Bill S3205 Human Powered Travel in Wilderness Areas
- Thread starter gunney
- Start date
rlmmatt
Active member
I'm not sure I agree with all these posts if more people are using the land doesn't that make it harder for the government to get rid of them and sell them off. I know that foot traffic is better but it doesn't due much good if the land is eventually sold off. Through state transfer. Am I missing something here
Hunting Wife
Well-known member
It's simple....every acre of land can not be all things to all people. Designating areas is the best tool we have to ensure all users have places to go where their needs and expectations can be met. Wilderness is that place for those who seek out areas with the minimum human impacts possible.
I think these areas are the only places left where we can really understand and connect with a certain piece of our history and the lives the people that came before us lived. The pioneering spirit and rugged individualism are such big parts of our identity as Americans ( particularly in the West), but how many places can you go today to actually experience what those ideas mean in practice? I look at the wilderness areas not just as pieces of land, but as remnants of our culture. I would like to be able to enjoy an experience as similar to that experienced by our forbears as possible. I would also like future generations to have that opportunity.
TOTALLY AGREE!! And while we are on the dumb azz rules of WY, why can't someone do something about us not being able to corner cross on checker-boarded BLM land. That chaps my hide as much as anything. There has to be way more checkerboarded public land that is unable to be accessed by us, the public that supposedly owns it, on our 2 feet or horses or bikes, than there is land that the bikers can't access.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
I mt bike more than I utilize wilderness areas. I would love to be able to peddle in the wilderness areas, but the main reason would be because I could get to my favorite locations on a saturday afternoon when it should take two days to get there. Which is why I don't think bikes should be allowed. The truly remote places wouldn't be nearly as remote anymore.
If mt bikers were to push for increased access I would prefer to open up more national parks. Those areas are pretty but not exactly remote... the ones here in washington are so full of people though they're quite beautiful solitude is hard to come by, which makes more sense for mt biking.
If mt bikers were to push for increased access I would prefer to open up more national parks. Those areas are pretty but not exactly remote... the ones here in washington are so full of people though they're quite beautiful solitude is hard to come by, which makes more sense for mt biking.
James Riley
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2015
- Messages
- 1,821
Most National Parks I've been in are indeed Wilderness, if you get a few hundred meters off the road. 99.99% of the people who visit stay on or close to the roads. I'm not familiar with all Parks though. I'm most familiar with Yellowstone and Rocky Mountain, but I went into Quinault one Christmas and didn't see a soul for weeks.
Your point is well taken though. National Parts are a better fit for bikes than Wilderness, in my opinion. It would still have to be done with sensitivity and limited to certain areas.
Your point is well taken though. National Parts are a better fit for bikes than Wilderness, in my opinion. It would still have to be done with sensitivity and limited to certain areas.
D
Deleted member 20812
Guest
As a mountain biker and wilderness user, I disagree with allowing mechanized travel in existing wilderness areas. That said, I also understand and agree with other land use designation approaches because wilderness areas do exclude a huge user group. One local bike club does a huge amount of trail work a nearby roadless area.
Bambistew
Well-known member
High country tune-ups are a bit less rewarding on a mount bike. Keep them out.
mkmatheson
New member
This bill was sponsored by Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) and is enthusiastically supported by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), both vocal supporters of federal land transfer. I suspect the bill is aimed at agitating the environmental outdoor community. Hunters and horsemen collateral damage.
Hunting Wife
Well-known member
In various proposals for land transfer, national parks and Wilderness areas have at times been identified as lands that would not be included for transfer. I wonder if this is an effort to relocate some user groups into the wilderness areas, thereby reducing opposition by said user groups to transferring non-wilderness public land?
I like our wilderness areas the way they are. I would love to be able to use a wheeled game cart at one here close to home. Just can't see where a cart causes any damage compared to some of the guys I see dragging a sled. As far as mountain bikers not going off of established trails I don't buy it. My family spent a couple weeks in Sedona AZ several years ago. I'm the early bird in the group so I hiked to a new peak every morning to watch the sun rise. Most were only 2-3 miles that way I could hike back down and be at the cabin by 10 when the rest of the family actually got up and felt like doing something. I was shocked by the number of mountain bikers that would actually carry their bikes to the top of these short flat peaks and ride around on top of them for a little while and some would attempt to ride down while others would carry back down. I never got into mountain biking since I live about 300 foot above sea level but I just couldn't wrap my brain around the appeal of what they were doing.
Similar threads
