Wilderness: Mountain bicycle vs Boots. Interesting read.

[jryoung]

Is it worth noting that IMBA is opposed to amending the Wilderness Act or are we too far in the weeds at this point?

https://www.imba.com/blog/questions-bikes-wilderness

 

[Nameless Range]

Is it worth noting that IMBA is opposed to amending the Wilderness Act or are we too far in the weeds at this point?

https://www.imba.com/blog/questions-bikes-wilderness

I don't think we are. As a tangent to Sytes post, I mentioned how shutting bikes wholesale out of WSAs, RWAs, and primitive areas really riled them up in my neck of the woods. I sympathized with them to some degree, as I think they need places free from motorized use that are somewhat wild to enjoy. In my own comment I opposed their being able to use some WSAs/RWAs, while I found it appropriate in others, if limited to trails.

I will be interested to see what the Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest does with their final decisions regarding their forest plans. When it came to public meetings, the mountain bikers were the majority, and though I have only skimmed the 2000 comments received, I get the impression that they far outnumbered their opponents in those as well. I also get the impression they are underestimated.

Though the article in the OP asks the question, no where in the public comments, nor in the public meetings, were mountain bike groups pushing to be able to ride in Wilderness. I think that is a fringe of the mountain bike population as a whole, of which I should say I am not a member and have a limited knowledge of.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Your bias limits your ability to constructively review.

If "bias" means strong passion for conservation and protection of Montana's special wild public lands, then it can be construed to mean that, albeit somewhat semantically inappropriate.

Mountain biking is a recreational activity. Mountain bikers are those who participate in that activity. Your rhetoric and the use of "bias" and "wide spectrum of Americans" reflects an emotional connection and a desire to defend mountain bikers as though they are being discriminated against as a group of a particular race, religion, or ethnicity. Profuse links, quotes, and bolding of expression don't collectively overcome the faulty logic and skewed reasoning.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Is it worth noting that IMBA is opposed to amending the Wilderness Act or are we too far in the weeds at this point?

Don't confuse the OP's contentious argumentative assertion with factual information.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

If "bias" means strong passion for conservation and protection of Montana's special wild public lands, then it can be construed to mean that, albeit somewhat semantically inappropriate.

Mountain biking is a recreational activity. Mountain bikers are those who participate in that activity. Your rhetoric and the use of "bias" and "wide spectrum of Americans" reflects an emotional connection and a desire to defend mountain bikers as though they are being discriminated against as a group of a particular race, religion, or ethnicity. Profuse links, quotes, and bolding of expression don't collectively overcome the faulty logic and skewed reasoning.

The one that I see here that isn't able to constructively review this matter is Sytes himself and I agree with that last post BuzzH put up !000%!

 

[BuzzH]

Buzz, your personal attacks, as the Wyoming BHA Chairman are supportive of your interest to counter anything outside the boots only position of Public Land Owners. You have caused some to question your public persona while others to cheer at your aggressive behavior. It's evident this is in BHA's interest so cheers for doing your bull dog-ish part for their cause. Well supported by your BHA brethren here though, a few pm's share otherwise. I bet you bring in more than you lose though...

You are flatly incorrect on your attempt to falsely present 54 years prior when this was written. U.S. Forest Service in 1966 stated the following:


Call whatever names you want and throw your BHA tirade at me all you want - I'll be your huckleberry... though you know this is true... you are simply the bat of aggression and refuse to acknowledge such. It was far later that the change was made... AFTER Frank Church's comment;


Spin away, Buzz.

though as you say, carry on... as will I.

Sytes, you take a lot of liberties with your position...one big one being that you must think you held a personal conversation with Frank Church on what he meant in 1964. Being how you took the liberty that he must have been talking about mountain bikes...I'll tell you, you're full of crap. Mountain bikes didn't exist in 1964...the first Schwinn ten speed wasn't around until 1960.

