That's how mountain-biking enthusiasts see the fate of thousands of roadless acres in Montana's national forests. And they're concerned they're about to get shut out of the woods.
“The roadless areas, should they ever become capital ‘W' wilderness as recommended by Congress, then we have to suddenly stop the traffic,” regional U.S. Forest Service spokeswoman Rose Davis said. “That's part of the philosophy of wilderness areas. It doesn't include mechanized equipment, and that includes bicycles.”
The debate ramped up after publication of the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest's new management plan last month. That plan closed bike access to 315 miles of recommended wilderness in the mountains around Butte.
“What we're fighting is the impression that mountain bikers would be anti-wilderness,” said Drew Vankat, IMBA policy analyst from Boulder, Colo. “But some (recommended wilderness areas) have really important trails, and we want to look at ways to preserve those for biking.”
Vankat said IMBA plans to appeal the Beaverhead-Deerlodge plan's biking decisions before the public comment period closes May 20. The group doesn't want all 315 miles back, but it would like to negotiate case-by-case for some of the more popular ones.
If other national forests follow the Beaverhead-Deerlodge forest's lead, Vankat said, it would mean mountain bikers would lose their trails even though those roadless areas don't receive federal wilderness status.
Montana has about 7 million acres of federal land recommended for wilderness designation. Those lands have been in recreational limbo since 1988, when President Ronald Reagan pocket-vetoed the last congressionally approved wilderness bill.
The latest attempt to restart the process is the Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act, which none of Montana's congressmen support. Nevertheless, it could get a lift from the passage earlier this year of the Omnibus Lands bill, which strung together 164 public land protection projects everywhere except Montana.
“This is the biggest potential closure of mountain-biking trails that the state of Montana has ever seen,” said Aaron Teasdale, deputy editor of Adventure Cyclist magazine in Missoula. “We'd have nowhere to go. It would be wilderness, and roaded-over, ATV (-dominated), knapweed-infested, logged-over areas.”
As examples, Teasdale pointed to the four closest all-day rides for the Missoula area: the Monture Creek corridor into the Bob Marshall Wilderness, the Great Burn area on the Montana-Idaho border, Sleeping Woman Reservation Divide and Rock Creek. All are recommended wilderness areas that would become off-limits to mountain bikers if the Forest Service manages them as de facto wilderness.
“Without those, we don't have any of the big, all-day backcountry rides that mountain bikers treasure,” Teasdale said.
Mountain bikers argue their sport should be considered closer to hiking and horseback riding than to motorized all-terrain vehicles or aircraft where wilderness is concerned. But so far, there's been no reconsideration of federal rules categorizing different recreation methods.
“That would be a congressional matter,” Davis said of amending mountain biking's categorization. “They didn't change the status of use in the omnibus bill, and they could have done that there. I haven't seen anyone in Congress that's taking that up.”
That may change. Although there are no scheduled hearings or scoping meetings on Forest Service bike policy in the near future, mountain bikers are gathering their political strength. And that could put them in conflict with other conservation groups in the push to protect public lands.
Teasdale hoped Montana officials could take the example of Utah or Colorado, where mountain biking has a much higher acceptance on federal lands.
“As long as wilderness groups push their all-or-nothing strategy, they will continue to butt heads with cyclists, and the conflict may be enough to stop roadless areas from being protected,” Teasdale said. “This is something that neither cyclists nor wilderness advocates want to see happen.”
Reporter Rob Chaney can be reached at 523-5382 or at rchaney@missoulian.com.
|
 |
 |
Add your comment now! Write your comment in the form below.
(Email address is for verification only. If you'd like to email a story, look for the link above)
Captblackeagle wrote on May 12, 2009 6:54 AM:
" Yeah..we need more wilderness..We could start by closing down all of our cities and returning it to the wilderness. (note: Sarcasam) "
chuck wrote on May 12, 2009 7:17 AM:
" This is the very issue that keeps me, a mountain biker, from joining IMBA. Fighting wilderness designation is ridiculous and shortsighted.
And captblackeagle: your sarcasm is misguided. best thing we could do is return as much of this continent as we can to wilderness. not sure exactly what you are trying to say... "
And captblackeagle: your sarcasm is misguided. best thing we could do is return as much of this continent as we can to wilderness. not sure exactly what you are trying to say... "
Matthew Koehler wrote on May 12, 2009 8:25 AM:
" It seems to me that some Mtn bikers want to chip away at the Wilderness Act, which opens up a whole big can of worms and more than a few Pandora's boxes. This is the wrong approach. If the Wilderness Act is weakened to give exceptions to Mtn bikes today, over the next 50 years we'll see new and different "user groups" petition to have their recreational pursuits included in Wilderness Act and pretty soon we'll have Wilderness areas in this country that bare no resemblance to what Wilderness is today.
