E-Bikes

[Talk2elk]

As I have grown older and worn down a bit , just one knee replacement I have become more of a balanced use guy. There is no way I can hunt the places I used to hike into.. With that said I am alright with any bike that you still have to pedal on closed roads and closed logging roads not wilderness but am against using bikes on wilderness trails or roads. I believe there is still compromise for all of us. First and foremost the needs of the animals we all love to hunt need to come first period and if that means we have to walk then so be it. We all need to keep in mind as we get older some policies we think are great when younger and more capable may not be so great as we age.

 

[Addicting]

@BuzzH @wllm1313

I’ve been in my reloading room most of this morning thinking about this topic and you responses. I had read that article and many like it.

I have never disagreed that some of the landscape is being loved to death. In those articles there is scientific research being done as to a cause and several causes are listed. Ranging from Mother Nature to people hiking thru a calving ground and everything in between.

Wllm1313, your other videos prove my point that the people are already there. Adding a motor to it won’t change that. In fact I would wager that the purists ultra Mountain bikers your showing are likely just as much against adding motors as you are.

This discussion started out about Corey Jacobson using a Ebike and our thoughts them. Right now they are a legal means of transportation while hunting. The folks using them are not doing anything wrong. It has no bearing on wether I agree or disagree with their place in outdoor recreation. Technology has expanded the same in your non motorized expensive gear allowing you to get there easier and hunt more comfortably than 1979.

As I have said since the beginning Ebikes are not the issue. All of those articles confirm my stance.

Your view on what is acceptable and unacceptable outdoor recreation is different than the Ebike users. You both are legally using advanced technology in different areas. Wether it is your Onxmaps on your $700 IPhone or on a Ebike. Your both part of the same crowd loving it to death.

Buzz it isn’t the 1970s anymore and it never will be. If you want change then complaining about it Or my thoughts in a Internet forum won’t do you any good. Come up with a whole sided compromise and push that thru your channels. Technology is not going away and that land belongs to all users, not just the purist hunters on this forum.

 

[Addicting]

As far as the money comment goes, any HUNTER who spends $2700 on a bike to ride it down a trail, leave it, and hike two hours in to the spots you reference is a idiot. With the amount of risk of the bike still being there in working order when you got back simply isn’t worth it. Divorce over a lost bike is a good deterrent.

 

[onpoint]

Just another discussion which illustrates why I chose to "retire" at age 56 - still very able, willing, and competent - from what was probably the best job in the world. Being an integral part of the management of some of the best fish and wildlife resources in America. 16,000+/- square miles of southwest Montana my office. Iconic world class cold water fishery resources. Hallowed elk hunting territory. And a rich history of resource management innovation and hunter/angler advocacy.
All the above still exists - to some extent.
But the public (read hunters and anglers - those who stand to lose the most here) increasingly has become jaded, greedy, lazy, apathetic, and disconnected from the very resources and management it takes to provide, protect, improve and pass on the privileges awarded to us. Provided to us by the quality habitat (specifically as to this thread's discussion - wildlife security - do some reading on it, might learn something real - more than on a forum discussion), stewardship of that habitat and the critters, and the direct and dogged participation by those who came before us.
And the above also does still exist to some extent.
But so many on this DIY Public Land hunters forum are out of touch. That's right.
Unfortunately for all of us, that "out of touch" cancer has and is metasticizing. It is appearing in the ranks of the professionals that are tasked with taking care of this stuff. And not just a little.
There are those, some on here, that are doing good stuff. Good thing. They have a daunting task, illustrated easily by watching this website................................
Things are changing FAST.
A fact seemed lost on some who live 1500 miles from the cool places they visit for a few days - reap the rewards - then go home - post a few pics - philosophize on the www about things from the comfort of their man cave..............

I hope guys like Buzz (and the very few others who still have the stomach and balls for it) keep calling bullshit bullshit.