Secondly, If the Montana Chapter has submitted comments on behalf of the organization in regard to the two WSA's...I have no problem with that. Their pig, their farm and the board makes a decision on positions they are going to take on such issues. Because you don't like it, or some mountain bike group may not like it, is no big deal and not their problem. Its your problem, get over it, or die with it, don't care either way. You seem to believe that the Montana Chapter has made some blunder and is refusing to give mountain bikers their way and causing this "perceived" division with public land users over their comments. That's not only crap, its simply not true. As freely as the Montana Chapter has a right to a position, the mountain bike groups also have the right to form their position. Couple options at that point, sit down and work through it with all involved and negotiate, or may the best group/position win.

Finally, and don't do this again, as you'll be called out immediately on it. Don't imply and try to muzzle my voice as a United States Citizen on this or any other issue that impacts my public lands. I did not, and never even implied that I was representing WYBHA in any way on this thread. In fact, the only person that even mentioned BHA was YOU. You will know, without any shadow of doubt, when I'm speaking on my behalf or that of the group I represent.

What you did with your post above, is at the best case, very chickenshit...and outright childish. Just because someone is a member of group, doesn't mean that they cant have their own views on issues. Just because I don't fall lock-step in with the crap you post, doesn't give you the right to drag in my affiliation with any group I may be part of in some lame attempt to silence MY opinion. It will do you absolutely no good to continue that course...so no use in even trying it again. Its a nonstarter and only makes you appear to be an immature, childish ass, uncapable of defending your position.

 

[Sytes]

Buzz take your first, second and finally and shove them where the sun don't shine.

You talk so much crap! You personally have called out people who share their opinion based on their form of work, etc... in fact it was not too long ago you tried to pin me as a TSA employee - or are you so hypocritical that your willing to ignore every ounce of your own bull shit?

Yep - nice try hypocrite! If you cant handle it, don't dish it.

Here you go - if you want to question Frank Church's intent behind his comment. Here is the full comment, Don't think it has anything to do with the Wilderness Act? Bah - more horse crap from ya.

"My final comments tonight concern the issue of wilderness purity. Time after time, when we discuss wilderness,questions are raised about how developed an area can be and still qualify as wilderness, or what kind of activities within a wilderness area are consistent with the purposes of the Wilderness Act. I believe, and many citizens agree with me, that the agencies are applying provisions of the Wilderness Act too strictly and thus misconstruing the intent of Congress as to how these areas should be managed."

"Such policies are misguided. If Congress had intended that wilderness be administered in so stringent a manner, we would never have have written the law as we did. We wouldn't have provided for the possibility of insect, disease, and fire control...We would't have made wilderness classification subject to existing private rights such as mining and grazing. We wouldn't have provided for the continuation of nonconforming uses where they were established - including the use of motor boats in part of the Boundary Water Canoe Area and the use of air-fields in the primitive areas here in Idaho, As these examples clearly demonstrate, it was not the intent of Congress that wilderness be administered in so pure a fashions to needlessly restrict its customary use and enjoyment. Quite the contrary, Congress fully intended that wilderness should be managed to allow its use by a wide spectrum of Americans."

"In summary, if purity is to be an issue in the management of wilderness, let it focus on preserving the natural integrity of the wilderness environment - and not on needless restriction of facilities necessary to protect the area while providing for human use and enjoyment.

 

[BuzzH]

Buzz take your first, second and finally and shove them where the sun don't shine.

You talk so much crap! You personally have called out people who share their opinion based on their form of work, etc... in fact it was not too long ago you tried to pin me as a TSA employee - or are you so hypocritical that your willing to ignore every ounce of your own bull shit?

Yep - nice try hypocrite! If you cant handle it, don't dish it.

Judging by your response above...I think I can/did handle it just fine.

Truth, agendas, and true colors always get exposed in the end...funny stuff.

 

[Sytes]

Judging by your response above...I think I can/did handle it just fine.

Truth, agendas, and true colors always get exposed in the end...funny stuff.

Look at that, something we may agree upon, vise versa. Are you still attempting to claim Frank Church was not referencing the Wilderness Act? Meh, no worries, swing it how you like.

