Irrelevant
Well-known member
Cracked frame? Broken collar bone?
S. 1695: Human Powered Travel in Wilderness Act
- Thread starter Nameless Range
- Start date
Irrelevant
Well-known member
I have zero problems talking with them as long as mechanized travel in Wilderness is never an option. As soon as they start wanting easements or travel corridors, in existing Wilderness areas, the conversation ends.
D
Deleted member 20812
Guest
Assuming they happened in the same incident, those go right to the top of the matrix. You get bonus points if there’s a distinct “slow mo” moment in time where you question life choices such as this, and after impact it takes you several minutes to discern WTF happened. If you ride back to the parking lot leaving a blood trail you become legendary.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
Push back
Carl 9.3x62
Well-known member
I'll see your no bikes in wilderness and raise you no trails in wilderness.
elkduds
Well-known member
Indeed. If I read Ben correctly, he is highlighting the irreversible trend that made this a discussion in the first place: Population growth increases user pressure on all public lands, by all user groups. Prohibitions will be challenged.
Wilderness Area legislation is the codification of a very different value set than any other federal land management plan. Wilderness designation is intended to preserve places and experiences as far from technology as possible. The world of fake news and competing constituencies with special interests pushes our politics and interpretation of laws away from ideological purity via political compromise, a death by 1000 cuts. Visionaries who preceded us saw this coming. That was the significance of the Wilderness Act, to insulate a few areas from human progress, to have nature as the ultimate authority. It was and is a bastion of extreme of preservation among the multiple use and emphasis on public enjoyment on remaining federal lands. This ideal is more essential than it was in 1964, as population and development encroach on previously wild landscapes. Pressure from cyclists illustrates the precise kind of technological and human creep that motivated the establishment of Wilderness legislation, designed to prohibit that creep in all its iterations..
“I believe we have a profound fundamental need for areas of the earth where we stand without our mechanisms that make us immediate masters over our environment.” Howard Zahniser, Author of the original Wilderness Act and past Executive Director of the Wilderness Society.
The Wilderness Act | The Wilderness Society
So, mechanized and motorized uses are specifically prohibited by the Act. That means no bikes in designated Wilderness, and I entirely support that prohibition.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Nicely stated...
The are hunters among us that would privatize every last acre of public land wilderness or not.
Public land = anticaplitist in their minds. In fact I think thought process is becoming more prevalent as we become more partisan.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
Yeah like buzzH always says "F- the tundra no one needs that chiiiiiiiiiiit"1
1 Not a direct quote
Irrelevant
Well-known member
I'll support that
Just a used Hardrock.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
I find this discussion in lieu of Wilderness proposals. Hidden Gems was a movement in CO to designate more lands as Wilderness areas. It got huge pushback... pretty much every hunter I know in eagle county still has the anti-gems sticker on their truck next to their RMEF sticker.
Seems like the hunting community is all for Rock and Ice Wilderness, but is 100% against habitat Wilderness.
Look at APR, can you imagine if there was a push to designate large parts of the breaks as Wilderness areas? How about putting a huge wilderness area in the red desert? "But how can I hunt pronghorn there... what do you mean walk?"
Seems like the hunting community is all for Rock and Ice Wilderness, but is 100% against habitat Wilderness.
Look at APR, can you imagine if there was a push to designate large parts of the breaks as Wilderness areas? How about putting a huge wilderness area in the red desert? "But how can I hunt pronghorn there... what do you mean walk?"
Irrelevant
Well-known member
Nameless Range
Well-known member
You wouldn't be able to walk after em' without a guide.
Personally, I think there is no chance for large-scale Wilderness additions anymore, largely because they do lock out bicyclists. That's not an endorsement of their position, but I do believe folks largely underestimate their numbers. Read through public comments on any number of things from Forest Plan Revisions to ebikes, to whatever. Their comments dwarf the opposition. They are also the darlings of agency folks, I've heard it said, "Oh we love working with the mountain bike community. They can raise $10,000 with a few pint nights, pay for the EIS or MEPA analysis...." etc. It gets folks wins. Again, not saying that is good.
Things like the Blackfoot Clearwater Stewardship Act or the Lincoln Prosperity Proposal, and the implementation of things like Recreation Management Areas, or Conservation Management Areas, where things like biking can occur but seasonal trails may be codified and off-trail use is prohibited will be collaborative solutions that actually add Wilderness. Just my opinion.
For those looking for more statistics/studies and less Hunt Talk opinion regarding damage caused by various travel methods:
Study conducted for the National Park Service by USGS (This is a government .PDF download)
The study regarding ATV, horses, boots, and cycles.
