[RBW] Re: Bicycles in federal wilderness lobbying
I worked with a state park and staff to conduct the first state mountain bike championships and fat tire festival back where I used to live. The rangers' documentation of the improvement of conditions left by pack animals in soft trail conditions by the riders of guided trail rides and the race circuit was astonishing...unless you've ever ridden a bike after pack animals. I think the mode of transport gets a bad rap when it's the rider(s) that needs to be condemned or condoned. I can only relate generally that at a time (in the past) a USDA ranger, in a bar, in a very small south Colorado town near my good friend's longtime family cabin pretty clearly instructed us to enter the proximate wilderness area and ride to a certain creek to be able to cast a dry fly for some trout and return the same day. We avoided leaving any more pack animal hoof-craters and did not have to overnight in the borders of the wilderness area. Spar City can be pretty remote by itself. Situational discretion seems like a no-brainer when conservation is involved, blanket edicts don't belong in the SOP of the varied wild lands we are fortunate to have within the confines of this nation. I'd include a picture of my friend from the end of our bootleg bike trip to the summit lake and subsequently fed creek, but I'm sure that I'd be violating some law that would be specified officiously if I did. It was absolutely brilliant though. Andy Cheatham Pittsburgh On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 12:06:48 PM UTC-4, Montclair BobbyB wrote: I have been an active member of a mountain biking group in NJ (JORBA) for years (including building and maintaining trails for multi-use following the IMBA method). I have been mostly opposed to wilderness area bans on bicycles (having enjoyed several wild areas in CO and UT that presently remain open to mountain bikers). On the other hand I have also see how overuse can ruin a beautiful trail. Fruita CO is one area where I personally think has gotten semi-trashed after being over-hyped/over-ridden. There are so many places to ride; I personally am opposed to wholesale banning, but support the idea of selectively closing certain sensitive areas to mountain biking. I have several hundred acres of nice trails behind my residence, and lately they have been overused (and it shows), mostly due to ignorance (i.e.riding when the trails are too wet/soft)... Education can go a long way (before closure becomes necessary) BB On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 12:44:47 AM UTC-4, dstein wrote: Saw this today and curious of the group's thoughts on this: http://www.sustainabletrailscoalition.org/ On the one hand, all they are aiming to do is lift a blanket ban on bikes in federal wilderness areas and trails so that land manager can make a decision on whether bikes would be allowed on a per park/wilderness area basis. It would not, for instance, automatically allow bikes on the AT, and that seems like a reasonably far fetched thing anyway. But would allow to keep things like the Continental Divide open, and also open up other wilderness areas that are much less traveled by foot than the AT. But on the other hand, things like the discouraging news of the Oregon Outback this year make me wonder if opening the doors too wide is a bad thing--not that that was a federal wilderness issue, but shows what can happen when too many eager cyclists take to some unsupervised bike routes. As for trail impact, there seems to be an argument either way as to whether bikes have more (or as much as) an impact as hikers. With riding in muddy trails being the biggest concern. Especially interested here since the RBW crowd seems to generally be super responsible and smart about hitting trails and stealth camping where bikes aren't typically allowed. For or against? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[RBW] Re: Bicycles in federal wilderness lobbying
Their identification and assessment of the problems and solutions match my personal experience on the Continental Divide and Colorado Trails in the wilderness areas as well as some of the areas outside wilderness designated areas. With abandon, Patrick On Monday, August 17, 2015 at 10:44:47 PM UTC-6, dstein wrote: Saw this today and curious of the group's thoughts on this: http://www.sustainabletrailscoalition.org/ On the one hand, all they are aiming to do is lift a blanket ban on bikes in federal wilderness areas and trails so that land manager can make a decision on whether bikes would be allowed on a per park/wilderness area basis. It would not, for instance, automatically allow bikes on the AT, and that seems like a reasonably far fetched thing anyway. But would allow to keep things like the Continental Divide open, and also open up other wilderness areas that are much less traveled by foot than the AT. But on the other hand, things like the discouraging news of the Oregon Outback this year make me wonder if opening the doors too wide is a bad thing--not that that was a federal wilderness issue, but shows what can happen when too many eager cyclists take to some unsupervised bike routes. As for trail impact, there seems to be an argument either way as to whether bikes have more (or as much as) an impact as hikers. With riding in muddy trails being the biggest concern. Especially interested here since the RBW crowd seems to generally be super responsible and smart about hitting trails and stealth camping where bikes aren't typically allowed. For or against? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[RBW] Re: Bicycles in federal wilderness lobbying
I, personally, don't think this is the right solution. The problems they describe are real problems, but their solution doesn't take in to account the problems their changes could cause. The website is also really misleading about what constitutes Wilderness, and I think that's on purpose. There are lots of nationally managed lands and trails that do allow wheels, pedals, and gas powered equipment (one example https://fs.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsinternet/!ut/p/c4/04_SB8K8xLLM9MSSzPy8xBz9CP0os3gDfxMDT8MwRydLA1cj72BTSw8jAwjQL8h2VAQAng7kaQ!!/?ss=110803navtype=BROWSEBYSUBJECTnavid=1102900pnavid=110recid=10454actid=24ttype=activitypname=Chattahoochee-Oconee%20National%20Forests%20-%20Mountain%20Biking). Areas that are actually designated Wilderness make up a pretty small portion of federally managed land. The reason they don't allow anything other than hand tools and hiking boots is that they want to keep the land as natural as possible, including not disturbing wild life. Wilderness areas aren't for people. They exist to preserve plants, animals, and ecosystems in as natural a way as possible. Hiking in Wilderness areas is a side benefit, and the state of the trails, is, consequently, not as good as forest areas that are maintained more frequently with modern equipment. To me, hiking on trails that are heavily used by mountain bikes is pretty unpleasant. Even if there aren't a bunch of bikes on the trails, the state of the trail is always different than if it were only walked. Typically much wider with weird dips here and there and bigger mud puddles. It's a lot like hiking on horse trails to me. I do think there are probably lots of places, especially out west, that should allow bikes that might not right now, but gutting the regulations that pertain to designated Wilderness, isn't the right solution. Giving the USFS the resources it needs to manage the land better would help. I don't think opening the land to bikes is gonna make those funds any easier to get though. On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 12:44:47 AM UTC-4, dstein wrote: Saw this today and curious of the group's thoughts on this: http://www.sustainabletrailscoalition.org/ On the one hand, all they are aiming to do is lift a blanket ban on bikes in federal wilderness areas and trails so that land manager can make a decision on whether bikes would be allowed on a per park/wilderness area basis. It would not, for instance, automatically allow bikes on the AT, and that seems like a reasonably far fetched thing anyway. But would allow to keep things like the Continental Divide open, and also open up other wilderness areas that are much less traveled by foot than the AT. But on the other hand, things like the discouraging news of the Oregon Outback this year make me wonder if opening the doors too wide is a bad thing--not that that was a federal wilderness issue, but shows what can happen when too many eager cyclists take to some unsupervised bike routes. As for trail impact, there seems to be an argument either way as to whether bikes have more (or as much as) an impact as hikers. With riding in muddy trails being the biggest concern. Especially interested here since the RBW crowd seems to generally be super responsible and smart about hitting trails and stealth camping where bikes aren't typically allowed. For or against? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[RBW] Re: Bicycles in federal wilderness lobbying
Like David's sentiment . . . . nature is far more destructive of nature than man could ever be . As destructive as man is , man is most destructive to none other than himself . To me, all such legislation is akin to self-guilt, with it's inherent self punishment. Trying to control others for one's own sense of guilt can never be relieved or remedied with legislation and control . It's like trying to fill a black hole . True Harmony, which everyone knows, is Liberty , and Natural . By being it :) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[RBW] Re: Bicycles in federal wilderness lobbying
I have been an active member of a mountain biking group in NJ (JORBA) for years (including building and maintaining trails for multi-use following the IMBA method). I have been mostly opposed to wilderness area bans on bicycles (having enjoyed several wild areas in CO and UT that presently remain open to mountain bikers). On the other hand I have also see how overuse can ruin a beautiful trail. Fruita CO is one area where I personally think has gotten semi-trashed after being over-hyped/over-ridden. There are so many places to ride; I personally am opposed to wholesale banning, but support the idea of selectively closing certain sensitive areas to mountain biking. I have several hundred acres of nice trails behind my residence, and lately they have been overused (and it shows), mostly due to ignorance (i.e.riding when the trails are too wet/soft)... Education can go a long way (before closure becomes necessary) BB On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 12:44:47 AM UTC-4, dstein wrote: Saw this today and curious of the group's thoughts on this: http://www.sustainabletrailscoalition.org/ On the one hand, all they are aiming to do is lift a blanket ban on bikes in federal wilderness areas and trails so that land manager can make a decision on whether bikes would be allowed on a per park/wilderness area basis. It would not, for instance, automatically allow bikes on the AT, and that seems like a reasonably far fetched thing anyway. But would allow to keep things like the Continental Divide open, and also open up other wilderness areas that are much less traveled by foot than the AT. But on the other hand, things like the discouraging news of the Oregon Outback this year make me wonder if opening the doors too wide is a bad thing--not that that was a federal wilderness issue, but shows what can happen when too many eager cyclists take to some unsupervised bike routes. As for trail impact, there seems to be an argument either way as to whether bikes have more (or as much as) an impact as hikers. With riding in muddy trails being the biggest concern. Especially interested here since the RBW crowd seems to generally be super responsible and smart about hitting trails and stealth camping where bikes aren't typically allowed. For or against? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
