Bikes in Wilderness Again

[Violent Hippie]

Yeah. I really enjoy wilderness areas. I skied a peak 2 days ago in one. Only guy on the mountain. Love it. Very glad I didnt here any sleds zipping around. Noise pollution is a whole other subject. I am usually not one for more regulation , taxes, etc . I usually side with smaller government but with outdoor access I like many on here tend to favor the federal side of management. IMO wilderness areas are for foot traffic and want it to stay that way. Pack animals ? I dont use em. I get it. Horses , lamas whatever are "organic" creatures. I dont like the poop they leave all over the place but am ok with it as its worked fine this long so if it aint broke dont fix it . Leave things the way they are which doesnt include bikes. I again mountian bike a fair bit on the endless trails around my home region. When were old and cant hike we probably dont belong going in the wilderness anyways. Every man has their time.

 

[CrzyTrekker]

ViolentHippie,

+1

 

[sodaksooner]

One of my favorite pursuits is mountain biking. I once thought wilderness needed to be open to them. As I have spent more time in wilderness areas that has changed somewhat. In reality most wilderness trails I have been on would have been totally unsuitable for a mountain bike without improvement, which I deem, is a big no-no.

That said, i am not a big equestrian fan, so feel that they need to be kept out as well. I guess the horse lobby is better at it than the mountain bike lobby is.

I also think Pittman Robertson should be expanded to include camping, hiking, and gear associated with other outdoor pursuits.

 

[mtnbiker208]

When was the last time you rode a mountain bike in the Great Burn? I outfitted in there for 7 years during the 90's and never once saw a bike in there. Always assumed it, like the Selway where we also worked, was illegal to do.

I have not been able to legally ride in the great burn for a few years now. Montana side closed in the early 2000's and the Idaho side just a couple of years ago. I use to do a lot of riding out of cedars campground. One of my best rides, was Hoodoo pass to goose lake back on to the ridge and drop into fish lake and out to cedars. That took me roughly 10 hours to do. I have done the hoodoo to goose lake and out goose creek to the road, probably half a dozen times. I very rarely ran into people. we have also done up to fish over to Kelly creek and out. Just some really big backcountry rides. It is easy to get dispersed in there.

 

[mtnbiker208]

what most of you are missing is the new wilderness going forward. Where mtn bikes where riding and riding just fine. Now we can't. that is a problem, that should be addressed going forward.

What I will say I do not agree with on this thread, is the sterotyping. Here in north Idaho, I doubt there is a user group that clears more trails, and does more trail maintence than the mountain bikers or motorcycle riders. I do not own a motorcycle, but I see where they do a lot of trail work. no, not in wilderness, but on trails they are allowed on, those trails are usually the clearest, with the wilderness trails, being the least taken care of. The forest service here, relies on the mountain bikers to clear trails. I have cut so many trees out of trails, it is not funny, but I do live in a very treed area. We are way more treed, than any of the intermountain states.

 

[tipsntails7]

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 you enjoy the wilderness now how it is, but when your to old you want to have easier access? Do people who come after you not deserve the opportunity to experience the Wild like you did?
No one is telling them they can't use the land, just what activities can take place on it. So you wouldn't be apposed to a guy running around starting forest fires whenever he wanted? You know, because he likes fires. Or a guy dumping his trash wherever? What about growing marijuana and diverting streams for water? Just because it's public land doesn't mean you get to do whatever the hell you want on it.

These restrictions are in place in order to preserve these places for future generations, not for your sole enjoyment based on your current abilities to utilize them.

It would be GREAT if people showed a little respect and didn't need all the bullshit hand holding, and yet it's proven time and time again that most don't appreciate it enough to pack out their own garbage, much less volunteer for trail maintenance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CrzyTrekker]

Tipsntails

+1 we all have our time, as violent hippie said so well.

 

[Shooter19802003]

The preservation argument makes me laugh. If there are cars, atvs or whatever....it is still wilderness. There is no pavement, there are no skyscrapers. If the trail is 1 foot wide or 20.....makes no difference....it is a drop in the bucket. The animals aren't going to pack their bags and leave if the trail gets a little wider. It is not going to become a super highway because some guy wants to ride his bike. It literally changes nothing. We are going to have to agree to disagree on this. It is what it is.

 

[tipsntails7]

The preservation argument makes me laugh. If there are cars, atvs or whatever....it is still wilderness. There is no pavement, there are no skyscrapers. If the trail is 1 foot wide or 20.....makes no difference....it is a drop in the bucket. The animals aren't going to pack their bags and leave if the trail gets a little wider. It is not going to become a super highway because some guy wants to ride his bike. It literally changes nothing. We are going to have to agree to disagree on this. It is what it is.

