High Sierra Topix

schmalz wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2019 10:54 am My opposition to this is mainly due to the fact that access to the backcountry should be earned.

Yeah, **** disabled & old people, they can hang out in the front country with the rest of those losers. Scenery is just for me and people like me!

c9h13no3 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2019 1:15 pm

schmalz wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2019 10:54 am My opposition to this is mainly due to the fact that access to the backcountry should be earned.

Yeah, **** disabled & old people, they can hang out in the front country with the rest of those losers. Scenery is just for me and people like me!

Yeah, that statement could be taken the wrong way. Smacks of elitism and some sort of 'trail aristocracy' where the peons are not allowed to tread.
Even the most fit and able hiker will some day be older and smitten with the infirmities of age. Will they then no longer be permitted to enjoy the outdoors? A mandatory age limit?

Ok, so if you want to interpret my words as elitist, or discriminatory against older/disabled people, that is your prerogative. It does beg a few questions though...

- Do you feel like the Wilderness Act discriminates against those who are older/disabled since it prevents them from being able to ride a bike or use vehicles to access areas? I really feel like the same logic you applied against me should apply in that case, which is essentially that providing ease of access should be a priority of the governing agency.

- Should we also allow motorbikes on trails that currently allow bikes but not motorized vehicles? If your answer is no, how would you specifically try to determine what is legal and what is not?

Lastly, to those who have commented on the limited battery span of these bikes... This is technology is exploding right now and assuming that bikes will continue to be limited by battery as they are currently is probably a bit misguided. When it comes to legislation, we should really be looking forward towards what these things are going to develop into rather than define it based on their current limitations.

I can see the benefit on a paved trail, but not "off road" so to speak.

I'm on the side of public lands being for everyone. Unless there is a demonstrable harm, let folks do it. The more people that are able to access the beautiful places, the more advocates those places have. I detest the "This is mine and not yours" mentality that exists in some circles (I don't believe that sentiment has been expressed in this thread by the way). Just my 2 cents.

fishwrong wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2019 1:24 pm I'm on the side of public lands being for everyone. Unless there is a demonstrable harm, let folks do it. The more people that are able to access the beautiful places, the more advocates those places have. I detest the "This is mine and not yours" mentality that exists in some circles (I don't believe that sentiment has been expressed in this thread by the way). Just my 2 cents.

So you'd prefer to rollback the Wilderness Act?

schmalz wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2019 8:02 am

fishwrong wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2019 1:24 pm I'm on the side of public lands being for everyone. Unless there is a demonstrable harm, let folks do it. The more people that are able to access the beautiful places, the more advocates those places have. I detest the "This is mine and not yours" mentality that exists in some circles (I don't believe that sentiment has been expressed in this thread by the way). Just my 2 cents.

So you'd prefer to rollback the Wilderness Act?

The proposal mentioned in the initial post of this thread was allowing e-bikes in areas where regular mountain bikes were already approved (certain specified trails in non-Wilderness Areas of National Parks. Would not apply to National Forest or BLM lands -- only NPS lands). The Wilderness Act currently does not allow any mountain bikes, E or regular. This proposal will not change that and is actually very narrow in scope. Don't change this to a strawman argument.

dave54 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 15, 2019 9:25 am

schmalz wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2019 8:02 am

fishwrong wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2019 1:24 pm I'm on the side of public lands being for everyone. Unless there is a demonstrable harm, let folks do it. The more people that are able to access the beautiful places, the more advocates those places have. I detest the "This is mine and not yours" mentality that exists in some circles (I don't believe that sentiment has been expressed in this thread by the way). Just my 2 cents.

So you'd prefer to rollback the Wilderness Act?

The proposal mentioned in the initial post of this thread was allowing e-bikes in areas where regular mountain bikes were already approved (certain specified trails in non-Wilderness Areas of National Parks. Would not apply to National Forest or BLM lands -- only NPS lands). The Wilderness Act currently does not allow any mountain bikes, E or regular. This proposal will not change that and is actually very narrow in scope. Don't change this to a strawman argument.

It's not really a strawman argument. The government is trying to rollback protections against our wild lands to allow motorized vehicles access to areas where they weren't allowed previously. If you support that then I'm asking if you support very similar rollbacks.

I'm really surprised by the reaction of some people here to this. Look at who is trying to push this legislation though, consider their motives. Look at the long list of conservation groups opposing it. Reconsider your position.

You should read what this is all about. It is not proposed legislation. It is an order reinterpreting the definition of motorized to exclude e-bikes. That is well within the regulatory authority of the Sec of Interior. And does not apply to the Dept of Agriculture Forest Service.

It does not grant access to areas that were previously closed to mountain bikes. It merely says for the purpose of trail access e-bike = mountain bike. If the trail is open to mountain bikes then it is also open to e-bikes. If a trail is currently closed to mountain bikes the trail still remains closed to all bikes. Very few trails in the NP system are currently open to mountain bikes, mostly wide multi-use trails or old service roads, and the order will only affect those few trails. This is hardly 'rolling back protections' or granting motorized access to Wilderness Areas. In the big issue of land management policies this is pretty minor. Pick your battles.

People are letting their disagreement with some of the current administration's policies to color their reaction to everything he does, and letting a biased media tell them how to react.

So why is the PCTA reacting? I don't know. The PCT is closed to mountain bikes and remains closed under this order. The PCT is completely unaffected. Same for the AT. Are they just so anti-Trump they complain and criticize if he stops to tie his shoe, an automatic knee-jerk reaction to anything he does?

If you bother to go back and read my initial post in this thread you will see I called for limits on e-bikes, like a horsepower or wattage ceiling, or speed limit.