desired use off a trail so the majority of use will keep on established trails. Pushing a bike sucks.

 

[Mountainguide]

Plus the feeling you get riding a good horse looking at pristine country while you have your mules strung out behind you and your packs are riding straight while you have a cup of coffee, just makes you feel like life can't get any better

 

[Big Sky Dreamin]

This is the exact verbiage of the wilderness act as enacted by congress. Seems to me the intent of congress was to forbid possible future forms of mechanical transport in very broad terms.

Wilderness Act of 1964

Section 4.

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.

The main sponsors of this bill are friends of Congressman Bishop and industry not sportsmen and adventure seekers.

I have serious doubt that the ultimate intent is to allow for bikes.

 

[onpoint]

I know the mountain bike crowd will claim that they're easier on the trails than horses, but I think there's a lot to be said for wild places where people and animals travel only as fast as their feet carry them, places where the pace slows down. Wilderness areas are national treasures and I am not at all interested in seeing the definitions changed. One day I realize I won't be able to travel those trails any longer, but I hope we still have places like that out there for my kids and grandkids to travel at a walking pace.


Yup to this

Nope to the legislation.............the continuous chipping away at never ends.

 

[James Riley]

I know the mountain bike crowd will claim that they're easier on the trails than horses, but I think there's a lot to be said for wild places where people and animals travel only as fast as their feet carry them, places where the pace slows down. Wilderness areas are national treasures and I am not at all interested in seeing the definitions changed. One day I realize I won't be able to travel those trails any longer, but I hope we still have places like that out there for my kids and grandkids to travel at a walking pace.

Agreed. 100%.

 

[Southern Elk]

BHA linked this article on their Facebook page a day or two ago.

http://www.hcn.org/articles/biking-...8366&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter

 

[Southern Elk]

My opinion is that there are already millions of acres to ride bikes on. We need truly wild places in this country and this would take away from that.

 

[hank4elk]

I used to Mtn.bike alot,and had the job of maintaining many trails in the parks I worked. I only ride some on my place now & on my road.
The damage by bikes in the parks was massive and the bikers were always going off trail,cutting switchbacks, making a trail, etc.
Yeah horses under heavy constant use was a similar issue,but they would usually stay on trail,& those folks would be in the park working on trails every weekend.Same with the horsepackers & trail riders in the Sierra I worked with.They helped maintain trails and understood the impact.
I only had bad experiences from mtn bikers in parks & in the Nat. Forest .Sure they would show up before an event/race to help some,but by the next week a new trail or damage would be a week of repair for me to do, damage & erosion was done.
Don't get me going on the trespassing ,fence cutting & trails through ranches of friends.
Sorry bikers,but they have no place in the Wilderness.

 

[schmalts]

Thanks, this definitely spells out mechanical transport. IF you don't think the intent isn't bikes, may ask what it is?

 

[mtmuley]

A bike tire track is dfferent than a horse hoof. At least to me. mtmuIey

 

[antlerradar]

Bikes are actually much harder on trails than horses. The reason is that bikes leave long tracks that funnel rain water. This allows water to run down the trail quickly and this in turn causes more and faster erosion. Horse tracks are a series of pock marks that force rain water to pool. The pools slow down the runoff and this will help to keep erosion to a minimum.

 

[RobG]

They also spread the damage over much larger distances.

Allowing this technology is a slippery slope. Imagine how the technology will change over the next 50 years.

 

[el unit]

No bikes in wilderness is my vote.

 

[Jaeger Fischer]

The US Forest Service manages more than 232 million acres of land and only about 36 million of that acreage is designated wilderness. Mountain bikers have access to nearly 85% of the National Forest land in the U.S., they don't need to be in the Wilderness.

I also heartily disagree with the notion that mountain bikes don't cause damage and aren't ridden off trails. The bikes have become incredibly technically advanced and have amazing capabilities. They are frequently ridden down insanely steep slopes with or without a trail.

Perhaps the most important concern is the fact that a person on a mountain bike can cover many miles in a short period of time. One of the essential values of wilderness is the sense of solitude. Mountain bikes would allow more people to get further into the Wilderness and increase the total volume of users, degrading that sense of solitude.

I am a mountain biker, but I am also a former Wilderness Ranger. The Wilderness Act was intentionally crafted to exclude "mechanical transport". The proponents of this new legislation are only interested in fomenting debate over the original intent to create opportunities to weaken the protections provided by the Wilderness Act.

 

[u1299]

It never frickin ends, somebody always wants an exception for their chosen form of recreation, and the same old group of politicians come to their rescue.

 

[Lawnboy]

I'll start off by disclosing that I own a mountain bike, dirt bike, four wheeler, snowmobiles, snowshoes, 2 horses and have a pair of boots just so you know I'm well rounded in travel
I'm currently having a beef with our local mountain bike crowd in this nuts and berries town. We have a multiple use area behind the house (Hyalite) The FS has incorporated some motorized trails and many that are non. Lately the mountain bikers are out in swarms on the motorized (multi) use trails. Well when you go by them on a wheeler or dirt bike you get anywhere from dirty looks to cussing and flipping you the bird (last night) even with you passing them slowly. They think they own the friggin place. I'm sick of them! There are miles of trails around here that are closed to motorized vehicles go ride them if you don't want to see a vehicle. I encounter the same thing riding my horse. There are some trails that are just a highway of mountain bikers and I know that by going on them I could have a bad wreck with the horses spooking because some biker is coming down the trail at 15 mph. Now the biker has every right to be there and so do I but I've learned that if I ride there I'll be dealing with it so i avoid them. I know every crowd (horse, mtn bike, motorized) has a few butt holes that paint a bad picture for the group but lately it's been almost every mountain biker you pass on these multi use trails. Anyway I guess my point is I say screw them and leave it the way it is.
And another thing, I just want to punch these trail users in the throats when they complain about the horses. The reality is I'l bet that 90+% of these trails wouldn't exist if it wasn't for horses way back in the day. I'd love to see the factual data on how and who is still doing the bulk of trail maintenance on the Forest. I sure don't see many bikers lugging a chainsaw or even a pack saw or shovel around doing their part to help clear trail.
Again this isn't a bash at just mtn bikers I've met my share of arrogant horsemen who think they own the earth. My vote is leave it the way it is. Sorry I got off topic.

 

[Ben Long]

I love my mountain bike. I love my local wilderness area. (The Bob.) But they don't go together. Should be plenty of room on national forests for both.