motor vehicles and mountain bikes had the most impact
#102
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Northampton, MA
Posts: 1,909
Bikes: 36" Unicycle, winter knock-around hybrid bike
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 930 Post(s)
Liked 393 Times
in
282 Posts
found that elk feeding and resting behavior was impacted
That said, North American Elk (as opposed to European "elk" that we call "moose") seem to be doing fairly well population wise, though that doesn't mean bothering them isn't something that deserves thought.
Last edited by UniChris; 03-11-21 at 01:07 PM.
#103
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Northampton, MA
Posts: 1,909
Bikes: 36" Unicycle, winter knock-around hybrid bike
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 930 Post(s)
Liked 393 Times
in
282 Posts
Explain to me why I should grant mtb access to that area considering there are real negative consequences and NO positive outcomes. I am considering increased human presence, disturbance to wildlife, illegal trail building and trail expansion into fragile areas, soil erosion, littering, noise and engine pollution at staging areas, liability issues, bylaw/rule enforcement, regulatory issues.
Explain why I should grant your group access but not another. What does your group add to a wilderness area that is beneficial for it and not just for you? What does the wilderness get out of it? And, why is your unnecessary recreational activity more important than the other user groups. How do you justify yours while downgrading theirs, because, from my perspective, everything you say about them also applies in some way to you.
Explain why I should grant your group access but not another. What does your group add to a wilderness area that is beneficial for it and not just for you? What does the wilderness get out of it? And, why is your unnecessary recreational activity more important than the other user groups. How do you justify yours while downgrading theirs, because, from my perspective, everything you say about them also applies in some way to you.
Eg, non-motorized cyclists definitely do have an impact, but at lower speeds their impact is somewhat less.
Non-motorized cyclists tend to have to be more physically dedicated to reach the same areas; as a result they tend to operate there with more skill, but even more importantly, they'll be fewer in number the more remote things get.
A big part of the article that kicked this off was the observation that modern battery and motor (nevermind engine) technology has made it possible for lots of people to go where only a few could before. And where wilderness is concerned, user numbers are the largest problem.
Finally, we could make a public health benefit argument. Yes, you can get some body workout wrestling an e-thing or even a dirt bike through a challenging course. But no, it's not like the exercise involved in pedaling your way through all of those miles and up the hills. One can get a far more comprehensive workout in a shorter excursion on a pedal bike. So if we measure public health benefit against wilderness disruption cost, then pedal bikes clearly win over powered ones, but loose to hiking or trail running.
At the end of the day, within applicable law you're going to do what you want to.
I suppose another viable strategy could be to largely disregard mode and simply sell or lottery a limited number of user passes, along with route, season, refuse, waste etc rules.
What's not going to work is continuing to rely on remoteness and difficulty to keep usage to tolerable levels, while treating electric and pedal bikes as equivalent. Either rules have to recognize a difference, or wilderness protection policies will increasingly have to change from relying on difficultly to moderate usage, to relying on actual numeric quotas.
Last edited by UniChris; 03-11-21 at 01:10 PM.
#104
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: North Central Wisconsin
Posts: 4,621
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2975 Post(s)
Liked 1,180 Times
in
770 Posts
Let them get their foot in the door they'll push for more?
And if you know anything about non-motorized trails...Non-motorized trails were created to ensure that the public could find recreational trail opportunities free from the ever-growing motorization. E-bikes should only be allowed where motorized vehicles are permitted. The existing motorized trail systems that are currently in place provide plentiful opportunities for e-bike. There are literally tens of thousands of miles of trails currently open to their use. There is no reason they need to go on the non-motorized trails also.
#105
Advanced Slacker
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 6,210
Bikes: Soma Fog Cutter, Surly Wednesday, Canfielld Tilt
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2762 Post(s)
Liked 2,537 Times
in
1,433 Posts
If it's ultimately your choice, then you're going to be motivated by your own beliefs and biases as much as by arguments anyone else makes.
The most basic and logical argument would be one of degree and quantity.
Eg, non-motorized cyclists definitely do have an impact, but at lower speeds their impact is somewhat less.
Non-motorized cyclists tend to have to be more physically dedicated to reach the same areas; as a result they tend to operate there with more skill, but even more importantly, they'll be fewer in number the more remote things get.
