Happy Feet

Ok.

UniChris

As an immediate observation I see your point. But it's not actually in conflict with the original quote as much as my joking explanation of it. You're reporting that you saw elk doing very non-elk things in response to people's vehicles. The quote was specifically about people and our activities having an "impact" on elk "behavior"

So elk doing more stopping and looking and less feeding and resting is precisely an "impact"

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.

UniChris

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.

prj71

A mix of boomers and non-boomers

Yup. Those of us that pedal don't want the e-bikes on the trail. The writing is on the wall...once the e-bikes with pedal assist gain access, then the next step would be gaining access with throttled e-bikes that are capable of higher speeds which will just lead to further motorization of the trails which were non-motorized to begin with.

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.

Kapusta

My thinking is close to yours on this.

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.

DMC707

mine too. Deep loam and sand whoops . I wouldnt even ride an e bike through them. Id suspect the battery life would be quartered

tungsten

These local managers are the problem as they will predictably cave to preasures exerted by bureaucratic higher ups or politicized/monied interests inimical to wilderness best practises.

prj71

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.

Happy Feet

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.

tungsten

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/

70sSanO

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