Comments on: Mountain bikes in the wilderness

By: GMCoyote

GMCoyote — Mon, 19 Mar 2018 13:31:17 +0000

I was a federal land manager (US Fish&Wildlife Service) for just a hair under 30 years…the last 14 in law enforcement…and some of those lands were designated Wilderness Areas. I have seen the very good and unfortunately, the very, very bad (evil, in some cases!) in land users of all kinds: hikers, campers, photographers, kayakers, hunters, fishermen — even laughably “birdwatchers” — and yes, mountain bikers (open transparency, I mountain bike myself). I firmly believe, that the “good ones” outnumber the “evil ones”….and that the good ones try very hard to “police themselves and like-minded others” to do the least damage to the resource as/while they engage in their recreational use. That said, the harm that the “bad users” choose to do all too often (and all too easily) outweighs much — so much — of the good that is done by the well-intentioned (think endangered species, ARPA violations, arson, take of wildlife, erosion, watershed damage, etc etc etc). And that alone is reason enough (at least to me) that wilderness areas should be accessible to the American people, but only with the strict limitations as set forth in the Wilderness Act, with the law strictly interpreted—and when necessary — strictly enforced. If “gray area” uses are allowed, people by their very nature, will start to interpret the laws loosely….and I don’t think any of us want or desire the amount of law enforcement necessary to ensure that every user strictly adheres at all times to every rule / law / regulation while we enjoy the backcountry.

By: Doug K

Doug K — Wed, 17 Aug 2016 21:39:23 +0000

In reply to Guthook. I try to be cynical, but I just can't keep up - Lily Tomlin

By: Guthook

Guthook — Tue, 16 Aug 2016 17:49:01 +0000

In reply to Paul Mags.

Too true– For me, cynicism is an unfortunate side effect of paying attention to current and past events, but a good antidote from time to time is spending time in the wilderness (big or little ‘w’, doesn’t matter) 😉

By: Paul Mags

Paul Mags — Tue, 16 Aug 2016 16:32:18 +0000

In reply to Guthook. You can never be too cynical with politicians. :O

By: Paul Mags

Paul Mags — Tue, 16 Aug 2016 16:31:34 +0000

In reply to Doug K. I hinted at what you said. I agree 100%.

By: Doug K

Doug K — Tue, 16 Aug 2016 16:28:03 +0000

Senators Hatch and Lee are behind this bill. They are also on record as being in favor of removing all public land from federal control. It’s hard not to see this as the camel’s nose, a most unappealing hairy smelly thing.
We can and should fight this as best we can.

A similar bill was proposed to open the rivers of Yellowstone to commercial rafting, by a similar radical right-wing representative. See

https://www.hcn.org/wotr/paddling-bill-is-bad-news-for-yellowstone-and-grand-teton-parks

That one appears to be stalled, last action was in 2014 to place it on the Union Calendar, which is some machination of the House that I don’t understand.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/3492/all-actions?overview=closed#tabs

Note how the bill was called “The River Paddling Protection Act” when it’s really about invading and destroying the sanctuary of the rivers. The mechanized invasion of wilderness is called “Human-Powered Travel in Wilderness Act”. The right has a penchant for Orwellian doublespeak I find.

As with that bill, which was opposed by many canoeists and other paddlers, this bikes in wilderness bill is opposed by many cyclists. See

http://www.bicycleretailer.com/opinion-analysis/2016/08/12/guest-opinion-how-sen-lee’s-bill-will-close-trails

“Without public lands, there is no mountain biking, and Sen. Mike Lee is no friend of public lands.”

By: Guthook

Guthook — Tue, 16 Aug 2016 12:31:14 +0000

Ever since hearing about this from a friend at the ATC, I’ve been against the idea of opening Wilderness to any more accessibility for about the same reason as you– it changes the character of the areas to make them more accessible, since the Wilderness Act was all about limiting access. I don’t know if you’ve seen the website of the group that started lobbying for this, but their arguments are also disingenuous and misleading. They show pictures of people pushing baby strollers or riding pedal-boats, claiming “this is illegal in wilderness areas”, or pictures of people riding mountain bikes in non-wilderness areas with captions like “this would be illegal in a wilderness area”. They claim that the PCT and CDT are in serious disrepair because of Wilderness rules, when, in fact, I’d argue that those are some of the best-maintained trails in the country.

They also fail to mention that chainsaws and other mechanical tools CAN be allowed in wilderness areas on a case-by-case basis by a special order from the Forest Service (I’ve seen a helicopter evac from the middle of a wilderness area using a specific exemption like this), but the proposal sounds like it would turn the existing process on its head. Based on who’s sponsoring the bill, my interpretation is the cynical political take. Grumpy Guthook strikes again…