A big part of the article that kicked this off was the observation that modern battery and motor (nevermind engine) technology has made it possible for lots of people to go where only a few could before. And where wilderness is concerned, user numbers are the largest problem.
Finally, we could make a public health benefit argument. Yes, you can get some body workout wrestling an e-thing or even a dirt bike through a challenging course. But no, it's not like the exercise involved in pedaling your way through all of those miles and up the hills. One can get a far more comprehensive workout in a shorter excursion on a pedal bike. So if we measure public health benefit against wilderness disruption cost, then pedal bikes clearly win over powered ones, but loose to hiking or trail running.
At the end of the day, within applicable law you're going to do what you want to.
I suppose another viable strategy could be to largely disregard mode and simply sell or lottery a limited number of user passes, along with route, season, refuse, waste etc rules.
What's not going to work is continuing to rely on remoteness and difficulty to keep usage to tolerable levels, while treating electric and pedal bikes as equivalent. Either rules have to recognize a difference, or wilderness protection policies will increasingly have to change from relying on difficultly to moderate usage, to relying on actual numeric quotas.
The most basic and logical argument would be one of degree and quantity.
Eg, non-motorized cyclists definitely do have an impact, but at lower speeds their impact is somewhat less.
Non-motorized cyclists tend to have to be more physically dedicated to reach the same areas; as a result they tend to operate there with more skill, but even more importantly, they'll be fewer in number the more remote things get.
A big part of the article that kicked this off was the observation that modern battery and motor (nevermind engine) technology has made it possible for lots of people to go where only a few could before. And where wilderness is concerned, user numbers are the largest problem.
Finally, we could make a public health benefit argument. Yes, you can get some body workout wrestling an e-thing or even a dirt bike through a challenging course. But no, it's not like the exercise involved in pedaling your way through all of those miles and up the hills. One can get a far more comprehensive workout in a shorter excursion on a pedal bike. So if we measure public health benefit against wilderness disruption cost, then pedal bikes clearly win over powered ones, but loose to hiking or trail running.
At the end of the day, within applicable law you're going to do what you want to.
I suppose another viable strategy could be to largely disregard mode and simply sell or lottery a limited number of user passes, along with route, season, refuse, waste etc rules.
What's not going to work is continuing to rely on remoteness and difficulty to keep usage to tolerable levels, while treating electric and pedal bikes as equivalent. Either rules have to recognize a difference, or wilderness protection policies will increasingly have to change from relying on difficultly to moderate usage, to relying on actual numeric quotas.
I see wilderness access decisions as weighing the cost to the preservation of the Wilderness Area against the benefits to the public of gaining access. So it is a balance, and that balance needs to to be weighed on the particulars.
In some cases, you would only let hikers in. They don't cover all that much ground, and few go all that deep into the remote parts. If the area is really sensitive, put a limit on the numbers.
In other cases, it may be determined that that the area can accommodate some more traffic. OK, let non-electric bikes in those areas. Why not automatically allow eBikes? Because they cover more ground faster and can go farther into the wilderness. More people farther into the area = more impact.
And maybe there are some instances where ebikes would probably be OK.... but it is a moot point as there is no way in hell motorized transport is going to be let into Wilderness areas anytime soon.... and the reason why many MTB advocates want the distinction made between bikes and eBikes.
But in addition to how sensitive the area is, there is also the question of demand. In a wilderness area that sees few people using it, you could make sense to be more flexible with MTB and even eMTB use. But in an area with a lot of pressure to use it (like near a big population center), you would likely need to be more restrictive. It is one thing if 20 bikers a day visit, another if it is 500.
FWIW, the push for access to Wilderness areas (at least as envisioned by the STC) is not a blanket opening up of all Wilderness to MTBs. It is a lifting of the blanket ban. The managers of the particular areas should decide what will work.
Last edited by Kapusta; 03-11-21 at 04:51 PM.
#107
Full Member
Thread Starter
#108
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: North Central Wisconsin
Posts: 4,621
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2975 Post(s)
Liked 1,180 Times
in
770 Posts
That is so the truth. I have personally dealt with this on other similar matters. They cave to social pressure at the expense of the resource.