Now I'm honestly going to question wether you've ever set foot in a wilderness area. If you don't think vehicles play a roll on animal behavior then I don't know what to tell you.
If you don't think easier access means more people to that area, which again means more intrusion, then your joking yourself.

If you think more human intrusion does not equal more erosion of wild places... well then your just delusional.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[topher89]

The preservation argument makes me laugh. If there are cars, atvs or whatever....it is still wilderness. There is no pavement, there are no skyscrapers. If the trail is 1 foot wide or 20.....makes no difference....it is a drop in the bucket. The animals aren't going to pack their bags and leave if the trail gets a little wider. It is not going to become a super highway because some guy wants to ride his bike. It literally changes nothing. We are going to have to agree to disagree on this. It is what it is.

Really? You must be trolling.... What you are talking about would change everything.

 

[mtwarden]

The preservation argument makes me laugh. If there are cars, atvs or whatever....it is still wilderness.

you should probably consider running for office

 

[Shooter19802003]

No, I'm far from trolling. Because I disagree with you. You must live a sheltered life. As far as change goes...how does it change everything? I drive a pretty nice truck, which apparently doesn't even compare to yours. If your vehicle can out do you on foot on a single track. I gotta see that car of yours. Point being a vehicle can only take you so far, then you park it and hoof it. Wilderness or no doesn't change that. An existing trail network only allows for so much....wilderness or not. I'm sorry if you can't see past the fog of emotion to see the logic in that. Or point me to some facts that support your argument. Like when has a wilderness designation not gone through and that ecosystem just went to shit. I don't think you can.....but I welcome the education. Nobody is changing anything by it not being wilderness. Everything stays exactly the same....except some guy wants to ride a bike on a trail you walk on. Trail stays the same.....land stays the same. Except that pesky guy on a bike. Damn that pesky bike....just ruined the whole place. Next he will want to build a condo there or something...all because he wanted a bike ride.

 

[realunlucky]

I agree we should change everything for this small group of super special people who shouldn't have to enjoy it like everyone else because well they don't want to because it just isn't fair.


Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[tipsntails7]

No, I'm far from trolling. Because I disagree with you. You must live a sheltered life. As far as change goes...how does it change everything? I drive a pretty nice truck, which apparently doesn't even compare to yours. If your vehicle can out do you on foot on a single track. I gotta see that car of yours. Point being a vehicle can only take you so far, then you park it and hoof it. Wilderness or no doesn't change that. An existing trail network only allows for so much....wilderness or not. I'm sorry if you can't see past the fog of emotion to see the logic in that. Or point me to some facts that support your argument. Like when has a wilderness designation not gone through and that ecosystem just went to shit. I don't think you can.....but I welcome the education. Nobody is changing anything by it not being wilderness. Everything stays exactly the same....except some guy wants to ride a bike on a trail you walk on. Trail stays the same.....land stays the same. Except that pesky guy on a bike. Damn that pesky bike....just ruined the whole place. Next he will want to build a condo there or something...all because he wanted a bike ride.

Well you said 1 ft trail or 20 ft trail it doesn't matter, pretty sure I can drive a lot of shit on a 20ft trail, I mean why stop at bikes? Don't fat lazy people deserve to experience the wilderness to? Let's make that 20ft trail we made gravel now. Because You said quads and cars don't matter either. Oh but what about all the people with RV's? What about people who want to take their boats to fish at alpine lakes? What about them? We should probably pave that 20 ft gravel road now, as we don't want to limit people access right?
When do the concessions stop? Why is your interest group the special one when other groups think they are special to?

"Nobody is changing anything by it not being wilderness".... Um ya you are. If it was wilderness it's now not, so that's a change. I don't think you have ANY idea what a wilderness designation means quite honestly, there is a lot more to it then just use regulations. You built a road? Changed. You altered the trail to accommodate larger vehicles? Changed. You built a shitter and put a bunch of trash cans out because people keep littering all over the place, Changed.

You seem to think bikers would just stick to designated trails? I know I don't when i am hiking, so why would they? How about motor bikes? Well hell thats not a big deal right? Well hell I can get a quad out there now. Now we have hikers, bikers(both kinds) and quads out there driving around wherever they can. Well heck if a guy on an Atv can go I bet I can get a Jeep out there in a few places.

Seems nothing would change at all...I bet you wouldn't even notice, I'm sure the land would be exactly the same....

You seem very entitled to land that is a privilege to use, it's not a right granted to you as a citizen.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kjack_74]

Ok so here's my 2 cents. Public land is not all created equal, it should all be open to public access but not every inch to every type of use. I hunt, I ride 4 wheelers, I fish both fly fishing in high mountains, and from my motorized boat, I hike I ride horse ... I do all of these things and more on public lands, but I don't do them all in the same place. I believe that I should have roads open to drive my pickup, and trails to ride my 4 wheeler. I believe there are areas where that is appropriate, but not every road needs to be open and not every trail should be available to me to use my 4 wheeler. Wilderness is a place removed from modern, and mechanical uses and should remain so. I can use my modern things elsewhere where that use is open. Multiple use doesn't mean that all uses happen on every inch of ground.

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk

 

[Billinsd]

what most of you are missing is the new wilderness going forward. Where mtn bikes where riding and riding just fine. Now we can't. that is a problem, that should be addressed going forward.

What I will say I do not agree with on this thread, is the sterotyping. Here in north Idaho, I doubt there is a user group that clears more trails, and does more trail maintence than the mountain bikers or motorcycle riders. I do not own a motorcycle, but I see where they do a lot of trail work. no, not in wilderness, but on trails they are allowed on, those trails are usually the clearest, with the wilderness trails, being the least taken care of. The forest service here, relies on the mountain bikers to clear trails. I have cut so many trees out of trails, it is not funny, but I do live in a very treed area. We are way more treed, than any of the intermountain states.

Amen!! Lots of unfair sterotyping by hunters who are unfairly sterotyped is pretty hypocritical. There were many trails open to mtn bikes, that became wilderness areas and now those trails have become undocumented for mtn biking.

 

[Billinsd]

No, I'm far from trolling. Because I disagree with you. You must live a sheltered life. As far as change goes...how does it change everything? I drive a pretty nice truck, which apparently doesn't even compare to yours. If your vehicle can out do you on foot on a single track. I gotta see that car of yours. Point being a vehicle can only take you so far, then you park it and hoof it. Wilderness or no doesn't change that. An existing trail network only allows for so much....wilderness or not. I'm sorry if you can't see past the fog of emotion to see the logic in that. Or point me to some facts that support your argument. Like when has a wilderness designation not gone through and that ecosystem just went to shit. I don't think you can.....but I welcome the education. Nobody is changing anything by it not being wilderness. Everything stays exactly the same....except some guy wants to ride a bike on a trail you walk on. Trail stays the same.....land stays the same. Except that pesky guy on a bike. Damn that pesky bike....just ruined the whole place. Next he will want to build a condo there or something...all because he wanted a bike ride.

Amen! Have any of you all been asked by a non hunter not to shoot them, when hiking in on a trail to hunt? I have and so have my friends. Its not very pleasant. Mtn biking is politically incorrect, like hunting is, both have their bad apples and I love to do both!!

 

[Billinsd]

Ok so here's my 2 cents. Public land is not all created equal, it should all be open to public access but not every inch to every type of use. I hunt, I ride 4 wheelers, I fish both fly fishing in high mountains, and from my motorized boat, I hike I ride horse ... I do all of these things and more on public lands, but I don't do them all in the same place. I believe that I should have roads open to drive my pickup, and trails to ride my 4 wheeler. I believe there are areas where that is appropriate, but not every road needs to be open and not every trail should be available to me to use my 4 wheeler. Wilderness is a place removed from modern, and mechanical uses and should remain so. I can use my modern things elsewhere where that use is open. Multiple use doesn't mean that all uses happen on every inch of ground.

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk

Great argument. However, good arguments have been made in favor of mtn bikes in wilderness as well as arguments against. The politicians we elect will decide this issue right or wrong. By letting mtb bikes in the wilderness doesn't mean you are letting in all other previously prohibited methods of transportation. That's a straw man argument.

 

[Billinsd]

I agree we should change everything for this small group of super special people who shouldn't have to enjoy it like everyone else because well they don't want to because it just isn't fair?

I don't understand that at all, sarcasm or not?? The sentences seem to contradict each other?

 

[CrzyTrekker]

Now I'm honestly going to question wether you've ever set foot in a wilderness area. If you don't think vehicles play a roll on animal behavior then I don't know what to tell you. If you don't think easier access means more people to that area, which again means more intrusion, then your joking yourself.

If you think more human intrusion does not equal more erosion of wild places... well then your just delusional.

Yep, science has confirmed this over and over. Aside from the obvious aesthetic impacts, there's the proven fact that animals like elk and mule deer are negatively impacted with more human intrusion.