Also be aware that a legal brief is circulating arguing that from a historical perspective bikes were never met to be excluded from wilderness areas. Details can be found on the International Mountain Biking Association web site Here.

This paper is meant to "test the waters" in the legal world, and if substantially unchallenged could, maybe, conceivably, find its way into court. Changing law based on a historical review is shaky at best as it opens up our entire system to review. So, I feel, unlikely to happen.

It's much easier for outgoing W to just "Make it so".

In the meantime IMBA is working hard toward that same end.

Lawyers use words like accountants use numbers. Question to accountant: "What is 2 plus 2?" Answer: "What do you want it to be". I can only hope Obama makes it "Un-so", because bikes in true wilderness areas will turn out to be an unmitigated disaster from a backpacker's perspective. From the biker's perspective, too, the first time he comes tooling around a bend in a trail and runs into a sow with cubs, or a backpacker exercising his/her newly granted right to "carry" in national parks. I am usually pretty much a live and let live guy, but I don't feel there is much room for compromise on this one. What next? Dirt bikes?

IMO they deserve to have a place to ride just as much as we deserve a place to hike. If we continue to over legislate everything we won't have anywhere to go hiking without jumping through hoops like they do in california. I like being able to decide to go backpacking on friday at 5pm and just going without having to get a permit or worrying about quotas or if the date is odd even or whatever.

first they will come for the hunters then they will come for the atv riders then they will come for the mountain bikers who will be there when they come for us?
We all love the same wild places I don't understand why we can't share them.

The wilderness is placed in protection for its own sake, not for your access to it. Human impact on wilderness tends to degrade wilderness. Bicycle impact on wilderness is human impact on steroids.

Again, wilderness is not an amusement park. Wilderness is simply wild. Under our body of law (consider the declared intent of the laws that established our wilderness areas), wilderness is to be adequately protected so that it may remain wilderness in perpetuity. Your convenience has nothing to do with it. Controlling access to wilderness is necessary to preserve wilderness. Put 5,000 hikers on the JMT at the same time and you don't have wilderness anymore. That's pretty simple.

This might be something of a revelation to some but no one is the center of the universe.

Think outside your box. Wilderness was not declared just for your amusement. Wilderness is for wilderness.

And the infernal bicycle has no place in it.

Edited by BenWaller on 12/20/2008 08:36:29 MST.

John,
I appreciate your views,however...


"The Wilderness Act did not forbid human visitation, in fact it emphasized "having opportunities for solitude or unconfined type of recreation" but it took steps to minimize human impacts. Section 4c stipulated "there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport..." (Public Law 88-577) (16 U.S.C. 1131-1136). The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) defined "mechanical transport" as "propelled by a nonliving power source". The 1964 Wilderness Act allowed bicycle use, but there were very few bicyclists riding in Wilderness areas."

....they were not prevalent at the time of the legislation.


If this original perspective is used as the fulcrum for change, it puts us between a rock and a hard spot. How we set the stage for navigating through the coming change is the question at hand.

And therein lies the basis for challenge; the narrow definition of "mechanical support" will need to be refined, which I am pretty sure any enlightened judge will do happily in our greening America.

A simple slide show, pictures, of the surface damage done to trails and the increased erosion effects of the "recreation" activities of ears-laid-back-hair-on-fire mountain bikers should be sufficient to sway any enlightened judge. A cost projection for the hauling of these idiots and/or their victims out of the boonies should support a common sense ruling as well.

Mountain bikers are dangerous to themselves and to others. I know. I am one. But I do not ride in the wilderness and I do not ride on hiking trails and I do not think it my right to do so.

We walkers will not fail to secure regulatory protections against the abuse of our wilderness by the thundering herds.

Period.

John,
The time is at hand....

This Just arrived:

From: IMBA
Date: Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 5:58 PM
Subject: Take Action to Increase Bicycling Opportunities in National Parks
To: xxxxxx@yyyy.zzz



Take Action

Dear XXX,

The U.S. National Park Service (NPS) has proposed an important rule change that will make it easier for parks to open trails to mountain biking. IMBA urges mountain bikers to register comments in support of the new rule. We have been asking the NPS to make this change since the 1990s — we now enter a 60-day commentary period to make the change official.

Take Action Now!

We know that several groups are working hard to defeat this proposal. It will take thousands of comments supporting the NPS to ensure the rule is approved. Please lend your voice to the discussion today.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Granted this is only National Parks, but you get the drift.
Follow along at the IMBA.com web site.

Thanks for the update.

Alrighty then! Let's get this stopped right now, folks. There has been enough stupidity/apathy for far too long, regarding far too many issues. Exhibit A would be the current condition of our country. Sad image, is it not? Indeed. This is what happens when stupidity is let to run the show. Yes, stupidity/apathy is in sufficient supply.

Understand that one voice is always more important than the hundreds of thousands who remain silent. Believe it. Practice it. Let your voice be the one that is heard.

Save wilderness for wilderness.

Think it through.