And I hope for the sake of a lotta' young outdoorskids, that a bunch of you on here wake the %@&$ up.

 

[MTGomer]

As far as the money comment goes, any HUNTER who spends $2700 on a bike to ride it down a trail, leave it, and hike two hours in to the spots you reference is a idiot. With the amount of risk of the bike still being there in working order when you got back simply isn’t worth it. Divorce over a lost bike is a good deterrent.

wall tents, high end tipi tents with titanium stoves, down bags, inflatable pads, etc etc are left next to the road all the time and are rarely tampered with. Your bike behind a gate that you took any effort to hide, being tampered with is very unlikely.
A friend of mine that is an avid mountain biker hunts off his mountain bike all the time and it costs WAY more than $2700
$2700 doesn’t even buy a new swaro spotter.
A lot of guys have $60k pickups, pulling toyhauler campers that cost the same with two UTVS in it that each cost $20k. That is a $160k hunting camp and every unit in every western state has them all over in nearly every hunting season. If they have a use for an e bike, they’ll buy one.

 

[tjones]

A lot of guys have $60k pickups, pulling toyhauler campers that cost the same with two UTVS in it that each cost $20k. If they have a use for an e bike, they’ll buy one.

And gripe when a Montana elk tag goes up $10.

 

[BuzzH]

As I have grown older and worn down a bit , just one knee replacement I have become more of a balanced use guy. There is no way I can hunt the places I used to hike into.. With that said I am alright with any bike that you still have to pedal on closed roads and closed logging roads not wilderness but am against using bikes on wilderness trails or roads. I believe there is still compromise for all of us. First and foremost the needs of the animals we all love to hunt need to come first period and if that means we have to walk then so be it. We all need to keep in mind as we get older some policies we think are great when younger and more capable may not be so great as we age.

Compromise, such a lovely thing, do it 4 times and you're left with 6 1/4% of what you started with.

I watched as "compromise" opened up more and more and more country to motorized use. Seems the only one compromising were the people that lost a metric shit-ton of solitude and areas to hunt to motorized access. I also watched as opportunities dwindled because of increased harvest rates, access to tags dwindled, etc. Most importantly, wildlife habitat, security habitat, and decent amounts of game on public land also have dwindled. I've watched industry beat the hell out of all other public land users by expecting, and demanding we "compromise" to allow more and more development of public lands.

Seems the only time people are willing to "compromise" is when they take something from me, my public lands, and my wildlife. Ask a group of ATV riders to "compromise" away half of the trails that are open to ATV use and see what happens. Ask motorcycle riders to give up half of their motorcycle trails, see what happens. Ask an oil and gas company to "compromise" away half of their leases, see what happens. Ask a rancher to "compromise" and only graze half his allotted AUM's, see what happens.

Yet, I was expected to be "reasonable" and "compromise" away a gigantic portion of what I place in high value in regard to my public lands, habitat, hunting, and fishing. All so that fat atv riders could also enjoy the woods, so that O&G companies could make another record profit, etc. All the while not a thought was given to me as those types took with both hands. They care so little, they don't even think about the wildlife or how their use of the lands impacts others. Any sign of their "caring" about my wildlife and public lands has been because of a small handful of dedicated people that demand the takers care, which usually takes legislation for them to "care".

My view is that compromise isn't worth a tinkers damn, I'm the only one giving and the rest are taking...far from a 50-50 deal.

Compromising is for losers, why I don't do it anymore. I've given more than I've ever taken and I'm not doing it anymore.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

@BuzzH @wllm1313
Your both part of the same crowd loving it to death.

I absolutely am, I back-country ski, run, hike, hunt, etc. and as I have become more and more aware of my impact I have tried to modify my behavior, and inform others. I run roads now in the winter, I try and make sure I select mt. bike trails that don't put me into calving areas.

You are correct, people are there, and e-bikes only makes it 2% worse. I'm advocating we fight all the things that are just 2% worse.