"Analyses to investigate the influence of use-related, trail design, and maintenance factors were conducted. Type of use was found to be a substantially greater determinant of trail degradation than amount of use. Horse and ATV trails are significantly more degraded than hiking and biking trails (Tables 6-8). For example, mean soil loss measured at sample points are 246 in2 for ATV trails, 150 in2 for horse trails, 19 in2 for hiking trails and 6 in2 for bike trails (Table 6). Similarly, the proportion of trails with severe erosion (> 5 inches deep) is 24% for ATV trails, 9% for horse trails, 1.4 % for hiking trails and 0.6% for bike trails. Muddiness is a common problem on horse trails, 219 occurrences affecting 10% of the horse trail mileage. Muddiness affected 8% of ATV trails and 0.6% of hiking and biking trails. Finally, ATV trails are the widest (mean = 104 inches), followed by horse, hiking and biking (81, 32, and 24 inches), respectively (Table 6)."
An earlier, University peer reviewed study (Montana State University):
"A user group that already has a vast majority of the public estate open for their needs, wanting to take the rest too"
Quality advocate for Boots only spin.
However, if we excluded wilderness (to make it fair (?) for the boots crowd), boots would have the majority of public estate over ANY method of movement.
Edit: I take that back... excluding aerial...
Study conducted for the National Park Service by USGS (This is a government .PDF download)
The study regarding ATV, horses, boots, and cycles.
"Analyses to investigate the influence of use-related, trail design, and maintenance factors were conducted. Type of use was found to be a substantially greater determinant of trail degradation than amount of use. Horse and ATV trails are significantly more degraded than hiking and biking trails (Tables 6-8). For example, mean soil loss measured at sample points are 246 in2 for ATV trails, 150 in2 for horse trails, 19 in2 for hiking trails and 6 in2 for bike trails (Table 6). Similarly, the proportion of trails with severe erosion (> 5 inches deep) is 24% for ATV trails, 9% for horse trails, 1.4 % for hiking trails and 0.6% for bike trails. Muddiness is a common problem on horse trails, 219 occurrences affecting 10% of the horse trail mileage. Muddiness affected 8% of ATV trails and 0.6% of hiking and biking trails. Finally, ATV trails are the widest (mean = 104 inches), followed by horse, hiking and biking (81, 32, and 24 inches), respectively (Table 6)."
An earlier, University peer reviewed study (Montana State University):
"A user group that already has a vast majority of the public estate open for their needs, wanting to take the rest too"
Quality advocate for Boots only spin.
However, if we excluded wilderness (to make it fair (?) for the boots crowd), boots would have the majority of public estate over ANY method of movement.
Edit: I take that back... excluding aerial...
Last edited:
MTLabrador
Well-known member
I’m really struggling to understand why this means bikes should be allowed in Wilderness.For those looking for more statistics/studies and less Hunt Talk opinion regarding damage caused by various travel methods:
Study conducted for the National Park Service by USGS (This is a government .PDF download)
The study used a popular area for ATV, horses, boots, and cycles.
"Analyses to investigate the influence of use-related, trail design, and maintenance factors were conducted. Type of use was found to be a substantially greater determinant of trail degradation than amount of use. Horse and ATV trails are significantly more degraded than hiking and biking trails (Tables 6-8). For example, mean soil loss measured at sample points are 246 in2 for ATV trails, 150 in2 for horse trails, 19 in2 for hiking trails and 6 in2 for bike trails (Table 6). Similarly, the proportion of trails with severe erosion (> 5 inches deep) is 24% for ATV trails, 9% for horse trails, 1.4 % for hiking trails and 0.6% for bike trails. Muddiness is a common problem on horse trails, 219 occurrences affecting 10% of the horse trail mileage. Muddiness affected 8% of ATV trails and 0.6% of hiking and biking trails. Finally, ATV trails are the widest (mean = 104 inches), followed by horse, hiking and biking (81, 32, and 24 inches), respectively (Table 6)."
An earlier, University peer reviewed study (Montana State University):
"A user group that already has a vast majority of the public estate open for their needs, wanting to take the rest too"
Quality advocate for Boots only spin.
However, if we excluded wilderness (to make it fair for the boots crowd), boots would have the majority of public estate over ANY method of movement.
Likely not intended for you... keep at the opinion side of the content.
This thread relates to human power travel in wilderness.
Horses, boots, cycles, kayaks, rafts... the study by the USGS details their findings for the erosion impact by the horses, boots, and cycles.
Someone thought you might have been serious about your "struggle"... not sure I believe that @MTLabrador though if you were, my apologies.
If human powered were further considered (outside the boots only camp) mountain bikes cause damage to trails equal to boots.
That's a pretty significant scientific finding for those actually interested in studies.
Horses, boots, cycles, kayaks, rafts... the study by the USGS details their findings for the erosion impact by the horses, boots, and cycles.
Someone thought you might have been serious about your "struggle"... not sure I believe that @MTLabrador though if you were, my apologies.
If human powered were further considered (outside the boots only camp) mountain bikes cause damage to trails equal to boots.
That's a pretty significant scientific finding for those actually interested in studies.
Similar threads
