Bikes in Wilderness Again

[Shooter19802003]

Just reminds me too much like the classic liberal argument of.....I know what's best for you more than you do.

 

[Jason Snyder]

I have a hard time with this. It is hard saying it is the people's land. Yet folks are so quick to say which people can and can't use it. Apparently it is not the people's land if all people can't use it.

So are you against all restrictions, or are some more palatable than others?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Shooter19802003]

I can see the reasoning on both sides that is why I said it is a tough one. However, I don't see how you can tell somebody as a taxpayer the you can't use public land. That would be like setting aside public land just for Mt bikers and saying you can't walk there. I have a hard time playing into special interests on either side. Again, who am I to say who can and can't use the land that is theirs to use?

 

[Jason Snyder]

I can see the reasoning on both sides that is why I said it is a tough one. However, I don't see how you can tell somebody as a taxpayer the you can't use public land. That would be like setting aside public land just for Mt bikers and saying you can't walk there. I have a hard time playing into special interests on either side. Again, who am I to say who can and can't use the land that is theirs to use?

Doesn't someone have to? Doesn't multiple use mean that everyone has to make some concessions to accommodate others? I don't see that as liberalism, I see that as common sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Shooter19802003]

That's just it though. It isn't multi use when you are excluding the majority. So are you in favor of setting aside millions of acres for Mt. Bikers exclusively? What then about millions for atvs only and millions more for whomever. Sounds pretty stupid huh. So tell me how you justify excluding a majority of people from millions of acres and yet not setting aside land of equal size for their use? What I am getting at is: what makes your cause more important than theirs?

 

[Shooter19802003]

I will also tell you straight out that I enjoy wilderness. I like being the only guy who goes where I do because the majority is too lazy to walk there. However the day might come when I am too old or maybe too Ill to do it. So now I can't enjoy the outdoors anymore because I don't have to means to get there? That sucks. Again, I like hunting where atvs aren't buzzing by. However, there are always going to be areas I can get to that they can't. That is just the nature of the beast. Just a moral dilemma. To be able to say who can and can't utilize a large chunk of public land. Public being the key word there. Hard to call it public land when you exclude the majority of the public from the land. Reminds me alot of the surf system in a way. The government picks winners and losers. Telling you that you can't use your lands.

 

[Jason Snyder]

That's just it though. It isn't multi use when you are excluding the majority. So are you in favor of setting aside millions of acres for Mt. Bikers exclusively? What then about millions for atvs only and millions more for whomever. Sounds pretty stupid huh. So tell me how you justify excluding a majority of people from millions of acres and yet not setting aside land of equal size for their use? What I am getting at is: what makes your cause more important than theirs?

Can you justify a free for all with no regulations?

With a little thought and open mindedness, along with the realization that multiple use doesn't mean I get everything I want, we don't have to exclude people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MallardSX2]

I am 100% against the idea of allowing bikes into the wilderness areas...

On another note: If it was up to me you wouldn't be allowed to use horses in the wilderness areas either...

Let the crucifixion of MallardSX2 begin.

But I know that there are a lot of people who agree with me.

 

[mtwarden]

would be nice to get some quads in there too, would definitely be easier than packing out boned meat on your back- maybe a a few strategic Starbucks and McDonalds would be handy as well

 

[BigAntlerGetter]

I will also tell you straight out that I enjoy wilderness. I like being the only guy who goes where I do because the majority is too lazy to walk there. However the day might come when I am too old or maybe too Ill to do it. So now I can't enjoy the outdoors anymore because I don't have to means to get there? That sucks. Again, I like hunting where atvs aren't buzzing by. However, there are always going to be areas I can get to that they can't. That is just the nature of the beast. Just a moral dilemma. To be able to say who can and can't utilize a large chunk of public land. Public being the key word there. Hard to call it public land when you exclude the majority of the public from the land. Reminds me alot of the surf system in a way. The government picks winners and losers. Telling you that you can't use your lands.

So just to further your argument I would like to add. Public roadways... I can drive my truck down them, but I cannot walk down the middle of it, I can't ride a quad, dirt bike, snowmobile or an off road keep. That's not fair it's a public roadway, if its public why are only trucks and cars allowed to use it? Why aren't a couple million miles of trails open to just allow dirt bikes, a couple million for quads, a couple million for horses, and a couple million for bikes? Ski slopes are based on federal lands, yet I can't walk up them and use them without a lift ticket, I don't ski or snowboard by why can't I ride a snowmobile on them. Technically it is public land leased to a ski resort but it is leased in the same way as an Outfitters lease is done. An outfitter and ski resort both pay a % to lease the land from the USFS, yet a ski resort can block the area to public use, an outfitter cannot. Why can't snowmobiles lease a whole mountain to charge people to ride and set up a course and all that? A whole mountain for snowshoers, a whole mountain for sledders. I've seen several trails around my hometown Colorado that were opened on public land for mountain bikers, no hiking or horses allowed. This is public land yet shut off to public.

