Should mountain bikes be allowed in wild
General Topic
Seems some of the same groups lobbying hardest to keep e-bikes off bike trails and closed NF roads are pushing hard to get mountain bikes permitted in designated wilderness areas.
Seems like a bit of elitist hypocrisy?
I don't think so... I can't agree more Lou...
e bike is motorized keep it out of the wilderness areas. mountain bike not sure won't matter any way lots of the gila no motorized vehicles they ride them all over where there not supposed to be
Let me ask this question from a position of ignorance...if you’re pro e-bike on national forest trails, are you anti motorcycles? If so, why? What if it was an electric motorcycle that didn’t make noise? It just seems like once again technology is making leaps that regulations can’t keep up with. I remember seeing some, maybe jaq post that e-bikes under a certain wattage were exempt. It makes you wonder if that’s because 5-10-20 years ago the technology wasn’t there so there was no reason to ban them then. So do we need to consider a ban now?
These are all just random thoughts I’ve had since I’ve been seeing these threads.
Nobody is talking about ebikes with this initiative. Its about "mountain bikes" in designated wilderness areas. The MTB groups are lobbying hard for this, got a bill introduced into Congress to amend the Wilderness Act.
My opinion is that Mt. bikes and e-bikes should not be allowed in wilderness areas. That is why I go.
Scott
Jaq, apparently I don’t read very well. Wow. Sorry about that!
Regarding the actual question, I’m again any type of bike in wilderness areas.
EF Hutton an ebike is a mountain bike that has a MOTOR and the people that ride them will try to convince you that they don't have a MOTOR. These same folks will try to tell you that they are legal to ride on trails that are designated non-motorized vehicles only.
It truly is just like some wack job that has male plumbing but identifies as female. I HAVE A MOTOR BUT IM NON-MOTORIZED.
The world really is going crazy when folks on bowsite that I truly look up to has been pushing this nonsense
No bikes in wilderness with or without a MOTOR.
This thread is not about e-bikes. SMH.
no to e-bikes that is crazy
THIS THREAD HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EBIKES!
ITS ABOUT PERMITTING CONVENTIONAL PEDAL MOUNTAIN BIKES IN DESIGNATED WILDERNESS AREAS.
Should Rages be allowed to be shot out of airbows?
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO BIKES OR ANY WHEELED VEHICLES PERIOD in a Wilderness Area!!!!!!!
Wild is Wild, is Wild, is Wild, is Wild!!!!!!!!!
WHEN ONE CROSSES OVER AND INTO A WILDERNESS AREA, AND IT IS LIKE TAKING A NEW BREATH OF FRESH AIR. BOTH YOUR MIND AND BODY ARE ENLIGHTENED.
My Best, Paul
I completely agree with Paul on this one. That is why wilderness areas exist.
Thanks for getting this thread back on track. Contrary to what many believe, even game carts are currently prohibited in wilderness areas. Presuming if this proposed law passes that game carts will also be allowed.
Paul x 4. If I had it my way, horses would not be allowed in the smaller wilderness areas either. No bikes please.
I absolutely agree that it's super ironic and hypocritical that the MB groups are trying to get access to wilderness but don't want ebikes in Ntl Forest.
Yep. Was a thread over on Rokslide about 1.5 months ago about this. If they get this amendment it will have repercussions for our wilderness areas. Bike trails and mountain bikers lead to a lot of potential conflict in areas that were designated to be no wheeled access. And, it's a fine example of what can happen when we hand over management authority to Congress with a special designation in our lands.
Last week, the Boulder-based International Mountain Biking Association (IMBA) — which has a chapter in the Roaring Fork Valley — issued a statement in opposition to HR 1349.
“IMBA is not supporting this legislation and has submitted its testimony to the House Natural Resources Committee,” the statement reads. “IMBA’s mission does not include amending the Wilderness Act and never has. In 2016, IMBA’s board of directors reaffirmed our position on this issue, which is to respect both the act and the federal land agency regulations that bicycles are not allowed in existing, Congressionally designated Wilderness areas.”
The bill is the brainchild of Ted Stoll, founder and executive director of the California-based Sustainable Trails Coalition.
What "mountain bike groups" are pushing this?
