High Sierra Topix

ok then. where do we go to sign a petition against it, and it doesn't look the work of a real legislative group; just lobbyists. They would have to rewrite the '64 act. good luck with that.

This does remind me of a hike I took years ago up to the top of Mt. Elwell in the Gold lakes area. The trail up the south side was a steep climb, with lots of talus, and we were pretty amazed to come across a group of mountain bikers dragging their bikes up to the top. they explained that they were going to ride down the North side, which was a better trail.

Only when they got to the top, they discovered the whole North side of the mountain was covered in snow and the trail was unrideable....so they dragged their bikes back down the way they came, over the blocks of talus...

cmon4day wrote:cefire,

Motorcycles, convertible cars, are not human powered activities. There in lies your "line".

Seems a pretty clear distinction, would also account for BC ski's as well. Would presumably include wheelchairs, backcountry skateboards, kayaks, and portage wheels. Thanks for clarifying.

http://fcdn.mtbr.com/attachments/new-me ... -09-09.pdf

Oh man, the wording of that bill is a joke. Haha, good luck

Mt bikers approach their sport with total aggression.The sense of entitlement to bombing past you on the trail is a big f.u.I dont know if they get anything from being in nature other than getting an adrenaline fix.They d probably get the same thrill dodging rush hour traffic.Ive seen where they have discovered the thrill of damaging ,ruining fragile landscapes in s utah.
Im a bike lover and it is my main transport other than work.

The phenomenon of using the wilderness for athletic/adventure sports has increased in recent years. Historically, climbing was the major "adventure sport" in the wilderness. This is quite logical and really a necessity, since that is where the tops of mountains are located! Mountain climbing pre-dates the wilderness act and is grandfathered in as an allowable activity, as does horse use. With the wilderness act, certain modes of transportation were restricted- such as helicopters. (In the Canadian Rockies helicopter drop-off and pick-up is a common way to get to the base of climbs). Climbing is regulated in that most climbs take more than one day so you must get into the permit pool, like everyone else. Kayaking and rafting are two other adventure sports that are getting more popular. I am a bit more sympathetic to the fellow who is willing to haul his kayak on his back into the wilderness in order to run the rivers. He also mostly is multi-day and is regulated by permits.

Mountain biking as an adventure sport does not necessarily require entry into the wilderness and is primarily a day-us activity. There are many non-wilderness public lands available. However, the current trend to throw everything into "wilderness" designation, mostly to restrict commercial development, has backfired, in that mountain biking has been collaterally damaged with the ever increasing wilderness designations. I do sympathize with this, but the specific change in law proposed is way off base.

In my observations, seen from my perspective, many (not all) who want to mountain bike (as well as trail-run) on wilderness trails do so for the sake of "bragging rights" or just something new, and entitlement that they should be allowed anywhere, not truly being aware of the environment. I would even go as far as classify thru-hiking nearly the same. Many thru-hikers feel they are entitled to be exempt from the quotas and rules and regulations of the wilderness.

I see conflict arising with ever increasing popularity of "extreme adventure sports" and the decreasing popularity of sedate backpacking, fishing and hiking. The new generation is fueled by adrenaline, wanting their moment of "fame", fueled by social media, competition and entitlement. Good that they are doing something real outdoors. So, adventure sports need a place to pursue these activities, but not to the degree that we loose our wilderness. We have a unique resource here in the USA- wilderness lands. Travel to other countries and you will realize how unique and precious this is. We need to protect this resource. The purpose of wilderness is NOT "use". It allows use in proportion to maintaining the preservation goals. That is why there are trail quotas. And restrictions. This entire issue gets to the nuts and bolts of what is "wilderness". Does the instant gratification or demand of allowing non-wilderness use in the wilderness justify dismantling the Wilderness Act. I land on the side of a "no" vote. Yet I think it is a valuable discussion to have. We do not gain anything by simply blowing this off as "stupid" or "outrageous". We need to argue our case.

DAVELA wrote:Mt bikers approach their sport with total aggression.The sense of entitlement to bombing past you on the trail is a big f.u.I dont know if they get anything from being in nature other than getting an adrenaline fix.They d probably get the same thrill dodging rush hour traffic.Ive seen where they have discovered the thrill of damaging ,ruining fragile landscapes in s utah.
Im a bike lover and it is my main transport other than work.

Some stereotyping there. That does not describe all bike riders. In fact, only a minority. You are not rushing, jumping, or skidding down any trail when you have 20 - 25 pounds of gear and food on your bikepacking rig.

OTOH while hiking I have been pushed to the side by trail runners careening downhill half out of control.

dave54 wrote:

DAVELA wrote:Mt bikers approach their sport with total aggression.The sense of entitlement to bombing past you on the trail is a big f.u.I dont know if they get anything from being in nature other than getting an adrenaline fix.They d probably get the same thrill dodging rush hour traffic.Ive seen where they have discovered the thrill of damaging ,ruining fragile landscapes in s utah.
Im a bike lover and it is my main transport other than work.

Some stereotyping there. That does not describe all bike riders. In fact, only a minority. You are not rushing, jumping, or skidding down any trail when you have 20 - 25 pounds of gear and food on your bikepacking rig.

Or when the bike you ride is upwards of $1000, extremely lightweight, but not built to take extreme crashes.

Mountain Bikers in the White Cloud Wilderness, Idaho, Aug 31, 2015.

I'm opposed to Mountain Bikers on pedestrian trails. I personally have had few encounters with mountain bikers and none were very negative. But that said, my general impression is that mountain bikers regard me as a trail obstacle.

As others have pointed out, bicyclists can and do travel at much higher speeds, and consequently can not stop very quickly. So I have safety concerns about mixing pedestrian and wheeled travelers on trails. I have had to step off trail when approached by fast moving mountain bikers who could not slow to a safe speed by the time they reached me.

While I don't think the number of highly proficient mountain bikers is large, I don't agree that current trail conditions serve as a deterrent or barrier to their entry. A good mountain biker would have no problem with any of the JMT, for example, and could jaunt off trail in many areas if he so chose.

With the advent of super fat tire mountain bikes, snow and mud aren't barriers to entry either.

Maybe down trees shouldn't be removed. But that would suck for everybody.

So yes, I am opposed to opening wilderness trails to mountain bikers.

Down here in San Diego County there are a lot of mixed-use trails shared by equestrians, hikers and cyclists. In spite of posted rules that set up a yielding priority (bikers yield to hikers and horses while hikers yield to horses) I have yet to meet a cyclist on the trail that has yielded to me, a hiker. The cyclists all seem to expect me to step out of the way to let them pass when it's supposed to be the reverse. I prefer to hike on trails that aren't shared with cyclists.