I belong to a couple of other user forums, skiing/ mt biking and I can tell you those groups are for the most part totally ignorant of the impact and even more entrenched in the idea of F%@#* everyone else we should be allowed to do whatever we want in the woods.

Marc Peruzzi, wrote a cogent, yet IMHO incredibly stupid, arrogant, and shortsighted article about the topic https://www.outsideonline.com/2270291/mountain-bikes-wilderness.

Ebikes are making huge inroads in the community and the "purists" will use them.

What I find the most frustrating and what makes me the most pessimistic about the future of our wild lands is the pervasive I need to get mine mentality. On this thread you have two people who grew up in the west who come at the issue from fairly different perspectives and generations yet both are saying the same thing. Your giving BuzzH a hard time about the differences since the 70s.... how about me telling you shit has gotten crazy since 06' when I left for college.... maybe that's too far in the past how... about the fact that I was blown away about how many more people there were on the trails around my home town in 16' when I got back from Montana having left in '13.

Do you think we're lying? I mean I'm 31... not exactly some old guy screaming "get off my lawn". What possible motive could those in this thread have other than wanting to protect our mutual resource.

@onpoint is spot on these changes are dramatic and they are happening rapidly. There is this crazy shifting baseline in CO right now as people from the midwest, Texas, CA move here think that the moment they arrived here was what the state was always like.

At this point I'm far more concerned about my unborn kids, your kids, our grand kids ability to enjoy the woods and I'm willing to make some pretty big concessions when it comes to my ability to play in them if it means we can keep them around for a while longer.
Not sure if you watch meateater or listen to the podcast but Rinella made a comment about he likes the idea of Wilderness existing even if he doesn't' get to enjoy it. That if you said the Alaskan Wilderness would be protected for generations, but only if he never went there again, that he would take the deal. That's where I'm at, if I could make a faustian pact; I move to NYC never to return and CO undergoes a massive recession, everyone leaves, and the state puts in some major wildlife protection rules... I'd take that deal tomorrow.

I've had more than my fair share of blue bird powder days, sunrise hikes, and elk hunts.

 

[Addicting]

wall tents, high end tipi tents with titanium stoves, down bags, inflatable pads, etc etc are left next to the road all the time and are rarely tampered with. Your bike behind a gate that you took any effort to hide, being tampered with is very unlikely.
A friend of mine that is an avid mountain biker hunts off his mountain bike all the time and it costs WAY more than $2700
$2700 doesn’t even buy a new swaro spotter.
A lot of guys have $60k pickups, pulling toyhauler campers that cost the same with two UTVS in it that each cost $20k. That is a $160k hunting camp and every unit in every western state has them all over in nearly every hunting season. If they have a use for an e bike, they’ll buy one.

No doubt some will buy one, but not the majority of hunters. Look at the threads of lost, damaged, and stolen trail cameras. The thread of vigilante justice against ATV’s. Neither of those are as controversial as these bikes. In this small thread as a sample size we already had one response eluding to it. The risk of someone just walking by one chained to a tree is too high for my budget. I’m on a used 20 huffy budget.

 

[Addicting]

Do you think we're lying? I mean I'm 31... not exactly some old guy screaming "get off my lawn". What possible motive could those in this thread have other than wanting to protect our mutual resource.

Not at all, I just have the mind set that everyone should equally be allowed to enjoy public lands. ATV’s, Bikers, Skiers, Snowmobilers, Hunters, ect ect

I never said they shouldn’t be regulated or it’s use managed. My point has always been they are a legal means of outdoor enjoyment.

End of the day more public lands advocates are better than less.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Not at all, I just have the mind set that everyone should equally be allowed to enjoy public lands. ATV’s, Bikers, Skiers, Snowmobilers, Hunters, ect ect

I never said they shouldn’t be regulated or it’s use managed. My point has always been they are a legal means of outdoor enjoyment.

End of the day more public lands advocates are better than less.