 

[Billinsd]

I am 100% against the idea of allowing bikes into the wilderness areas...

On another note: If it was up to me you wouldn't be allowed to use horses in the wilderness areas either...

Let the crucifixion of MallardSX2 begin.
But I know that there are a lot of people who agree with me.

hahaha, that's real funny. You got a good point!!! I don't have or use horses, so they have an advantage. Horses are great, I love them,however, they are very expensive, and can be dangerous. That's why I don't own them. I don't know any outfitters without one trail wreck story. However, they were definitely intended to access wilderness. We live in a democratic republic, so our elected officials get to decide. I'm in favor with letting in bikes, strollers, and game carts.

 

[Murdy]

This debate is not about who can use the land, it's about how the land can be used. That anybody cannot do whatever they want on public land does not mean they can't use it. and it's not unusual for certain uses to be regulated on public lands. If I recall, you can't camp on state land in Wyoming. Further east, where the population is greater, conflicts are common. Most of the public land by me is open to turkey hunting only until 1 p.m., but until this time, it is set aside exclusively for turkey hunters. The morel hunters don't like it, but they can get out in the afternoon, and it preempts a lot of conflicts.

Anyone can use Wilderness areas, you just can't use them for whatever you want.

 

[Billinsd]

So just to further your argument I would like to add. Public roadways... I can drive my truck down them, but I cannot walk down the middle of it, I can't ride a quad, dirt bike, snowmobile or an off road keep. That's not fair it's a public roadway, if its public why are only trucks and cars allowed to use it? Why aren't a couple million miles of trails open to just allow dirt bikes, a couple million for quads, a couple million for horses, and a couple million for bikes? Ski slopes are based on federal lands, yet I can't walk up them and use them without a lift ticket, I don't ski or snowboard by why can't I ride a snowmobile on them. Technically it is public land leased to a ski resort but it is leased in the same way as an Outfitters lease is done. An outfitter and ski resort both pay a % to lease the land from the USFS, yet a ski resort can block the area to public use, an outfitter cannot. Why can't snowmobiles lease a whole mountain to charge people to ride and set up a course and all that? A whole mountain for snowshoers, a whole mountain for sledders. I've seen several trails around my hometown Colorado that were opened on public land for mountain bikers, no hiking or horses allowed. This is public land yet shut off to public.

All public land is regulated. Public land by definition means we the public own it , however, the government regulates it's use. Libertarian and conservative minded folks want few restrictions, it's liberal and/or selfish to want more restrictions. We the people, through our elected officials decide what and how many restrictions there will be.

 

[Billinsd]

This debate is not about who can use the land, it's about how the land can be used. That anybody cannot do whatever they want on public land does not mean they can't use it. and it's not unusual for certain uses to be regulated on public lands. If I recall, you can't camp on state land in Wyoming. Further east, where the population is greater, conflicts are common. Most of the public land by me is open to turkey hunting only until 1 p.m., but until this time, it is set aside exclusively for turkey hunters. The morel hunters don't like it, but they can get out in the afternoon, and it preempts a lot of conflicts.

Anyone can use Wilderness areas, you just can't use them for whatever you want.

Absolutely!!

 

[BigAntlerGetter]

I agree billinsd, public lands must be regulated. Which is why certain things are not allowed in some areas it is all public use. Just restricted to the means of use. If we did not have these restrictions who knows what the mountains would look like. With trails, roads, all kinds of unrestricted stuff. Probably look like the highway system of LA from the sky.

I was just going off of shooters comment about how we restrict things in wilderness. Which makes it non public use.

As far as mallards comment wilderness is all about keeping it the way it was, horses are second to the oldest mode of transportation of walking. Yes I do own horses, yes I do outfit in wilderness of Colorado, and Yes I have had a wreck in a string. The unfair advantage that you think a horse gives over hiking is somewhat debateable. Seasoned rider huge advantage novice rider haha ask them the next day after a 6 hour pack in.

There's not much fight about horses besides they poop on trails, they damage the trail (which is always up for debate) and people have to move off the trail because horses have the right of way. But I don't see many hikers cutting logs in the trails. Perfect example is this year I got a call from the USFS asking the next time I hit a certain trail to cut the 6" aspen across the trail. I didn't make it up there for 2 weeks, when I did there was a new trail beaten down going around the true through he vegetation. I didn't even have to cut the tree I got off my horse and moved it by hand.

As said before my business maintains over 50 miles of trail with the USFS, both wilderness and national forest. Logs never get cut out unless it's by us or the USFS, even on bicycle accessible trails tire track will go to a spot then up and over.