The principle goal of the Wilderness Act was never about recreation anyway. The Wilderness Act was about wildlife habitat, natural processes, clean water, biodiversity, solitude, etc.
Instead of coming across to the public as so anti-Wilderness - or advocating that the Wilderness Act be amended to include bikes - I wish that Mtn bikers would focus on opportunities for different designations (such as National Recreation Areas, etc) that still allow many forms of recreation while also offering additional protections for wildlife habitat, biodiversity, etc over what currently exists. As a Wilderness advocate I would welcome such an approach on a case by case basis. It would also greatly reduce the frustrations I experience when I see good people from the Mtn biking community using the same rhetoric of the ATV crowd to oppose Wilderness. "
The principle goal of the Wilderness Act was never about recreation anyway. The Wilderness Act was about wildlife habitat, natural processes, clean water, biodiversity, solitude, etc.
Instead of coming across to the public as so anti-Wilderness - or advocating that the Wilderness Act be amended to include bikes - I wish that Mtn bikers would focus on opportunities for different designations (such as National Recreation Areas, etc) that still allow many forms of recreation while also offering additional protections for wildlife habitat, biodiversity, etc over what currently exists. As a Wilderness advocate I would welcome such an approach on a case by case basis. It would also greatly reduce the frustrations I experience when I see good people from the Mtn biking community using the same rhetoric of the ATV crowd to oppose Wilderness. "
Roger wrote on May 12, 2009 8:25 AM:
" I agree with Adam - bikes don't belong in wilderness areas. As a mechanized means of transportation, I think they should also be banned from roadless areas. "
Matternon Hallowchock wrote on May 12, 2009 8:41 AM:
" Mountain bikers have tons of terrain. With less than 4% of the total land mass in the lower 48 undeveloped we could use more preservation. I agree with Adam, sorry guys. I'm a cyclist too, but we'll just have to deal. Besides, it will make for some great backpacking areas. "
seemslike wrote on May 12, 2009 9:50 AM:
" I am not a proponent of more wilderness, but if the "majority" determines that more wilderness be mandated, it should be locked up and NO access by other than foot should be allowed. "
seemslike wrote on May 12, 2009 9:51 AM:
" Yes this would include the horse crowd also. It would level the playing field for ALL users. "
sanemtguy wrote on May 12, 2009 10:02 AM:
" I am a mountain biker, a backpacker, a hiker, and consider myself an advocate for recreation - of all types even the dreaded motorized forms. After all, if they are out and not sitting on the couch watching NASCAR they are more apt to appreciate nature and support it in some form. I think the bike groups would be better off expending their resources to improve existing areas, creating separate use areas for different forms of recreation, and supporting Wilderness designations. There is plenty of space for all. The last thing a hiker wants to see is a mountain bike hurtling towards them. The last thing a biker wants to see is an ATV coming around a blind corner. And the last thing a motorized user wants to do is run over a biker or hiker by accident (with the rare exception of the wackos out there). "
Aaron Teasdale wrote on May 12, 2009 10:21 AM:
" Personally, I agree that bicycles should not be allowed in Wilderness areas. I backpack and camp and think the primitive experience is worth protecting. Many cyclists have been advocating for National Conservation Areas, Recreation Areas, and Primitive Areas for a long time as an alternative to Wilderness.
The problem we have in Montana, more so than any other state in the West, is that it's either Wilderness or degraded and ruled by motorized users. Mountain bikers want the same things hikers want -- quiet, wild backcountry areas to explore. There should be more than enough roadless land in Montana for mountain bikers, who are muscle-powered and virtually silent, to have access to some of it. But what the Forest Service is currently proposing kicks cyclists out of almost all of it. Besides the near-town pockets of preserved land, that would leave us very few trails to ride. That just doesn't make sense to me.
Mountain bikers could and should be a huge ally of the conservation movement. Certainly the ultimate goal would be restoring many of our degraded areas so we're not squabbling over the few wild preserves we have left, but until then can we please leave a place for mountain bikers in our roadless lands too? "
The problem we have in Montana, more so than any other state in the West, is that it's either Wilderness or degraded and ruled by motorized users. Mountain bikers want the same things hikers want -- quiet, wild backcountry areas to explore. There should be more than enough roadless land in Montana for mountain bikers, who are muscle-powered and virtually silent, to have access to some of it. But what the Forest Service is currently proposing kicks cyclists out of almost all of it. Besides the near-town pockets of preserved land, that would leave us very few trails to ride. That just doesn't make sense to me.