#109
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Left Coast, Canada
Posts: 5,126
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2236 Post(s)
Liked 1,314 Times
in
707 Posts
Was letting the topic cool for a bit.
But really, cave to social pressure - unless it's your user group. Then more access please?
The best case scenario for wilderness is to allow no access.
However, what most managers are doing is considering a changing demographic that now includes more than the traditional dichotomy of bicycle or motorcycle options, and an aging population base that is still mobile and active and wants access. Some would like to see things in black and white but the Parks and land management mandates are usually complicated by two competing values (three if you consider funding sources): a.) Preserve land and resources for future generations and b.) Be equitable for all user groups. This doesn't mean allowing all uses in all areas but it does mean adding them to the decision making process in some way. As I've said all along, hopefully for e-mtbs in a hybrid scenario that allows some access in some areas that can sustain their use on trails that are constructed with them in mind.
Why do I think this? Is it because I'm in love with e-bikes? No. Truth is I have no feelings either way about them. But I recognize them as an emerging technology that will not go away and most likely won't be pidgeon-holed as motorcycles in the traditional sense. I would rather have their access considered and prepared for in a proactive way with the land management group having some control over their use than to naively think I can wish them away while they use all trails adhoc with little enforcement or regulation.
But really, cave to social pressure - unless it's your user group. Then more access please?
The best case scenario for wilderness is to allow no access.
However, what most managers are doing is considering a changing demographic that now includes more than the traditional dichotomy of bicycle or motorcycle options, and an aging population base that is still mobile and active and wants access. Some would like to see things in black and white but the Parks and land management mandates are usually complicated by two competing values (three if you consider funding sources): a.) Preserve land and resources for future generations and b.) Be equitable for all user groups. This doesn't mean allowing all uses in all areas but it does mean adding them to the decision making process in some way. As I've said all along, hopefully for e-mtbs in a hybrid scenario that allows some access in some areas that can sustain their use on trails that are constructed with them in mind.
Why do I think this? Is it because I'm in love with e-bikes? No. Truth is I have no feelings either way about them. But I recognize them as an emerging technology that will not go away and most likely won't be pidgeon-holed as motorcycles in the traditional sense. I would rather have their access considered and prepared for in a proactive way with the land management group having some control over their use than to naively think I can wish them away while they use all trails adhoc with little enforcement or regulation.
Last edited by Happy Feet; 03-16-21 at 09:42 AM.
#110
Full Member
Thread Starter
Here's another great essay about why we need wilderness and yes, we mtn. bikers are an obstacle in some cases.
Long, reading with open mind helpful.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/10...ic-wilderness/
Long, reading with open mind helpful.
Back in the 1980s, Dave Foreman and I compiled The Big Outside, A Descriptive Inventory of the Remaining Big Wilderness Areas of the United States (Harmony Books, 1989). The primary purpose was to accurately depict the true extent of each large roadless area in the contiguous 48 states, defining “large” as 100,000 acres or more in the West, with a 50,000 acre minimum for the East. We defined roadless areas as physical entities delineated by the location of roads and other intrusions that actually interrupt the flow of wildness......
Last edited by tungsten; 10-10-21 at 06:00 PM.
#111
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Mission Viejo
Posts: 5,805
Bikes: 1986 Cannondale SR400 (Flat bar commuter), 1988 Cannondale Criterium XTR, 1992 Serotta T-Max, 1995 Trek 970
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1943 Post(s)
Liked 2,164 Times
in
1,323 Posts
There will be a day when most trail systems will have e-mtbs. The main reason for this are kids. In areas that are more affluent, I see as many, if not more kids on e-bikes than regular bikes; especially in hilly terrain. I think Costco sells some for a few hundred dollars.
What do you think will happen when those 8-10 year olds are in their 20’s?
It will be the same response as when old people who hike complained about mountain bikes. They will put up right of way signs with motor assist bikes yielding to everyone else. It will be no different than how bikes yield to hikers today… on your left.
John
What do you think will happen when those 8-10 year olds are in their 20’s?
It will be the same response as when old people who hike complained about mountain bikes. They will put up right of way signs with motor assist bikes yielding to everyone else. It will be no different than how bikes yield to hikers today… on your left.
John