 

[BuzzH]

Look at that, something we may agree upon. Are you still attempting to claim Frank Church was not referencing the Wilderness Act? Meh, no worries, swing it how you like.

Selective reading much?

Show me where mountain bikes in wilderness were a "customary use" in '64...they weren't, haven't been and never will be...

But hikers and horses were a customary use...and why they're allowed, and bikes aren't.

No possible way you can not comprehend that, very simple.

 

[Sytes]

The President who signed the Wilderness Act stated the following;

The forgotten outdoorsmen of today are those who like to walk, hike, ride horseback or bicycle

To share my intent for quoting the late Senator, Frank Church and where it applies;

Frank Church on the Wilderness Act as intended by Congress;

My final comments tonight concern the issue of wilderness purity. Time after time, when we discuss wilderness, questions are raised about how developed an area can be and still qualify as wilderness, or what kind of activities within a wilderness area are consistent with the purposes of the Wilderness Act. I believe, and many citizens agree with me, that the agencies are applying provisions of the Wilderness Act too strictly and thus misconstruing the intent of Congress as to how these areas should be managed."

"Such policies are misguided. If Congress had intended that wilderness be administered in so stringent a manner, we would never have have written the law as we did. We wouldn't have provided for the possibility of insect, disease, and fire control...We would't have made wilderness classification subject to existing private rights such as mining and grazing. We wouldn't have provided for the continuation of nonconforming uses where they were established - including the use of motor boats in part of the Boundary Water Canoe Area and the use of air-fields in the primitive areas here in Idaho, As these examples clearly demonstrate, it was not the intent of Congress that wilderness be administered in so pure a fashions to needlessly restrict its customary use and enjoyment. Quite the contrary, Congress fully intended that wilderness should be managed to allow its use by a wide spectrum of Americans."

"In summary, if purity is to be an issue in the management of wilderness, let it focus on preserving the natural integrity of the wilderness environment - and not on needless restriction of facilities necessary to protect the area while providing for human use and enjoyment.

We all share our opinions here. I have said from the beginning I believe it gives them some reasonable basis for their claims. I think what really pushed them over the edge upon losing the hundreds of miles in Montana alone over the past 10 years - the direct vocal opposition of the Sapphire / Blue Joint WSA's where they had been authorized the ability to ride - by environmental organizations, such as BHA, Earthjustice, Sierra Club, etc. I've also shared I am not fully on board with mtn bikes in our Wilderness designated areas though where there is some flexability, it would be in the WSA's, RWA's, etc... Then again, they hear from the likes of you and there is nothing left but to fight...

Some are open to debate - others, such as yourself, demand it must be your way. I am open to discuss with my cycle friends as much as my boots only friends. Your incessant personal attacks are really old - knock it off.

 

[tjones]

The President who signed the Wilderness Act stated the following;

The forgotten outdoorsmen of today are those who like to walk, hike, ride horseback or bicycle

My guess is the said President had no idea what today's "bicycle" would look like.

 

[Straight Arrow]

It is a real stretch to misinterpret the Wilderness Act intent of excluding "mechanical transport". It is equally erroneous to misinterpret "mechanical transport" to not include bicycles. Mountain bikes were not specifically mentioned in the Act partly because there were none in 1964. Nor did the Act specifically refer to excluding other mechanical transports such as hovercraft, jet skis, snowmobiles and wheel barrows ... but the intent is very clear.

Furthermore, the broad but clear intent is expressed in the preamble to the Act, "In order to assure that an increasing population, accompanied by by expanding settlement and growing mechanization, does not occupy all areas within the United States and its possessions, leaving no lands designated for preservation and protection of their natural condition, it is hereby declared to the the policy of the Congress to secure for the American people of present and future generations the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness."
To ignore the intent for "growing mechanization" not to occupy wilderness, again is an erroneous interpretation of the intent to exclude mechanical transport ... of which mountain bikes are indisputably a mechanical conveyance.

Senator Frank Church was sponsor of the Wilderness Act and it can be assumed, agreed with its intent to exclude mechanical transport. To misinterpret his words to your own end is unconscionable.