Mountain bikers could and should be a huge ally of the conservation movement. Certainly the ultimate goal would be restoring many of our degraded areas so we're not squabbling over the few wild preserves we have left, but until then can we please leave a place for mountain bikers in our roadless lands too? "
Bob wrote on May 12, 2009 10:27 AM:
" folks. when the wilderness act was first designated mountain bikes were allowed. it wasn't a big deal. then a congressman was in a political situation where he needed to give something to envioro's to get something for himself, so years afterwards they added the bikes. science didn't dictate it, politics did. wilderness designation is going to keep getting tougher, and if it comes down to it, it's going to be hikers vs. everyone...and then the wilderness will go away. the wilderness folks need all the help they can get. and if there are many 30 people riding a trail in one year, it's not a big deal. but it could bring thousands of folks over to the wilderness side. just sayin. "
yea W wrote on May 12, 2009 10:31 AM:
" “We'd have nowhere to go. It would be wilderness, and roaded-over, ATV (-dominated), knapweed-infested, logged-over areas.”, said Aaron Teasdale.
Exactly! And so would you, for the sake of your choice of (frivolous, ie, non-essential)) recreation, sacrifice these areas to become “roaded-over, ATV (-dominated), knapweed-infested, logged-over areas.”?
Wildlife depend for their lives on functional ecosystems. Some of the more magnificent species depend on wilderness. For them it is not about passing the time pleasantly on a beautiful ride. It is survival. "
Exactly! And so would you, for the sake of your choice of (frivolous, ie, non-essential)) recreation, sacrifice these areas to become “roaded-over, ATV (-dominated), knapweed-infested, logged-over areas.”?
Wildlife depend for their lives on functional ecosystems. Some of the more magnificent species depend on wilderness. For them it is not about passing the time pleasantly on a beautiful ride. It is survival. "
mark wrote on May 12, 2009 10:32 AM:
" if these mountain bikers get their way, they are going to ruin it for everyone. Whats next, are they going to join forces with the ATV groups. I am a mountain biker myself and prefer long trail rides, but these guys are just being selfish. "
dub wrote on May 12, 2009 10:36 AM:
" Come on---no bikes, no people, nothing in the mountains. We need to let it all grow over to make a really, really big fire some day. Keep the guys with the funny hats OUT!! Fires are fun for everyone, especially the enviro groups! "
B.Bob.Bobson wrote on May 12, 2009 11:19 AM:
" The Mtn Bike community is a strange lot these days... Downhillers and Free Riders want to construct ramps, dowm trees, build playgrounds in the woods...and are aligned more w/the ATV folks. X-C riders like myself enjoy the surroundings more and are generally in favor of keeping wilderness designation the way it is... The solution as Matt Koehler suggests is a case by case assessment to add National Recreation Area designation to areas that have had a history of responsible MTB use. This just makes common sense. "
Don wrote on May 12, 2009 11:19 AM:
" Montana already has more Wilderness designated land than 20 or 30 other stated combined. Once the Feds get their hands on the land with a Wilderness designation the land might as well not be in MT. Forest fires can't be fought with bulldozer because it wasn't written into the plan. Now we need more Forest Service cops and rangers. If this becomes law we are back to, "We are from the Government and we are here to help you." "
Adam Rissien wrote on May 12, 2009 11:48 AM:
" This article makes a big mistake by saying Montana has 7 million acres of Roadless lands recommended for Wilderness. According to the Forest Service, Montana has 6,397,000 Roadless acres, and only a fraction of these are recommended for wilderness; there are several on the Bitterroot National Forest that the agency has no intention of ever recommending for Wilderness.
In other words there are plenty of Roadless areas that no one is pushing for Wilderness, but are becoming sacrifice areas for off-road vehicles.
Additionally, other than NREPA, there is no existing Wilderness bill in Montana, and though this will likely change in the future, this debate is detracting from the urgent need to protect our Roadless lands from off-road vehicle impacts.
Very soon the Bitterroot will announce a comment period for its next phase of travel planning, which is the process for designating trails for motorized use.
