High Sierra Topix

Mountain biking in our current wilderness areas would definitely degrade the environment and the wilderness "experience" for those who travel by foot.

What about the inevitable high speed bike encounters with horses and mules? That could get ugly.

Picture the increased damage to the flora and fauna of a mountain ecosystem. Sad to even consider.

And how about the absolutely certain explosion of rescue efforts that would be necessary when they tumble off their wheeled vehicles.

Bad idea.

Speed is definitely an issue. In the Bay Area on multi-use trails there are generally 15 mph speed limits--which are routinely ignored. But even if they were observed, just imagine encountering a biker going 15 mph in the wilderness.

Perhaps interest in this thread has waned, but the topic has not gone away. The following opinion piece appeared on the Oregonian's web site today, Jan 12. There is a lengthy comment section, both pro and con.

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index ... r_home_pop

Perhaps interest in this thread has waned, but the topic has not gone away. The following opinion piece appeared on the Portland, Oregon Oregonian's web site today, Jan 12. There is a lengthy comment section, both pro and con.

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index ... r_home_pop

Honestly, who rides a bicycle into the wilderness to see the scenery? Who is looking for a quiet experience on a rugged trail with a bicycle? Not many people in my opinion. Just like I don't want to see people base jumping off of every cliff in Yosemite valley I don't care to have a bunch of adrenaline junkies running me off the trail around every other corner in the quiet wilderness I am hiking miles to see. I have a hike and bike trail near my home and typically the bikers can be very mouthy and rude. They think they own the trail. You are lucky if they even slow up a bit as they whiz by you. If you happen to not notice them coming behind you they can get mouthy about it. Nope, I don't think it's a good idea at all. Now this isn't too say that all bikers would act this way but it's too many to allow this to happen in my opinion.

brob757 wrote:Honestly, who rides a bicycle into the wilderness to see the scenery? Who is looking for a quiet experience on a rugged trail with a bicycle? Not many people in my opinion.

Actually your opinion is wrong here, sorry. Just like there's plenty of casual (read not hardcore) hikers who do the local trails that are incredibly crowded with their dog and kids. You would never expect those people to do the 50 mile trek into a wilderness area. Conversely there is a group of mountain bikers who are not "whooping and hollering" down the trail adrenalin junkies, and want to get out to the middle of secluded areas, just prefer to do it on a bike. I'd point you at http://www.bikepacking.com/ for some examples.

Totally agree there are the adrenalin junkie types of mountain bikers that don't mix well with hikers. However those aren't the types that do 30+ mile rides into the middle of nowhere wilderness areas. They don't prefer to do long sustained climbs, want to downhill (many prefer to shuttle or take a ski lift if possible, but don't get me started there). And they want to get a beer at the end of the ride. These aren't the types that are going to be attracted to most wilderness areas trails. I'd point to some of the comments mentioning trails around Durango and having nasty run ins with bikers. However if you got somewhere up in the remote middle of the Colorado trail (having ridden the non-wilderness parts on bike) I'd say the interactions are vastly different.

Finally lets not forget before we say the sky is falling, that if this bill passed it would still be up to the land manager to decided if bikes are allowed on certain trails.

Bsavery is right -- two different types of riders with different goals, and different bikes.
The trail rushing adrenaline junkies ride full suspension bikes, as hardtails limit that type of riding. Remote bikepacking is better on a hardtail, not full suspension.

Biker's opinion post today in Washington Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... db982f3a4e

As I understand it, mountain biking is strictly prohibited in all designated Wilderness. I hate them there. Elsewhere, they are great. It's a wonderful sport, more or less, just has zero place in wilderness, which explicitly bans any mechanized mode of transport.

Also, kayaking should be banned from Wilderness, I think. I recently saw some Youtube videos of kayaking down the Middle Fork of the Kings. At first glance this seems a noble (and dangerous) venture. But having visited this most-remote of Sierra great canyons a bunch of times on foot, I find I am feeling extremely negative on this type of activity, indeed I feel violated. It totally demeans the wilderness feel of the place to me. So I find I am very, very much against kayaking there and, I think, anywhere in the Sierra Nevada Wildernesses and Parks. In a word, "Stay out, please". It sorta turns a truly wild place into a "play pen" for testosterone-fueled juveniles. Of course, what is "wild" is an arbitrarily defined notion. Maybe nothing is off limits nowadays.