I'm new here but threatening to shoot people because they want to enjoy the same basic rights and freedoms as you? This sounds more like a Solder Of Fortune forum than a Backpacking Lite forum. One small earthquake will do more destruction than 100 years of hikers or bikers. Have you ever seen a land slide or heavy spring run-off. What about lightening induced forest fires. There is good and bad in any group. Lead and teach by example. Anger will get you nowhere. I have been mountain biking and ultralight backpacking since the late 70's and I'm only forty. In all those years or countless thousands of miles I've never felt unsafe in the back country till reading this post. This sounds like a my god is better than your god forum. Tread lightly and we can all get along. Peace out my brothers

Edited by barefootnavigator on 12/20/2008 14:57:54 MST.

Snowboards vs. skiis.

LOL

Edited by kennyhel77 on 12/20/2008 15:42:08 MST.

Those darn cyclists... Terrorists I tell ya, terrorists!


-Tim-

Edited by TimH. on 12/20/2008 17:48:02 MST.

I know what the trails around here look like at the end of
the season. The mountain bike trails that parallel the
PCT are ankle deep in dust.

I like to ride too.

Jesse, Greg, et al,
I agree, mountain bikers deserve to have a place to ride, just not on wilderness trails. This whole idea that everyone gets everything they want without any restriction as a price for us getting along has gone too far, IMO. There are already many restrictions in place separating different means of locomotion, e.g. bikes on freeways, ditto walkers, horses, pogo sticks, etc, for the same reason bikes should not be permitted on wilderness trails; the difference in speed is too great. There are 1000's of miles of logging roads and areas open to off road vehicles available for mountain bikers already, not to mention just plain striking off on their own cross country in national and state forests. Why the need to go after the nations crown jewels as well? Maybe leave a few places for those of us who prefer to travel on foot undisturbed by someone yelling out "ON YOUR LEFT" to shatter our tranquility? Please? Not to mention the impact aspect. Trails first, but inevitably the adventurous ones will start going off trail in pristine areas to devastating effect. I've seen enough of that with horses already; bikers will make it much worse because they will go further afield, especially those of the cyclo cross persuasion, for whom the remote and difficult will be just one more challenge. If you truly want us to all get along, leave a little bit for the hikers, too.

On your left! Indeed. If only I have had a positive run in with a mountain biker on the trail. Been hit from behind. Been clipped as they go wizzing by without any warning. Have had to explain time and time again that they are on a trail that is NOT open to cylcists only to come within moments of physical interaction. I personally don't wish to see them in the backcountry .Speeding,rude,selfish,a-holes, is unfortunately the picture I get in my head when someone says mountain biker. My 2 cents.

"I find it impossible to be nice when I'm driven off a trail by a pack of yipping, chattering youths dressed in their sisters' underwear"

Harvey Manning :-)

Yeah, their mommas dress 'em funny.

Which goes to the issue by way of Peoria. Your investment in your vestments, in your marvelous titanium bicycle, in your designer sunglasses, in all the stuff (which I would argue is just more crap) that attends your pursuit of downhill exuberance does not entitle you to mangle the wilderness experience for the rest of us.

Obligation is the front side of freedom.

We tend to forget that. We are free to roar down the mountain so long as no harm comes to the mountain or to those on the mountain. I argue that most adept cyclists are capable of understanding this very simple axiom as they are typically bright, successful, competitive people in real life but that they willfully ignore the obligation part it because to do otherwise would limit their "fun".

When did the abandonment of self-restraint and responsibility in deference to "fun" become defensible? Does the investment of $2,500 for a bicycle and $1,000 for the underwear buy some indulgence that I am not aware of?

I do not think so.

As to whether or not "we can all get along", well, no, we can't. I will not forego our freedom, with all its attendant obligation, in deference to your "fun". I just ain't gonna' do it. I will not concede our rights and I will not tolerate your abuse of the mountain.

There it is.

>>"And therein lies the basis for challenge; the narrow definition of "mechanical support" will need to be refined, which I am pretty sure any enlightened judge will do happily in our greening America.

A simple slide show, pictures, of the surface damage done to trails and the increased erosion effects of the "recreation" activities of ears-laid-back-hair-on-fire mountain bikers should be sufficient to sway any enlightened judge. A cost projection for the hauling of these idiots and/or their victims out of the boonies should support a common sense ruling as well."<<

John, the same argument can be used to outlaw trekking poles or even tell people what kind of shoes they can wear on the trail. I

I believe the comparison with trekking poles to be rather ridiculous—haven't sticks (also known as staffs) been used for centuries?

If we want true wilderness we should obviously limit our travels in such areas to only foot and maybe hoof. The option of staffs is the choice of the wilderness trekker—especially us older ones!

Bikes should be allowed on all forest service roads—where the damage is already done and the chances of surprising a hiker or horse rider are less likely. As previously stated, you can't have a multi-use trail and have it work for everyone. Once bikers take over a single track wilderness trail, wildlife and hikers will go elsewhere. If we're not careful, even “elsewhere” may become “multi-use”....

Edited by Steve on 12/21/2008 09:09:52 MST.

If it wasnt for a joint effort between cyclists and hikers we would never have the Tahoe rim trail.