All of us who wish to see our Roadless areas free from motorized impacts need to stand together now, and I encourage folks to visit http://www.wildlandscpr.org/ and http://quietusecoalition.org/ to learn more. "
In other words there are plenty of Roadless areas that no one is pushing for Wilderness, but are becoming sacrifice areas for off-road vehicles.
Additionally, other than NREPA, there is no existing Wilderness bill in Montana, and though this will likely change in the future, this debate is detracting from the urgent need to protect our Roadless lands from off-road vehicle impacts.
Very soon the Bitterroot will announce a comment period for its next phase of travel planning, which is the process for designating trails for motorized use.
All of us who wish to see our Roadless areas free from motorized impacts need to stand together now, and I encourage folks to visit http://www.wildlandscpr.org/ and http://quietusecoalition.org/ to learn more. "
Bill Schneider wrote on May 12, 2009 12:01 PM:
" For a very interesting discussion on this issue, check out the comment sections on these two articles....
Hikers, Wilderness Groups Should Re-think Mountain Biking
http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/branding_wilderness_lite/C41/L41/
Branding Wilderness Lite
http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/branding_wilderness_lite/C41/L41/ "
Hikers, Wilderness Groups Should Re-think Mountain Biking
http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/branding_wilderness_lite/C41/L41/
Branding Wilderness Lite
http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/branding_wilderness_lite/C41/L41/ "
Lindsay wrote on May 12, 2009 12:17 PM:
" As a fellow mountain biker, I can see both sides. I think it depends on what trails exist in your area. If you live in Butte, it could be devistating to your recreation if many of your local trail were closed. In Missoula, we are fortunate to have 3 recreation areas here in town. Unfortunately, they are short trails. If connected right can make a challenging long ride. Places like Durango, Colorado - bike trails everywhere. People travel there to bike. Moab, Utah the trails are shared by hikers, bikers, ATVs and 4-Wheel Drives. People learn to "share" the trail and give respect to other users. The bikers yield to the hikers, the ATVs and dirt bikes yield to the bikers and so on. Everyone is happy, everyone is outside. Up at Blue Mountain, horse back riders seem to forget that when the trail is wet, they leave huge bumps in the trail. Dirt bikes do a great job "grooming" the horse mess up. If everyone respects the rules of the trail, including staying on it, not riding in the mud and picking up after yourself, you wouldn't even be able to tell who's using it. I understand keeping Wilderness Wilderness, but can't everyone meet in the middle somewhere and come to a shared understanding? "
Chris wrote on May 12, 2009 12:23 PM:
" I ride a bike everyday in San Francisco. I love cycling, but I wholeheartedly agree that they have no place in a wilderness area. Mountain bikers usually are pedaling fast through these areas, which not only surprise equestrians and hikers, but also wildlife. Cyclists have plenty of other trails - use them! "
Pete wrote on May 12, 2009 12:25 PM:
" It seems to me that there is a distinction between and 'action' and a 'person'. Mountain-biking is an action, and performing that action in a Wilderness area is the issue.
A mountain-biker is a label one places on a person, that seemingly defines that person and tells another that that person is supposed to act in a certain way and support certain causes. That's what labels do, right?
As a 'person' who enjoys the 'action' of mountain biking, whenever I read or hear about what 'mountain-bikers' want or think I cant help but cringe. I'm a person who is certainly NOT defined by that biking I performed last week, or the dishwashing (another action) I performed last night.
My point...IMBA may have an agenda, but to say that people who mountain bike (the action) support and agree with IMBA is to fall into the grade-school trap of stereotyping and labeling people - a sure-fire path to myopia and misunderstanding.
There are plenty of individuals out there who ride bikes, think for themselves and decry the tact IMBA takes. "
A mountain-biker is a label one places on a person, that seemingly defines that person and tells another that that person is supposed to act in a certain way and support certain causes. That's what labels do, right?
As a 'person' who enjoys the 'action' of mountain biking, whenever I read or hear about what 'mountain-bikers' want or think I cant help but cringe. I'm a person who is certainly NOT defined by that biking I performed last week, or the dishwashing (another action) I performed last night.
My point...IMBA may have an agenda, but to say that people who mountain bike (the action) support and agree with IMBA is to fall into the grade-school trap of stereotyping and labeling people - a sure-fire path to myopia and misunderstanding.