IMBA and NORBA are the largest mountain biking organizations. IMBA says "NO". NORBA is a race organization and there is no mention of them being being behind this.
Now to answer the question. Short answer, NO. No bikes, dogs, motorized vehicles, or hang gliders.
I'm with Paul.......keep it wilderness and not bike ridden.
Leave it to someone from California to come up with such a liberal, dumb ass idea. What wilderness would accommodate wheelchairs or strollers ? .....Per jaq’s link..... Only thing I want to see in the wilderness is wild animals, hunters, hikers and packstrings !!
No, mountain bikes don't belong in wilderness areas and ebikes don't belong on non-motorized trails.
I am all for mountain bicycles in wilderness
next it will be no hunters
No bikes in Wilderness areas! Keep wilderness areas wild.
Why no human powered bikes? We hike in, horse in, camp etc. Why not human powered bikes?
Should we be allowed to wear shoes in a wilderness area?
I mean wilderness is wilderness!
And a big NO on e-bikes on closed NF roads...yeah I know that's not what the thread is about and I don't care.
Bob H, that's what some mountain bike people are saying, and why this bill was introduced.
For the record, I'm against it too, and agree with Idyllwild that some crowded wilderness areas would be better off if ALL travel was restricted to human-powered foot travel only. Horses are for lazy people looking for an easy way. (I think I read that on one of the ebike threads, LOL). This from someone who used to own horses and pack all over some wilderness areas until they became too crowded.
"yeah, I know that's not what the thread is about and I don't care". So there! Take that!
ROTFL! I bet you spent a few sessions standing in the corner in school, eh?
Jaquomo. You day no but why? Overcrowding, multiuse, disturbing hunting?
Not trying to argue just not sure what an objection would be based on other than not wanting more people
Would a rage take the spokes out of an ebike?
I would rather mountain bikes, or even ebikes, than horses. Those hay burners do nothing but get lazy fat nonresidents into our woods. They poop all over the trails and clop them up. They also pack alcohol so the said fat lazy nonresidents can party like rock stars at altitude. Whoopin and hollarin and blowing all my elk out of my GMU.
No bikes or other wheeled carts, trikes, unicycles in wilderness. I'm keeping my boots though Kodiak.
Bikes, e-bikes or silly one wheel scooter/skateboards on NF lands, I don't care. I think it's more of a matter of impact on the trail more than handicapping. No internal combustion engines.
Anything to serve their purpose and screw hunters. The antis and their agenda is a joke.
Bob, allowing bicycles and other wheeled devices (game carts, etc..) in designated wilderness totally wrecks the principle of the Wilderness Act of 1964. National Forest is designated as "multi-use" but wilderness areas are not. All types of vehicles are permitted in National Forest by law. No mechanized travel is allowed In designated wilderness areas. In this case, some misguided Congresscritters (see the link) are attempting to amend the Wilderness Act (federal law) to appease a small group of mountain bikers.
Thank you jaquomo. That added key info
No bikes. Keep it wild. There are enough places to ride. If they are in shape enough to ride, they can walk too.
PECO , you ever spent a week riding in a wilderness area on horseback ? There isn’t a “fat”, lazy person anywhere that is going to last on a horse in a rough wilderness ! After about 4 hours on the back of a horse all the easy fun is gone and you better be in shape and know how to ride. Hell, if it wasn’t for horses keeping the trails dug out some of the yuppies I see in the wilderness couldn’t find a trail if they had to. The national forest I use is over a million acres and the wilderness in that forest.is probably 50,000 acres they can ride their bikes in the million acres leave the wilderness to foot travel. Even if it’s 4 feet.
"ROTFL! I bet you spent a few sessions standing in the corner in school, eh?"
I still do!
I am waiting for the ecompound.
I would LOVE to be able to get access to a WA via MTB.... and I’ll bet that so would way too damn many other people.
No motors on non-motorized trails and no mechanized travel in WA. The game carts alone would destroy the experience... but you can bet your butt that the MTBers would oppose them.
jdee, I'm attempting to be funny. I have not rode since I was a kid in the late 70's. I know it would hurt me to spent all day on a horse.
"In this case, some misguided Congresscritters (see the link) are attempting to amend the Wilderness Act (federal law) to appease a small group of mountain bikers." That's not at all what I got from reading the article. One of the largest, if not the largest mountain biking organization is against this legislation.