 

[Sytes]

Straight Arrow, in my opinion - and respecting your own opinion, I believe the following definition by the Forest Service, in 1966 when it came to the discussion of what defines a, "mechanical transport", I find it holds some consideration based on the specific use of "wheels" in reference to the likes of modes of transportation that travels over ground... "tracks, skids..."

“Mechanical transport,” as herein used, shall include any contrivance which travels over
ground, snow, or water on wheels, tracks, skids, or by flotation and is propelled by a
nonliving power source contained or carried on or within the device.

 

[BrentD]

My guess is the said President had no idea what today's "bicycle" would look like.

So true.

But even more so, the same c az n be said of many other things around which policy and regulations were cast
Exhibits A, B, & C would be rifles, muzzleloaders, and bows.

 

[BuzzH]

Straight Arrow, in my opinion - and respecting your own opinion, I believe the following definition by the Forest Service, in 1966 when it came to the discussion of what defines a, "mechanical transport", I find it holds some consideration based on the specific use of "wheels" in reference to the likes of modes of transportation that travels over ground... "tracks, skids..."

Duly considered and idea rejected.

Very clearly the intent of the 1964 act was to NOT allow mechanized travel including bikes, motorcycles, atv's, etc. etc. etc. in established Wilderness.

The use of bikes was not established in '64, and were not a customary use in Wilderness in or prior to '64.

No need for further discussion as they aren't going to get to use them in Wilderness either...get over it, next.

 

[Sytes]

I'm not twisting your arm to click on the link, Buzz. Best to you.

 

[BuzzH]

I'm not twisting your arm to click on the link, Buzz. Best to you.

Good luck to you as well, Mike Lee is counting on you.

Congratulations?

 

[Straight Arrow]

“...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.”

No matter what definition you found in what context by the USFS in 1966, yet the wording of the Wilderness Act "no other form of mechanical transport" has held with clarity of interpretation for fifty-five years as intending to exclude bicycles. If it were not universally clear and consistently employed with respect to bicycles, then why would attempts be made to amend the Act? Regardless of your incessant links, quotes, and consistent misinterpretations and flawed logic ... the rule excludes mountain bikes in designated Wilderness Areas. Obviously the prevalent opinion here agrees with that, so your continuous attempt to change opinions ... and factual information remains an irritation.

 

[Sytes]

No matter what definition you found in what context by the USFS in 1966, yet the wording of the Wilderness Act "no other form of mechanical transport" has held with clarity of interpretation for fifty-five years as intending to exclude bicycles. If it were not universally clear and consistently employed with respect to bicycles, then why would attempts be made to amend the Act? Regardless of your incessant links, quotes, and consistent misinterpretations and flawed logic ... the rule excludes mountain bikes in designated Wilderness Areas. Obviously the prevalent opinion here agrees with that, so your continuous attempt to change opinions ... and factual information remains an irritation.

It was really interesting trying to search out something that would fit your opinion. I was curious myself.
Amazing, if given the time to research, what is able to be located.

This is the specific regulation created for the purpose of defining, "mechanical transport" as used within the Wilderness Act... in 1966.
Web link to the GPO Archived CFR: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1966-06-03/pdf/FR-1966-06-03.pdf





It was not 55 years that human powered wheels were not permitted as a method of transport, it became a wish wash of back and forth within the US Forest Service from 1977 up until 1984 when they made a definitive position.

It's pretty darn clear... Take into account this memorandum also found via the fun Google. The back and forth clearly show a distinct difference than your belief



The more digging the more it is a cluster f by governing entities. It's pretty evident why mtn cyclists are peeved and would like their position taken seriously...
Thus, back to my main opinion: compromise with regards to WSA's & RWA's. Unify the public land owners vs dividing further. As stated, restated and to repeat again, I have my own bias in opposition to mtn bikes in our designated Wilderness areas. However to better understand the situation... What is the cause for the division, one must dig in and be open to learning about the history of cycles and wilderness.