There are plenty of individuals out there who ride bikes, think for themselves and decry the tact IMBA takes. "
Lindsay wrote on May 12, 2009 12:28 PM:
" On a side note, the Forestry Commission of Scotland, in my opinion has done a wonderful job at creating mountain biking recreation areas and has made everyone very content. They have created destinations and bike centers within their country with both natural and man-made features in their trail systems. Bikers are not only happy with this, but it brings lots of tourism dollars to their country. Their National Forestry Commission has extensive websites on trails, with maps, local accomodations, restaurants, bike shops and podcast videos of actually riding the trail. They rate the trails by ability level and are friendly towards families, first timers, XC riders, Downhillers and Freestyle riders. I think Missoula bike shops are on to something...each shop sponsors a recreation area, where they can help work on making our local riding better. Maybe if the biking gets better and better, people won't mind not riding in the Wilderness. Mountain biking brings tourist to our area, being one of the only ridable areas in the state in early spring. When people are on a budget, why not take a trip to Missoula instead of Fruita or Moab? "
Bob Allen wrote on May 12, 2009 12:55 PM:
" As an avid mountain biker and frequent Wilderness backpacker, I have no desire to ride in existing Wilderness areas and I don’t support changing Wilderness Act to allow bikes. Too much time, energy and money has already been wasted beating this to death.
The question becomes how do we permanently protect roadless lands that have wilderness qualities where bicycles have ridden for decades. Cyclists ride into our wild lands for the same reasons hikers and equestrians venture there. Cyclists don’t need access to every trail on lands being considered for permanent protection including socially responsible Wilderness designations. We do want to be at the table when these lands are being discussed to advocate for the trails important to us. Too often the Wilderness proposals look like a Wilderness-at-all-cost land grab that leaves the cyclists in an adversarial position.
Embracing companion designations such as a National Protection Area or using boundary adjustments, non-Wilderness cherry stems and corridors in ADDITION to Wilderness are viable options provide a win / win for non-motorized users. Cyclists are conservation minded and can become an important ALLY in the quest for new Wilderness if we are not left out of the process.
There has not been any new Wilderness in Montana for 25 years. Obviously the Wilderness-at-any-cost approach has not worked.
Every one needs to take a step or two toward the center to successfully and responsibly come up with permanent protection options for our remaining roadless areas. "
The question becomes how do we permanently protect roadless lands that have wilderness qualities where bicycles have ridden for decades. Cyclists ride into our wild lands for the same reasons hikers and equestrians venture there. Cyclists don’t need access to every trail on lands being considered for permanent protection including socially responsible Wilderness designations. We do want to be at the table when these lands are being discussed to advocate for the trails important to us. Too often the Wilderness proposals look like a Wilderness-at-all-cost land grab that leaves the cyclists in an adversarial position.
Embracing companion designations such as a National Protection Area or using boundary adjustments, non-Wilderness cherry stems and corridors in ADDITION to Wilderness are viable options provide a win / win for non-motorized users. Cyclists are conservation minded and can become an important ALLY in the quest for new Wilderness if we are not left out of the process.
There has not been any new Wilderness in Montana for 25 years. Obviously the Wilderness-at-any-cost approach has not worked.
Every one needs to take a step or two toward the center to successfully and responsibly come up with permanent protection options for our remaining roadless areas. "
Bob Allen wrote on May 12, 2009 1:01 PM:
" As an avid mountain biker and frequent Wilderness backpacker, I have no desire to ride in existing Wilderness areas and I don’t support changing Wilderness Act to allow bikes. Too much time, energy and money has already been wasted beating this to death.
The question becomes how do we permanently protect roadless lands that have wilderness qualities where bicycles have ridden for decades. Cyclists ride into our wild lands for the same reasons hikers and equestrians venture there. Cyclists don’t need access to every trail everywhere on lands being considered for permanent protection including socially responsible Wilderness designations. We do want to be at the table when these lands are being discussed to advocate for the trails important to us. Too often the Wilderness proposals look like a Wilderness-at-all-cost land grab that leaves the cyclists in an adversarial position.
Embracing companion designations such as a National Protection Area or using boundary adjustments, non-Wilderness cherry stems and corridors in ADDITION to Wilderness are viable options provide a win / win for non-motorized users. Cyclists are conservation minded and can become an important ALLY in the quest for new Wilderness if we are not left out of the process.
There has not been any new Wilderness in Montana for 25 years. Obviously the Wilderness-at-any-cost approach has not worked.