Wait, what, the mountain bikers would oppose game carts? Huh? There would be plenty of mountain bikes with game carts attached roaming the wilderness.
Absolutely not!!! I ride mountain bikes, but am adamantly opposed to their use in wilderness areas. I don't know anything about who is behind this, but the International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA) is on record as being against it. https://www.bicycling.com/culture/imba-wilderness-areas-house-bill
Game carts wouldn't last more than 100 yds in a wilderness area. After 99 yds of pulling one, the puller would say this is stupid and take it back.
It's being pushed by the Sustainable Trails Coalition and a number of state MTB organizations that believe the IMBA is too radical eco. STC broke away from IMBA a few years ago. They are emphasizing the net loss of hundreds of miles of MTB access due to recent new wilderness and wilderness study area expansions, and seem to be asking for some - not all - wilderness trails to open up to compensate for the losses.
I did not realize this until I started digging into it, but the wilderness enforcement policy was "look the other way" until 1984 when mountain biking started to become popular. This, despite the clear wording in the 1964 law that says "no mechanized travel".
In a couple of our heavily-used (and hunted) wilderness areas here in NoCo they are apparently looking the other way as outfitters clear outlaw horse hunting trails through the increasing deadfall, using illegal chainsaws.
I hunt in the wilderness in Wyoming and there is a reason for that. I own horses but still choose to bivy in with everything I need on my back. If I’m am fortunate to harvest an animal I can go out and return with my stock to pack out. I totally am against any bikes or wheeled cart of any type in these areas. There’s a reason it’s called a wilderness area, keep it that way.
In a quick look at the STC website it appears they are a fringe group with one single purpose and that is to push mountain bikes in the wilderness. IMBA on the other hand, is very involved in a wide range of things to promote the responsible use of mountain bikes. Let's hope clear heads prevail, and the best way to do that is contact your representatives and make sure they are aware of the real issues. I will be doing that. Also make sure to support the organizations that represent your interests. Backcountry Hunters and Anglers is one excellent choice that will help fight bills like this one.
i do not want bikes or any wheeled vehicles in wilderness areas and ebikes not in nonmotorized areas.
No bikes or wheels in wilderness!
But Jaquomo, if you think horses are easy, you have never dealt with horses! Nothing easy about them. They are great packing people in and game out, but every other aspect of them is WORK.
No Wheels in the wilderness ? Does that include bows with wheels? Interesting..
Peej, good point. Wheels give an advantage everywhere.
I’m against any bike in wilderness areas but the ebikers should get on board with this. As soon as human powered bikes are allowed, ebikers can claim unfair treatment to aged, infirm or fat people. Then an exemption can be made the motorized electric bikes can gain access too.
20+ years ago when I used to race road and mountain bikes on weekends I probably would have supported this. When you ride 200 miles per week new territory is always welcomed. I used to ride hundreds of miles on wilderness trails and never saw any enforcement. A couple of times people asked me if it was legal and I just told them it was legal unless otherwise posted. Little chance of a fit rider ever getting caught anyway.
Txhunter, oh I know all about horses. At my high (low?) point I owned 23. I bred them, imported them from out of the country, raised them, broke them for riding and packing, hunted with them for many years. After awhile I decided I enjoyed hunting a lot more than dealing with horses and all the troubles that can occur in the backcountry. I could tell stories all night.
But the point is, I see pack strings heading up trails loaded with out-of-shape sports and their gear, pampered by outfitters, guides, wranglers and cooks, who otherwise wouldn't make it 1/4 mile into the wilderness if they were dealing with their own camp and gear.
So I have to laugh when I hear people defending horse travel in the backcountry while at the same time dissing someone else for "taking the easy way". Anybody who thinks that has never ridden a bike up a steep rough mountain trail over the age of 60 while carrying a bow and a hunting pack. LOL!
I'm for no bikes in wilderness areas...
Mt. bikes okay on closed FS roads, but not in any wilderness designated areas, period. Walk in only. Horses okay I guess.