Would I pack a saw on a bike prolly not, do many people pack a saw hiking? Not really do I have a saw on my saddle 24-7 sure do and many horseback riders do cause there's no lifting a horse over a log and continuing.

Now are there horseback riders that will ignore down logs and go around? Yes there's lazy people in all categories, but I'm just saying in my area if the horses weren't allowed in the wilderness. Then the trails aren't going to get maintained.

 

[CrzyTrekker]

I agree billinsd, public lands must be regulated. Which is why certain things are not allowed in some areas it is all public use. Just restricted to the means of use. If we did not have these restrictions who knows what the mountains would look like. With trails, roads, all kinds of unrestricted stuff. Probably look like the highway system of LA from the sky.

I was just going off of shooters comment about how we restrict things in wilderness. Which makes it non public use.

As far as mallards comment wilderness is all about keeping it the way it was, horses are second to the oldest mode of transportation of walking. Yes I do own horses, yes I do outfit in wilderness of Colorado, and Yes I have had a wreck in a string. The unfair advantage that you think a horse gives over hiking is somewhat debateable. Seasoned rider huge advantage novice rider haha ask them the next day after a 6 hour pack in.

There's not much fight about horses besides they poop on trails, they damage the trail (which is always up for debate) and people have to move off the trail because horses have the right of way. But I don't see many hikers cutting logs in the trails. Perfect example is this year I got a call from the USFS asking the next time I hit a certain trail to cut the 6" aspen across the trail. I didn't make it up there for 2 weeks, when I did there was a new trail beaten down going around the true through he vegetation. I didn't even have to cut the tree I got off my horse and moved it by hand.

As said before my business maintains over 50 miles of trail with the USFS, both wilderness and national forest. Logs never get cut out unless it's by us or the USFS, even on bicycle accessible trails tire track will go to a spot then up and over.

Would I pack a saw on a bike prolly not, do many people pack a saw hiking? Not really do I have a saw on my saddle 24-7 sure do and many horseback riders do cause there's no lifting a horse over a log and continuing.

Now are there horseback riders that will ignore down logs and go around? Yes there's lazy people in all categories, but I'm just saying in my area if the horses weren't allowed in the wilderness. Then the trails aren't going to get maintained.

I appreciate the trail maintenance that you do. Horseback riding in wilderness seems like a "historical" use of such areas, and I'm not opposed to it.

I do know wilderness areas where trail damage from outfitters is so bad (western portions of the West Elk Wilderness) that local hikers avoid certain trails. Many trails are wet almost year-round and such "mashed potatoes" trail damage is inevitable.

One disturbing trend I've noticed is horseback riders with chainsaws cutting their own trails into good elk basins. I used to run into a certain guy every year while scouting and hunting. It took him a couple years but he cut a trail over two miles long just to get his horse into a good basin.

I support horses in wilderness and hope outfitters will do more to police their own.

 

[BigAntlerGetter]

Horses will tear up wet trails, but hikers can do the exact same when it's muddy.

As far as cutting your own trails i have the same problem with anyone else doing it. I don't favor anyone who pirates trails.

As far as outfitters go with policing their area some will do it some will not. The forest service likes us to also try and keep everyone abiding by the rules. But that's where you run into the power of I'm an outfitter you can't be here. Not all are like that same as always there's always a few bad apples.

Our business is operated under a "we are privileged to outfit on public lands, therefore we help everyone". Whether it be clearing trail, packing gear, packing out gear, animals whatever we gotta do if I gotta pack meat off the mountain at 12am we're doing it. No so much for the money but because we are a public service and want to do our part to assist everyone we can. We have even packed out deceased individuals out of the wilderness before.

 

[ndbuck09]

My question is: How many square miles is there of designated wilderness in our country? How many square miles of National Forest?

My hunch is that the actual amount of designated wilderness is very low compared to the larger NF system of land mass.

 

[CrzyTrekker]

Horses will tear up wet trails, but hikers can do the exact same when it's muddy.

As far as cutting your own trails i have the same problem with anyone else doing it. I don't favor anyone who pirates trails.

As far as outfitters go with policing their area some will do it some will not. The forest service likes us to also try and keep everyone abiding by the rules. But that's where you run into the power of I'm an outfitter you can't be here. Not all are like that same as always there's always a few bad apples.

Our business is operated under a "we are privileged to outfit on public lands, therefore we help everyone". Whether it be clearing trail, packing gear, packing out gear, animals whatever we gotta do if I gotta pack meat off the mountain at 12am we're doing it. No so much for the money but because we are a public service and want to do our part to assist everyone we can. We have even packed out deceased individuals out of the wilderness before.