Every one needs to take a step or two toward the center in order to successfully and responsibly come up with permanent protection options for our remaining roadless areas. "
The question becomes how do we permanently protect roadless lands that have wilderness qualities where bicycles have ridden for decades. Cyclists ride into our wild lands for the same reasons hikers and equestrians venture there. Cyclists don’t need access to every trail everywhere on lands being considered for permanent protection including socially responsible Wilderness designations. We do want to be at the table when these lands are being discussed to advocate for the trails important to us. Too often the Wilderness proposals look like a Wilderness-at-all-cost land grab that leaves the cyclists in an adversarial position.
Embracing companion designations such as a National Protection Area or using boundary adjustments, non-Wilderness cherry stems and corridors in ADDITION to Wilderness are viable options provide a win / win for non-motorized users. Cyclists are conservation minded and can become an important ALLY in the quest for new Wilderness if we are not left out of the process.
There has not been any new Wilderness in Montana for 25 years. Obviously the Wilderness-at-any-cost approach has not worked.
Every one needs to take a step or two toward the center in order to successfully and responsibly come up with permanent protection options for our remaining roadless areas. "
T Lewis wrote on May 12, 2009 1:01 PM:
" It's unfortunate that our last remaining roadless areas continue to be abused and turned into playgrounds for mtn bike enthusiasts, ATV riders, and other OHV users. And because they have been riding their bikes and other vehicles over these lands for years, they think that should somehow entitle them to be able to do so forever? That's not only elitist, that's arrogant. "
T Lewis wrote on May 12, 2009 1:03 PM:
" It's unfortunate that our last remaining roadless areas continue to be abused and turned into playgrounds for mtn bike enthusiasts, ATV riders, and other OHV users. And because they have been riding their bikes and other vehicles over these lands for years, they think that should somehow entitle them to be able to do so forever? That's elitist...plain & simple. "
Matthew Koehler wrote on May 12, 2009 1:04 PM:
" Writer and ecologist George Wuerthner has an interesting and related article about Wilderness and Mountain Bikes over at: http://www.newwest.net/main/article/mountain_biking_and_wilderness_not_convinced "
T Lewis wrote on May 12, 2009 1:14 PM:
" It's unfortunate that our last remaining roadless areas continue to be abused and turned into playgrounds for mtn bike enthusiasts, ATV riders, and other OHV users. And because they have been riding their bikes and other vehicles over these lands for years, the mechanized crowd thinks that should somehow entitle them to be able to do so forever? And so IMBA allies itself with the OHV lobby...doing all it can to stand in the way of more Wilderness. Hey IMBA, your true colors are showing. "
carey wrote on May 12, 2009 1:16 PM:
" The definition of Wilderness in the 1964 Act includes land that "generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable" i.e. wilderness is in its natural state, not affected by us and our equipment. I argue the impact of horses and outfitters installing semi-permanent "tent camps" hauled in by 30 mules, adversely impacting streams, trails, and vegetation is not consistent with the definition of Wilderness. But, we had to appease horse users to support and pass the 1964 Wilderness Act. Hence, a necessary evil, with more positive impact than negative.
Contrast horse use with the relatively minimal impact of a silent mountain bike and it is clear mountain biking is a more consistent use of "Wilderness."
Taking a 30 horse pack train isn't much better on the land than an ATV, though at least horses are quiet. In terms of impact on the land, it goes, from best to worst, hikers, bikers, horses, ATVs. Why not create a "bull’s-eye" design with hikers having the most pristine to themselves?
One great hypocrisy with Wilderness lovers (myself included) is our iPOD/CellPhone/GPS, gas stoves, and flashlights. The bikes are no different than our other "technologically advanced" crutches....
The root of this problem is unfettered population growth (Read Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons).
Support bikers in wilderness- and they will be our ally. Don't and we all lose out. "
Contrast horse use with the relatively minimal impact of a silent mountain bike and it is clear mountain biking is a more consistent use of "Wilderness."
Taking a 30 horse pack train isn't much better on the land than an ATV, though at least horses are quiet. In terms of impact on the land, it goes, from best to worst, hikers, bikers, horses, ATVs. Why not create a "bull’s-eye" design with hikers having the most pristine to themselves?
One great hypocrisy with Wilderness lovers (myself included) is our iPOD/CellPhone/GPS, gas stoves, and flashlights. The bikes are no different than our other "technologically advanced" crutches....
The root of this problem is unfettered population growth (Read Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons).