I guess… Just a matter of perspective.…
I don’t imagine that many of us would be too happy about it if any new wilderness areas would be off-limits to hunting; we’d probably feel as though something that we already had access to was somehow being taken away…
But as I expect everyone who hunts back there knows, wilderness areas are incredibly valuable as sanctuaries for the wildlife during the heavy part of each season, and could be just as important over the summer months as well. I think as hunters, we can reasonably Point out that we are willing to do whatever is necessary to provide for the welfare of the creatures that we pursue. If you were a single-minded single-tracker, you might not give a lot of consideration to what the deer and the elk and the sheep might need out of the deal.
So I’m not sympathetic to their desire to have plenty of places to ride, but for Pete’s sake… You get west of I 25 and just about every other square-foot of this country is publicly owned. I guess I don’t see a great crisis of public access out there, as long as Individual landowners aren’t permitted to cut off access by shutting down a handful of private roads… Which is a different subject entirely!
Of course, now that I live in the virtually-no-public-access-to-anything part of the country, I guess I’m a bit more understanding. But everywhere I go here where bikes are allowed, the areas get trashed VERY quickly by downhiller-wannabes who always seem to figure these room for one more trail right through some erosion-prone area...
I agree no wheels in the wilderness. I also agree to ebikes wherever pedal bikes can go in the NF. Although I don't agree that somebody that uses horses is a lazy, pampered, drunk, non-resident.
Reflexively I say no. But then horses come to mind which are allowed but probably more disruptive to the wildnerness concept but have this romanticized backcountry lore. So sticking to the facts, if horses are then I say unmotorized MTBs have a legitimate gripe.
I say no.
But... on Saturday I attended a Q&A session with the Director of CPW and a Wildlife Commission person. They discussed how each state is struggling with what is to come in the near future, and that is where are all the 'users' going to go?
They aint making any more land. Each user group has as much right to NF or Wilderness as the others. As more and more groups become vocal, and some with deeper pockets than others, it just a matter of time before something will have to give.
Federal Designated Wilderness- No. Don't change the rules to pander to a specific group.
Separate debate- Mt bike vs E-bike.
E-bike should be allowed wherever MT bike is allowed. Why? An e-bike does not leave a different footprint than a pedal bike.
The trail doesn't care if the mtn bike tire imprint left on it was left by someone pedaling or someone using battery assist. Same results on trail.
To me that debate is similar to traditional vs compound. Each way gets the job done. Yes one has a slight mechanical advantage. But the critter doesn't care what passes passes through their lungs. Whether it is a cedar shaft tipped with a Zwickey or a FMJ traveling at 280 FPS.
Paul@the fort had it right! This would allow mountain bikes on the Appalachian Trail. I just can’t imagine. Let’s keep wild places wild.
Stay as it is, no bikes allowed.
I have mixed feelings on this issue. If you have ever been deep in the wilderness and had a large packstring of horses, wranglers, and dudes come rolling in it is much more disruptive to the area than a a couple of peddle bikes silently rolling by.
In parts of the wilderness around here if horses weren’t allowed in you would never get your elk or bear that you killed out. So, no horses would lead to wanton waste which would lead to no hunting . People that say no horses are the kind of people that tell me every year that they’re not paying to have an elk packed out then they get one down and the phone rings. There might be some wilderness areas that are mild but this one is a ROUGH. SOB !
Horses are like insurance. We hate paying for it but it sure is nice to have when you need it.
Grew up around horses, as dad was a trainer and I team roped and showed QTR horses. I always hated hunting with horses because they were a PITA to take care of but they sure were nice to have when there was a pack-out needed. Horses and wilderness always seemed synonymous to me but that might be due to my western upbringing?
Not in favor of any wheeled bikes, carts, etc. in wilderness areas and all motorized anything should not be permitted in non-motorized areas.
soooo.... I guess an e-cart would be out.....
Vote for no changes to wilderness, I mean, Designated Wilderness.
WRT e vs pedal only...... I really don't see much difference WRT trail wear and tear or disruption to hiker/campers and their peace and quiet. Seems to be more exclusionary flavor to it than based on impact. Keep them fat old NRs out of OUR spots........I think that was kind of how it was put....