Definitely agree, and there are already more than enough places for all user groups to play. E-bikes and mt bikes are more than welcome on the thousands of miles of trails already open to them.

My point is we don't need more access, we need to constrict it in some venerable areas, and protect the areas were restrictions are already in place.

If someone buys a e-bike I can show them enough spots that they could ride all summer long and never get bored.

 

[BuzzH]

Not at all, I just have the mind set that everyone should equally be allowed to enjoy public lands. ATV’s, Bikers, Skiers, Snowmobilers, Hunters, ect ect

I never said they shouldn’t be regulated or it’s use managed. My point has always been they are a legal means of outdoor enjoyment.

End of the day more public lands advocates are better than less.

But not at the expense of other users or a lack of care about the impacts they're having on not only the land, but wildlife habitat, wildlife, and the ecology of areas.

As wllm1313 pointed out, many users just flat don't give a #$% about anyone or anyone else. Its not a small minority of the people within some of the various groups, but a majority. Like I said, make a proposal to limit or shut down a single mile of ATV trail, a single mile of motorcycle trail, etc. so that I don't have to listen to their motorized use and see the reaction you get from those user groups. They wont compromise a single foot of trail and will fight tooth and nail to keep it.

Never mind that they flat took my privileges away without even a thought of how their "use" of my public lands was going to impact me when they started punching motorized trails all over the National Forests, BLM, etc.

Same as the folks that are going to find easy access into the areas I hunt now when they ride their e-bikes there. They don't and never will give a chit that their e-bike has impacted me, my wildlife, and my public lands in a negative way. Its all about them, period.

Then, when I look out for my preferred use of public lands, my wildlife, and the resource, guys like you chastise us because we care about more than ourselves.

Funny culture we live in...

Finally, if wrecking public lands and allowing equal access to all user groups is the only way make advocates out of them...well, we're screwed already. At that point, public lands are no longer worth the effort of advocating for.

 

[Addicting]

Compromising is for losers, why I don't do it anymore. I've given more than I've ever taken and I'm not doing it anymore.

Failing to compromise and adapt to change is what caused dinosaurs to go extinct. So will your voice and opinion as time goes on if you don’t change your approach. Times are changing and your stuck in the mud thinking will get left behind.

Then, when I look out for my preferred use of public lands, my wildlife, and the resource, guys like you chastise us because we care about more than ourselves.

Go back and look at your posts. Read how many “I”, “My”, and “Mine” you use. There are 329,064,916 other people who also get a say in how OUR public lands are managed. Now tell me you looking out for more than yourself.

 

[MTGomer]

I guess I just don’t see how the VAST majority of public lands being managed to prioritize motorized recreation isn’t enough.
roughly 2% of the United States is designated wilderness. Is 98% not enough?
There is more riding in a few counties than you could ever do in your entire life, if you went every weekend every summer until you die.
compromise involves both sides giving up a little to gain a little. What is it that the motorized crowd has advocated to give up?

 

[Sytes]

98%? When did public lands encompass private land?
I don't believe anyone is arguing for motorized bikes used in our Wilderness protected areas, MTGomer.
I believe the content is where legally used, as the Opening topic presents.

 

[Addicting]

I guess I just don’t see how the VAST majority of public lands being managed to prioritize motorized recreation isn’t enough.
roughly 2% of the United States is designated wilderness. Is 98% not enough?
There is more riding in a few counties than you could ever do in your entire life, if you went every weekend every summer until you die.
compromise involves both sides giving up a little to gain a little. What is it that the motorized crowd has advocated to give up?

That is a good question for land managers. I would not want to be one as any decision they make is going to get them flak from one side or the other.

None of the Ebike conversation has to do with wilderness, never has. With the SOI decision on classification very little actually changed.

Most of the opposition in this thread are condemning future users for the transgressions of those in the past. There are a lot of assumptions that this will be the end of my spot, hunting lifestyle, wildlife, solitude.....

To date, none of that is true of Ebikes. Little to No studies have been done. No negative impacts have been recorded from that little motor.

Everyone needs to sit back and let the biologist and land managers do their job, get input, data, and get rules established.

These lands are multi use and all of those uses are regulated, Ebikes will be no different.

 

[tjones]

.

Everyone needs to sit back and let the biologist and land managers do their job, get input, data, and get rules established.

This is funny. What you don't understand is most of the guys you are discussing this topic with have been in the trenches of FWP, BLM, FS, private land, hunting, fishing and access issues for decades. Sportsmen in MT and WY would have a lot less of everything if these guys doing the heavy lifting would have been sitting
back and let the biologist and land managers do their job, get input, data, and get rules established.

Sitting back and doing nothing doesn't come easy to some.

 

[MTGomer]

98%? When did public lands encompass private land?
I don't believe anyone is arguing for motorized bikes used in our Wilderness protected areas, MTGomer.
I believe the content is where legally used, as the Opening topic presents.

nobody said they were.
My statement was just referencing that only 2% of the lands in the country are protected under law from motorized use. As you can see from the e-bike rule, without ‘W’ protection others can be opened with an administrative procedure.

There are plenty of existing places to ride motorcycles, whether gas or electric.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

That is a good question for land managers. I would not want to be one as any decision they make is going to get them flak from one side or the other.

None of the Ebike conversation has to do with wilderness, never has. With the SOI decision on classification very little actually changed.

Most of the opposition in this thread are condemning future users for the transgressions of those in the past. There are a lot of assumptions that this will be the end of my spot, hunting lifestyle, wildlife, solitude.....

To date, none of that is true of Ebikes. Little to No studies have been done. No negative impacts have been recorded from that little motor.

Everyone needs to sit back and let the biologist and land managers do their job, get input, data, and get rules established.

These lands are multi use and all of those uses are regulated, Ebikes will be no different.

So in fact Buzz and I have been involved with land management, and establishment of rules.

When mt. bikes were originally granted permission to uses non-mototrized trails, they looked like this.... and I'm sure there was some guy saying oh yeah, no negative impacts have been recorded from bikes, it's just a few weirdos using them, topography is going to keep them off trails, purists are going to hike...

(ps got to love my parents rocking wool before it was cool... and can we just say hard core, I mean fully rigid bikes, with kick stands on slick rock... my mom still is ripping 35+ years later and still isn't in need of an ebike)


So yeah what we are all trying to say is that, we have seen how this movie plays out, and in order to keep what's left of our play ground awesome for those in the womb of time, we are going to approach every new source of impact with an incredible amount of skepticism.

Kinda reminds me of a comment Yvon made on the meateater podcast about climbing chalk. I'm sure the first climbers in Yosemite thought the use of chalk was unimportant and had zero impact... but now 50 years later try to find a wall in that valley, or in the entire western US for that matter that isn't covered in it. Wonder what those walls will look like in another 50 years.

 

[Addicting]

What you don't understand is most of the guys you are discussing this topic with have been in the trenches of FWP, BLM, FS, private land, hunting, fishing and access issues for decades. Sportsmen in MT and WY would have a lot less of everything if these guys doing the heavy lifting would have been sitting
back and let the biologist and land managers do their job, get input, data, and get rules established.

I very much understand that. Back in my post I said I normally appreciate what Buzz does.

I’ve reread this thread and I agree with parts of the thread and some of their argument.
I agree that there should be some education that goes along with owning a Ebike.

However, I stand fast that they are here, they are legal, and a 2 Billion dollar industry that isn’t going anywhere. No one should be judging someone who has a different idea of recreation than them, wether it’s Manly enough, or violating some perception of ones rights or hunting spot.

There will have to be a compromise on the 5 Ws across all of the outdoor recreation activities. The land managers need to decide what that little motor providing assistance means.