Support bikers in wilderness- and they will be our ally. Don't and we all lose out. "
rocco wrote on May 12, 2009 4:14 PM:
" well put carey.
it really doesn't make much sense to allow hikers, who at times will hike 2, sometimes 3 abreast, widening the trail and trampling native vegetation, and horses in wilderness areas, but somebody on a bicycle. it's ridiculous. "
it really doesn't make much sense to allow hikers, who at times will hike 2, sometimes 3 abreast, widening the trail and trampling native vegetation, and horses in wilderness areas, but somebody on a bicycle. it's ridiculous. "
willie wrote on May 12, 2009 4:23 PM:
" Did you know it's illegal to push a wheelbarrow in a wilderness area?
I'm a mountain biker and agree with most here that bicycles have no place in the wilderness but to take it even further that horses should be banned also.
The damage horses cause to the trails is far worse than an ATV not to mention the poop. Horses are also one of the main spreaders of noxious weeds into the mountains.
Ban the horse too!!! "
I'm a mountain biker and agree with most here that bicycles have no place in the wilderness but to take it even further that horses should be banned also.
The damage horses cause to the trails is far worse than an ATV not to mention the poop. Horses are also one of the main spreaders of noxious weeds into the mountains.
Ban the horse too!!! "
montanatom wrote on May 12, 2009 4:31 PM:
" Mountain bikers are not prohibited from Wilderness. Just their bikes. No problem. Leave the bike at home and do something useful with it. Like biking to work or school. You would still be welcome in Wilderness without your bike.
I have a mountain bike. But for me Wilderness designation comes first. I can always continue to bicycle to work year round or ride my road bike or ride my touring bike. Or ride my mountain bike on trails and roads in non-Wilderness, non-roadless areas.
No problem. "
I have a mountain bike. But for me Wilderness designation comes first. I can always continue to bicycle to work year round or ride my road bike or ride my touring bike. Or ride my mountain bike on trails and roads in non-Wilderness, non-roadless areas.
No problem. "
sledmike wrote on May 12, 2009 5:09 PM:
" Wilderness designation used to be based upon an area's unique nature and benefit to nature. An area trammeled by human activity was not eligible. Now wilderness is used as a political hammer. As a member of the evil motorized cartel, it is riveting entertainment to watch the earthen saviors eat their own. Kind of stinks when it's your ox getting gored, don't it? If the goal is to preserve the natural state of an area, then no bikes, no motors, no horses, maybe only homemade clothes, bare feet, no glasses or contacts. Why don't you guys in the wilderness movement adopt an honest slogan...."BY US, FOR US AND ONLY US!" "
Lance M wrote on May 12, 2009 6:07 PM:
" Talk about misguided...the bikers (I am one!) should be the first in line to designate more wilderness! Unbelievable!! Of course, locally, amny bikers also support the Bitterroot Resort...these people don't get it!
LM "
LM "
allan wrote on May 12, 2009 7:35 PM:
" this really seems like a strange debate. i am a biker (not a hard core trail biker) and everyone that I know that mountain bikes also wants more wilderness. I think those that are heads of mountain bike organizations who oppose wilderness are VERY much in the minority. Typical mountain bikers also enjoy hiking and backpacking and almost unanimously support more wilderness. We really need to be together on this folks. The window to preserve some more beautiful pristine land before it becomes roaded for oil and minerals is right now. Get together and get it done. "
nomorebikes wrote on May 12, 2009 9:01 PM:
" do we really want people wizzing by us in the mountains? whats next, shall we add a lane on the trail just for them. No, that would just delay trail improvements (remember Russell street). No, you bikers will just have to make the best of it and enjoy the trail like the rest on us,on foot! "
James wrote on May 12, 2009 10:03 PM:
" Conservation is key, but its a shame to see some of my favorite trails go to the birds...but who better for than the natural inhabitants of those areas. As an avid mtn biker, I can't look at this bill as solely having a malicious intent to abase the biking community at large (however tempting it proves). Its about conserving the integrity of wilderness areas in general, something substantially more important than a recreational itch to find solace in a ride. Tragedy aside, I will find other epic trails. There's always catharsis to be found. "
Bob Allen wrote on May 13, 2009 8:37 AM:
" I don't know of one bicycle organization that opposes Wilderness as a protection tool or advocates for getting bicycles into existing Wilderness areas. Opposition comes from the Wilderness-only mentality for protecting roadless lands. There are other permanent Congressional companion designations to Wilderness where a blended protection package can protect more land than just Wilderness alone. Want more Wilderness? Bring cyclists into the fold. Remember - no new Wilderness in Montana for 25 years... "