Humans (well, most of them) don't weigh nearly enough to cause that type of damage.

I used to do legal work for an organization that held control over thousands of acres of land in western Colorado under a Special Use Permit. In that position, I dealt annually with tens of outfitters (guides, winter use, tours, etc.). I was also the recipient of public complaints regarding any of those outfitters. You said it yourself, "I'm an outfitter you can't be here."

Things got really interesting when I was fly fishing a river on that land and one of those outfitters (who had never met me personally) told me it was his river and I had to leave. Heh.

I know they're not all bad eggs. I've just seen some stink.

 

[Shooter19802003]

There was a lengthy thread on this a while back. I'm in the fence, as I can see both sides being an avid mountain biker.

IMO the trail damage, along with danger to others holds absolutely zero weight. Ever see the damage a horse does, or the danger that a horse poses that is spooked? Trail work? Mountain bikers do beyond thier share IMO, most trails are maintained by volunteers.

Personally, I'd like them to keep bikes out, let trails go back into the land in wilderness areas while allowing equal access. Ifwe won't allow bikes because we are worried about too many people, damage, and danger it's just us being greedy. I'm all for foot traffic only, I understand he value and heritage of horseback, but come on.

Lots of opinions and ideas on why bikes are bad, that are all total bull

You can't put the outlaw mountain bikers in the same group, you can point out the bad seeds in any sport

I won't argue, that's my opinion and it is what it is.

Either way, I made it about 1/4 way through that article before I had to quit reading, I can't take the political bull crap.

Most of the issues I have with this is: The area has been open to mountain bikes and now because the place turned to wilderness or proposed wilderness in some areas, I can not peddle there anymore. The example I stated before, are just that. They where legal to peddle and now they are not. It is just no fun to lose access to some of your prized trails, that you have rode for decades. The great burn is a classic case. It is remote, it does not see a lot of people and it was a good place to challenge yourself.

As far as trail erosion, as has been stated before, horses do way more than mtn bikes.

One of the reasons for the push to allow mountain bikes into wilderness, is what I have stated before. Lost access to trails. Not all wilderness areas will lend them selves to bicycles, but some will. People need remote places to push themselves and see what they are made of. They want to pull the 30 mile ride with 6000 feet of vertical elevation in a day. mile to sheep in the lionhead area is a good example. I Never saw a single person. But when the fs management plan comes up for renewal, I am sure mountain bikers will lose that. Like I said, it is just a big bummer to lose trail access, just because some one does not like a clean, quiet activity that does not match there personal beliefs.

Personally, we need another designation besides wilderness. One that protects but allows use.

So just to further your argument I would like to add. Public roadways... I can drive my truck down them, but I cannot walk down the middle of it, I can't ride a quad, dirt bike, snowmobile or an off road keep. That's not fair it's a public roadway, if its public why are only trucks and cars allowed to use it? Why aren't a couple million miles of trails open to just allow dirt bikes, a couple million for quads, a couple million for horses, and a couple million for bikes? Ski slopes are based on federal lands, yet I can't walk up them and use them without a lift ticket, I don't ski or snowboard by why can't I ride a snowmobile on them. Technically it is public land leased to a ski resort but it is leased in the same way as an Outfitters lease is done. An outfitter and ski resort both pay a % to lease the land from the USFS, yet a ski resort can block the area to public use, an outfitter cannot. Why can't snowmobiles lease a whole mountain to charge people to ride and set up a course and all that? A whole mountain for snowshoers, a whole mountain for sledders. I've seen several trails around my hometown Colorado that were opened on public land for mountain bikers, no hiking or horses allowed. This is public land yet shut off to public.

Nope you can't walk down the middle, but you utilize the same road via the side walk attached to it. So are you suggesting wilderness offer a separate trail system for walkers separate from stock? In my state you can drive atvs and horses and snowmobiles on the road. One guy at work drives a go cart to work. Like a pull the rope 5hp briggs and stratton Flippin go cart. There are always going to be places some can go that others can't on a trail system. I have no issue with sharing a trail. When I lived in nevada I planned for it. I waited to see where all the drunk retards on atvs were going . Then I would go down trail from them. I would show up a couple hours before and pick a good spot to sit. Then they would show up and haul ass down to their spot.....pushing all the deer right into me....and all I had to do was sit and wait. Worked great. I just don't see why everybody can't utilize the land .....there is plenty of it. What are the chances of it be comming that crowded? If it does, find a new spot. There are always places you can get to on foot that others will never get to. I see you live in the crap state of Colorado...sorry to here that...or as I like to call it....eastern California. I left there long ago. Very crowded there and if you live on the front range, I hear the i70 drive is treacherous these days. I am not here to convince you or others, just stating the way I feel. Which, in the grand scheme of things doesn't mean a thing does it.