Come on, I said I was trying to be funny and it was a little bit funny. I did not say "old" either. We all complain about the woods being too crowed, and too many nonresidents, and that we should cap the number of NR's during OTC seasons, like other western states do. Maybe we could accomplish this by making "them" take a physical readiness test. "They" must then hike to their camp with all of their gear on their back. Yes, the outfitter can still use horses to get camp gear and food in, and the animal meat out. But the lazy fat NR's will no longer be pampered. They must hike their gear in, and hike their gear and antlers out. BTW I'm still trying to be funny. I moved here, was once a NR myself.
From: Jaquomo 18-Mar-18
Nobody is talking about ebikes with this initiative. Its about "mountain bikes" in designated wilderness areas. The MTB groups are lobbying hard for this, got a bill introduced into Congress to amend the Wilderness Act.
Well, at least they are trying to do it the right way, instead of trying to find a loophole in the existing law! ;-)
Geez, some of you guys have some serious First World problems to worry about. There is no "loophole" in the existing law for e-bikes, because USFS TMR is NOT law. Got it - TMR is NOT LAW. USFS is trying to skirt the existing laws by making an arbitrary interpretation that contradicts federal and (some, including CO) state laws, and that's going to become moot after the USSC rules on it this summer. The ruling will be that agencies cannot make arbitrary bureaucratic rules that conflict with standing federal law.
Potatos, Potatoes.
So you have a crystal ball Jaq? ;-)
No bikes. And I don't competing with horses ether.
compound bows are machines. Should they be allowed?
I'm torn on this one;
Would a mtn bike tear up a trail more than a horse? I don't think so. Its the mtn bikes bombing down trails that would be a problem, IMO. I've seen it a hundred times...and for that reason I just don't do it on my mtn bike.
Carts; I don't see why a guy can't use a game cart. But then I've found broken cart wheels littered in the forest.....
I can see advantages and disadvantages. Most wilderness is pretty steep country....thats going to hinder just about everyone but this guy.....
Y'all are ignoring the political middle ground, the uni-cycle.
"Would a mtn bike tear up a trail more than a horse? I don't think so."
Horses clop the trail up with round holes that hold water. Bikes leave a track, or trough which allows water to run in, downhill and cause erosion.
I'm pro bike, just putting the info out there.
Peco, you couldn't be more wrong. I've walked horse trails up ridges where I could pat the ground on each side. Horses tear a trail up so water runs down the ridge and eventually you get a creek bed. But the sad part is that enough human traffic will do the same thing.
Any repetitive use will eventually leave a trail, especially at altitude where plant growth is very slow. Ever see sheep trails across scree slopes?
What scares me is when a mountain biker is coming down the same trail you are on. Better be in a place where you can get off the trail because they aren't stopping or slowing down.
There has been some talk of trying to make mountain bikes legal in the boundary waters canoe area. I don’t understand why??? I guess no one likes to be excluded even though everyone likes to exclude.
Grubby: regarding the boundary waters, it's my understanding MTB want to ride in the winter when the water is frozen. Effectively riding the routes that boats can navigate in the summer.
Regarding damage to trails, I think this is a "slippery slope" no pun intended.
If we strictly want to argue what access impacts the trails/land then where does that arguement end? Hovercraft would be OK because no impact to the land? Motor boat along a river in wilderness because it doesn't impact? Bush plane because it only impacts a short strip, versus a long trail?
As noted almost every activity has an impact, even hiking. There are lots of whackos that would like nothing more than to set aside huge tracts of land where no people should go. Opening the door for what does and doesn't impact supports an arguement that we shouldn't have any impact, therefore no people access period.
I think we need to stick with the original intent of Wilderness: no mechanized vehicles. Yes horses can adversely impact the trails/land. But if we try to eliminate horses, then why not eliminate all foot traffic? Conversely if we start pushing to include MTB then why not e-bikes, horse-drawn wagons, electric UTVs, helicopters dropping off people and gear without touching down, and on it goes?
Smarba, exactly. The intent of the Wilderness Act is unambiguous. USFS and BLM lands not designated wilderness are a totally different matter, where impacts of various kinds (social, environmental) are used as arbitrary criteria for what types of travel are allowed, and when.
Love to hunt off horses. No bicycle will be seen were I hunt on foot or on horse and if it is it was carried in. I have hunted off a bicycle and anyone that wants to good luck, it does little for you especially when you get an elk down. e-bikes are not powered by man and should not be allowed.