Wheelie of Death wrote on May 13, 2009 9:19 AM:
" James wrote "Tragedy aside, I will find other epic trails" If the completely irresponsible NREPA bill would pass, your nearest epic trail would be in Canada. "
JR wrote on May 13, 2009 11:53 AM:
" So many emotionally charged comments! Could it be that the push to turning roadless areas to more wilderness is because the "wilderness crowd" has worn out the available wilderness? Outfitters have their traditional camp spots. I would bet that if a newbie set up camp in one of those spots there would be fisticuffs. More and more people using the available space does not mean that more space should be provided for them at the detriment to others. I have spent many an enjoyable day 4 or 5 miles walking behind a locked gate on a forest service road or trail not seeing another soul. I have watched as deer and elk stop using an area after the cuts and roads grow over with alder and trees. T. Lewis thinks that mechanized users are elitist and arrogant. To suggest that we should close down multiple use areas in favor of horse and foot traffic only is elitist and arrogant. I have tried to ride a mountain bike on trails and found that I had to spend so much time watching the ground infront of me I missed all of the scenery. Therefore I don't get the attraction. However, If a person finds that thrilling and a good use of their free time so be it. Some of you folks sound like two year old children screaming "It's mine". You folks just need to learn to share. "
Eric wrote on May 13, 2009 1:13 PM:
" Are you waiting to backpack in these areas until they become Wilderness? I spend a lot of time backpacking in these areas and see less people than I do in the wilderness. Whats wrong with leaving it the way it is and letting people mountain bike there? We shouldn't have to change it to a wilderness designation just to make people happy. "
Mike wrote on May 13, 2009 2:14 PM:
" Mountain bikes were not permitted when the Wilderness Act was passed. That was 1964. Mountain bikes hadn't been invented yet. And in fact, the Wilderness Act specifically bans "mechanical mean of transport." Surely that includes mountain bikes. Horses aren't banned under clause. Allowing them is not an issue of damage to the environment, it's the fact that humans have a very long history of using horses and they have never been considered a modern technological encroachment into wilderness. "
Stevi Girl wrote on May 13, 2009 3:30 PM:
" We have enough Wilderness and wilderness already! Seriously -- some of the existing Wilderness is in such a state of "natural" disrepair. Should we continue to squirrel away more? Do you want to look at millions of acres of red, dead trees just because you think it's "natural" to have it decimated by bark beetles? Where is the balance? Is multiple use dead at a time when we need it most? Wood, water, wildlife, recreation, range, AND Wilderness -- multiple use. We desperately need Wilderness? No! We desperately need stewardship! "
seemslike wrote on May 14, 2009 10:49 AM:
" T Lewis:"It's unfortunate that our last remaining roadless areas continue to be abused and turned into playgrounds for mtn bike enthusiasts, ATV riders, and other OHV users"
If it is classified as "roadless" that means NO atv's and NO roads and is already managed as wilderness.Hikers and horseman are allowed - not sure about mountain bikers. Elitist. Get your facts straight. "
If it is classified as "roadless" that means NO atv's and NO roads and is already managed as wilderness.Hikers and horseman are allowed - not sure about mountain bikers. Elitist. Get your facts straight. "
seemslike wrote on May 14, 2009 10:53 AM:
" Stevigirl: "We desperately need stewardship! " Best comment here. "
B. Wheat wrote on May 14, 2009 11:49 AM:
" What percentage of people actually use the wilderness anyway? Matt and the gang are too busy filing obstructionist law suits to ever get to the woods? So who can it be? A few hundred people a year?
In reality it makes no difference, because the enforcement is basically non-existent, and penalties so small that the risk may be worth it.(take the snowmobilers that are busted every year, for example).
Ride where you always have, pack a rifle, shoot a few wolves. "
In reality it makes no difference, because the enforcement is basically non-existent, and penalties so small that the risk may be worth it.(take the snowmobilers that are busted every year, for example).
Ride where you always have, pack a rifle, shoot a few wolves. "
bonnie franks wrote on May 14, 2009 12:56 PM:
" The fact is.......this land should not be in federal trust, as the federal government has proven to be irresponsible and careless. Under President Obama, democrats like Tester and Baucus were all to happy to mortgage your future to foreign bond holders.
When the bills come do, the only resource left to sell will be the federal lands in state like Montana. Enjoy the lands now......soon they will be locked up under new ownership. "
When the bills come do, the only resource left to sell will be the federal lands in state like Montana. Enjoy the lands now......soon they will be locked up under new ownership. "
adam wrote on May 12, 2009 6:27 AM: