Ending trapping

[brocksw]

The policy on motorized travel was put in place long before electric motors on bikes were a thing. That rule was put in place with dirt bikes and atvs in mind. That is not an opinion.

E bikes are no louder than a regular bike and have no more impact on trails than regular mountain bikes. There is no logical reason one should be allowed while the other isn't.

It's pretty simple stuff.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

The second amendment was created long before automatic rifles were created too...do you want to change the rules to adapt to modern times there too?

This issue is not as myopic or narrowly focused as noise or trail impact.

It's multiple use mandate means the USFS has always tiered use classifications. Some places a primitive or Wilderness experience is prioritized, some places it's not. Some places don't allow extraction industries, some do.

There is also a conscious effort to ensure some places don't get loved to death. Opening Wilderness up to bikes might not seem like a bad thing right? No noise to speak of... but then someone's bike club starts blazing new trails, usage rates go way up, meaning more people, more trash being carried in, more people deeper in the wilderness.

Access is tiered for a reason. To ensure varying levels of use and to ensure some places don't get abused.

 

[Rockydog]

...following

 

[Billinsd]

The second amendment was created long before automatic rifles were created too...do you want to change the rules to adapt to modern times there too?

So the second Amendment is only valid for 18th Century Firearms? The rules or rather 2nd Amendment wasn't changed correctly by Constitutional Amendment, rather the courts interpreted it to restrict automatic firearms. Courts do this all the time. The 2nd Amendment states "shall not be infringed upon" Unfortunately it is extremely infringed upon. Carry on.

 

[Billinsd]

No good deed goes unpunished with the BHA derangement syndrome folks apparently. Who needs enemies with allies like this...

I'm not a member and am not crazy about BHA, however I believe they do more good for hunting than against hunting. My uneasiness with BHA is that I'm pro development, energy, mining etc. However, BHA is mild, not like the Sierra Club.

 

[bsnedeker]

All bikes and ATVs will be electric in 50 years from now, probably sooner. Saying motorcycle then will be implied electric, as it is implied gas today.

If you believe the areas that are designated non-motorized should be undesignated, to allow motorized travel, then I disagree, but I respect your opinion.

Claiming motors are not motors is something else.

That is obviously not even remotely the same thing. Ebike motors are limited to 750 Watts in the US, although I have seen 1000 W motors. The motors on electric motorcycles and ATV's are MUCH more powerful. Those powerful motors clearly do have an impact on trails, whereas an ebike does not.

Again, no reason an ebike should be banned while a mountain bike is not...they have the exact same impact on animal behavior and trails.

 

[brocksw]

So the second Amendment is only valid for 18th Century Firearms? The rules or rather 2nd Amendment wasn't changed correctly by Constitutional Amendment, rather the courts interpreted it to restrict automatic firearms. Courts do this all the time. The 2nd Amendment states "shall not be infringed upon" Unfortunately it is extremely infringed upon. Carry on.

You Interpreted my analogy completely out of context.

The whole point I was making is that we have laws/rules/regulations set in place for a certain reason and purpose. And we don't go update those rules and laws every time technology changes.

In principle I don't support a ban on ARs for the same reason that I don't support changing the non-motorized laws to allow electric motors on bikes. Because the original law and intent is still valid and doesn't need changing to keep up with the times.

Cars have gotten safer but we don't repeal seat belt laws. Cars have gotten faster but we don't eliminate speed limits. There's a host of things like this. Sometimes the original intent of the law is solid and doesn't need to be changed.

 

[Billinsd]

I also strongly disagree with BHA on a number of issues, including what I view as their ridiculous stance on ebikes (an ebike has no more impact on the landscape than a mountain bike so I feel they should be treated the same), which is why I don't give them my money...again, my opinion.

Wow that's fantastic!! Are you sure? I totally agree with them. BHA I think I love you!!! Come on people push me over the side, I'm close to joining. BHA is certainly a mixed bag!

 

[brocksw]

That is obviously not even remotely the same thing. Ebike motors are limited to 750 Watts in the US, although I have seen 1000 W motors. The motors on electric motorcycles and ATV's are MUCH more powerful. Those powerful motors clearly do have an impact on trails, whereas an ebike does not.

Again, no reason an ebike should be banned while a mountain bike is not...they have the exact same impact on animal behavior and trails.

So there is no motorized advantage over a pedal bicycle?

I use a mountain bike for hunting sometimes. Have you ever climbed a mountain In a pedal bike? Ever tried biking on a muddy trail with a load?

An ebike can easily help the user carry more weight up the mountain with less effort, while being less physically demanding, less encumbered by mud, etc.

That absolutely can impact trails, lead to an increase in human presence in sensitive areas, increased trash in pristine areas, make it easier to establish new trails, on and on...

Non -motorized areas and Wilderness areas are a minority of public lands holdings...there is no reason to allow electric motorized bikes in non-motorized areas and bicycles in Wilderness. There are literally millions and millions and millions of acres where they are allowed....use them there.

 

[Billinsd]

You Interpreted my analogy completely out of context.

LOL no I didn't!!

The whole point I was making is that we have laws/rules/regulations set in place for a certain reason and purpose. And we don't go update those rules and laws every time technology changes.

LOL I thought so. Your analogy was hilarious, though. Yes, rules and laws are there for a purpose. Well sometimes we do or need to update laws and Amendments when technology changes. It depends what the law says, how it is written, and what is the new technology. It can and is usually complicated.

In principle I don't support a ban on ARs for the same reason that I don't support changing the non-motorized laws to allow electric motors on e-bikes.

I know, but your argument contradicted that. I can't really help you if you can't comprehend that?
[/QUOTE]

 

[Billinsd]

Again, no reason an ebike should be banned while a mountain bike is not...they have the exact same impact on animal behavior and trails.

I'll be the devil's advocate. E-bikes would likely increase use on trails. Most people on the trails impacts game.

 

[brocksw]

LOL no I didn't!!
LOL I thought so. Your analogy was hilarious, though. Yes, rules and laws are there for a purpose. Well sometimes we do or need to update laws and Amendments when technology changes. It depends what the law says, how it is written, and what is the new technology. It can and is usually complicated. I know, but your argument contradicted that. I can't really help you if you can't comprehend that?

I see where the disconnect is in my analogy. My fault. What I'm saying is when new rifles came along most of us don't support running and changing the law to allow or disallow said new technology. If a new gun came out tomorrow, we're not gonna immediately turn and say "well we need to change the laws now because there's a new gun".

Same with ebikes. The law says "non-motorized" or prohibits "mechanized" in the case of wilderness....we don't look to change the laws every time new pedal technology shows up and nor should we. The original law is clear and valid and serves a purpose....new tech aside.

 

[Billinsd]

when new rifles came along most of us don't support running and changing the law to allow or disallow said new technology. If a new gun came out tomorrow, we're not gonna immediately turn and say "well we need to change the laws now because there's a new gun".

Anti gun people would want to change the laws. The 2nd Amendment says "shall not be infringed upon". And yet the courts have done that. I know anti gun people who told me that the 2nd Amendment needs to be repealed. Most anti gun people just want to restrict it to an extreme. The 2nd Amendment is very complicated. It shouldn't be. The courts have done this, legislate from the bench

Same with ebikes. The saw says "non-motorized" or prohibits "mechanized" in the case of wilderness....we don't look to change the laws every time new pedal technology shows up and nor should we. The original law is clear and valid and serves a purpose....new tech aside.

Personally I'd leave the 2nd Amendment out of your argument, because it's gotten basterdized to hell!! You are STRONG when you say "the law says "non-motorized" or prohibits "mechanized" in the case of wilderness.....Just tell people non motorized means non motorized, because it does. This is black and white. Non motorized, doesn't specify gas or diesel or electric. It doesn't matter if these technologies weren't around when it was written. Motorized means a motor. bikes are mechanized. The Constitution, laws, and regulations are not LIVING breathing evolving documents!!! They mean what they say. Problems occur when they are poorly written or there are grey areas. Personally I would like to see more bikes and ebikes out there. But it looks like laws would need to be changed. I'm against bending laws, even if it benefits me.

 

[brocksw]

Anti gun people would want to change the laws. The 2nd Amendment says "shall not be infringed upon". And yet the courts have done that. I know anti gun people who told me that the 2nd Amendment needs to be repealed. Most anti gun people just want to restrict it to an extreme. The 2nd Amendment is very complicated. It shouldn't be. The courts have done this, legislate from the bench
Personally I'd leave the 2nd Amendment out of your argument, because it's gotten basterdized to hell!! You are STRONG when you say "the law says "non-motorized" or prohibits "mechanized" in the case of wilderness.....Just tell people non motorized means non motorized, because it does. This is black and white. Non motorized, doesn't specify gas or diesel or electric. It doesn't matter if these technologies weren't around when it was written. Motorized means a motor. bikes are mechanized. The Constitution, laws, and regulations are not LIVING breathing evolving documents!!! They mean what they say. Problems occur when they are poorly written or there are grey areas. Personally I would like to see more bikes and ebikes out there. But it looks like laws would need to be changed. I'm against bending laws, even if it benefits me.

Right, my analogy might not be that great, as it's sort of a complex inverse comparison and not that easy to connect the dots. But you follow the point I'm getting at....

I'm all for more mtbs and ebikes and people getting out and using public lands. I'm all for hunters using them to make life easier. But only where they're permitted. Use ebikes outside non-motorized and bikes outside wilderness. Have at it and more power to ya. Like I said, I use a mtb in some areas but have no problem going on foot where they're not permitted and appreciate those areas too.

 

[Billinsd]

When you argue with people that try and bend those laws just say "a bike is mechanized by definition and an e bike has a motor by definition" what part of prohibited don't you understand? Don't let them drag you into the weeds. I believe the laws should be changed to allow more people out there and respect that you are against that. I'm totally against bending laws, whether it benefits me or not. Cheers

 

[brocksw]

When you argue with people that try and bend those laws just say "a bike is mechanized by definition and an e bike has a motor by definition" what part of prohibited don't you understand? Don't let them drag you into the weeds. I believe the laws should be changed to allow more people out there and respect that you are against that. I'm totally against bending laws, whether it benefits me or not. Cheers

I dragged myself into the weeds with that analogy. No ones fault but my own.

 

[wind gypsy]

I’ve ridden an ebike and i could do a lot of things on it that I would not have a prayer doing with a standard mountain bike.

 

[cacklercrazy]

It's because hunters, trappers, and sportsmen in general are infected with the mindset of always taking the "high road". It may well be the time to hit them where it hurts, in their conveniences of life.

Sure, it's going to hurt our pocket book, but imagine the attention of theirs you will get when you refuse to open shop to anyone for an oil change, car trouble, utility/service delivery just to name a few.

The days of being politically involved and pushing the importance of voting are over. There are too many people that are indifferent enough for it to even matter anymore. The other half are too worried about keeping their 3/4 ton diesel pulling the 5th wheel toy hauler ahead of momma's Lincoln Navigator to be vocal too much as they don't want to lose that good paying job because their household is one paycheck away from being bankrupt.

The only thing we can actually have hope for is all this idiocy being pushed will result in some very bad and painful lessons resulting from hardships to usher in the much needed reset. Covid-19 wasn't it...

I live in the hellhole call California and have said the every same thing g as you about it having to get really bad before it gets better. Not sure if that happens, but if NewAss gets kicked out I will wait to see. We need as sportsmen need to all group together and stand up against these things. We have to become one loud voice.