guest column
Boots, Not Bikes: A Protest for Wilderness
By Jill Beauchesne, Guest Writer, 7-26-08
I’m not the type of person who gets off on confrontation. Usually, I’ll play peacemaker—if there’s an argument, I try to help everyone see another point of view. But I’ll be honest—when a few friends and I decided to hold a mini-protest in the middle of a proposed wilderness a few weekends ago, I thoroughly enjoyed myself. In fact, I was almost surprised—I didn’t feel nervous at all during the conflict. I felt light, present, and charged.
The Garfield Mountain Roadless area, more commonly called the Lima Peaks, is located in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest in southwest Montana and is proposed for recommended wilderness in an ongoing forest plan revision process. It is a remote, amazing piece of land. Rolling hills of unbroken sagebrush give way to aspen stands and rocky peaks, native westslope cutthroats pile up in dark, clear pools, and hundreds of wildflower species color the basins in spectacular hues. Moose, elk, mule deer, mountain goats, wolves, and coyotes call this area home.
It was late when we left Missoula on a Friday night. We planned to sleep at the trailhead, wake early, hike in six miles, stay overnight, and fish and walk out seven miles the next day. We stopped to fill up our gas tanks in Dillon, where an article in the local paper caught our eye. We weren’t going to be alone in the Lima Peaks. A group of mountain bikers, the Montana Mountain Bike Alliance, planned to ride in the Garfield Mountain area in order to protest the pending wilderness recommendation. We weren’t happy about having to share the trails with the group, and, moreover, we weren’t happy about the intent behind their ride. We soon took matters into our own hands, laughing and tearing up a cardboard box. We were going to have a protest of our own.
The concept of designated wilderness is a fairly new one, by human standards. In comparison to today, for eons every place was “wild.” Of course, any steady human or animal presence in an area has an impact. And, as agriculture took hold, man cultivated crops, built bigger cities, and changed his landscape even more. We all know the story—for centuries nature has been understood as a “thing” to be utilized for human benefit. Plants were selected, hybridized, and re-planted year after year. Animals were eaten and worn. In the 20th century, man’s “use” of the land reached new heights with the advent of contemporary technologies. Mining and drilling wreaked permanent havoc on streams and landscapes. Commercial fishing boats drove clear cuts across the ocean floor. Mountaintops were blown off as companies scoured the earth for coal. Hundreds of animal species went extinct. Glaciers melted. And then, a few decades ago, we decided that we didn’t want all “wild” places to disappear. Hence, the Wilderness Act of 1964, meant to protect certain areas of the country, areas “where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.”
The Montana Mountain Bike Alliance is not opposed to wilderness. They are simply opposed to losing access to beautiful, technical trails that appeal to their particular sensibilities. When an area like Lima Peaks is placed into proposed wilderness, mountain bikers stand up, organize, and try to fight the impending loss of a remote riding opportunity (even if few riders actually use the area). It’s a normal reaction—yet it’s not one I can agree with. Their protest seemed, for the most part, largely symbolic. Even after issuing a press release and a call for riders, the group only had a dozen or so bikers on hand for the weekend ride.
But whether Lima Peaks is actually frequented by mountain bikers or not, I feel a responsibility to protect its particular and vulnerable ecosystem. I believe we face a sheer necessity for wilderness in 2008. We cannot re-create these unique places once they are “found,” once they are visited so frequently that their otherworldly essence disappears. A wilderness designation places an area beyond the realm of human influence and value systems. Wilderness is not about recreation opportunities. It is not about placing hikers over bikers in some hierarchical system. It is, for the most part, about letting a place be. In the words of Aldo Leopold, “Mechanized recreation already has seized nine-tenths of the woods and mountains.” I argue, I urge, I implore, that the wilderness designation for areas like the Lima Peaks is absolutely imperative. When we, as citizens, elect to set aside pristine areas of our nation as wilderness areas, we are electing to think outside of ourselves. We are learning that nature should not be objectified—for wealth, for enjoyment, even for experience. We are joyfully reminding each other that other beings have a right to relative solitude—whether that being is an alpine forget-me-not in bloom after a long winter, or a moose calf learning favorite trekking routes from its mother. Personally, I believe in increasing limitations in wilderness areas—if it were up to me, I’d remove all grandfathered grazing rights. I’d forbid aircraft from flying over wilderness spots. I’d forbid any write-ups of praise, any guidebooks. Radical? Sure. But I firmly believe in the need to let things be—and, in an area like the Lima Peaks, things are functioning pretty well as they are. Let’s recognize the fairly intact ecosystem that’s in place. Let’s celebrate a remote, gorgeous spot by letting it go—by saying, I love this place so much I am willing never to see it again, if it means it might just stay exactly the way it is.
So, I stood on a hillside holding my protest sign as the mountain bikers rolled by (some riding, some walking their bikes), and I couldn’t help but smile. It felt good to put my belief system on display smack-dab in the middle of a place I loved, in front of people who might not feel the same way. Sure, I’d been “active” before. But instead of sending an email from my desk, writing a check, or sporting a T-shirt, I was standing in the Lima Peaks, fighting for proposed wilderness, and, in my mind, for all wilderness. So fat chance, Fat Tire.
NewWest.Net welcomes guest columns of all stripes. Send your submissions to Courtney Lowery or Matthew Frank at .
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.

Comments
How is your presence any less intrusive than a bike?
How many fish did you molest and kill on your little expedition?
How many plants did you trample and hurt on your hike?
Hom many poor animals did you stress with your travels?
People like you make me sick.
I might not be the perfect environmentalist, but I sure don't drive my CAR to go FISHING and stomp around on man made trails, then go and write an article about how I'm 'protecting' pristine wilderness areas from evil mountain bikers.
No worries about molesting the fish. They were likely planted there by HUMANS anyway.
Its the hypocrisy that is most interesting.
You do know that dogs scare wild animals and detract from the wilderness experience of others, right?
"We weren’t happy about having to share the trails with the group, and, moreover, we weren’t happy about the intent behind their ride."
The group...mountain bikers were organizing a ride to express their disapproval of a piece of legislation that will greatly impact their ability to enjoy their preferred form of low impact recreation in little "w" wilderness areas. You can complain all you want about how you feel that a bicycle infringes on your personal wilderness experience, but the intent of the Wilderness act was not to preserve your experience (by excluding others) but rather to preserve the land.
Scientifically speaking, mountain bikers (of the cross country variety not downhill racers) have about the same impact on trails as hikers, and far less than equestrians. Further to the point of the intent of preserving the land, the impact of mountain bikers from the centerline of the trail is a far smaller area than hikers, more to the point, mountain bikers stay on singletrack, hikers wander. Some of this wandering is natural curiosity, unfortunately some of it is due to a feeling of entitlement that many hikers have, its their wilderness and their experience trumps the need to preserve the land. If there were real basis for excluding mountain bikers from big "W" Wilderness areas, there would not be as much complaining from mountain bikers, but the fact is it is not about science, or preservation of land, but rather greed, childish greed on the part of some user groups that as you pointed out in the quote above simply don't want to share the land that we all pay for in our taxes.
What we are learning is the hypocrisy and elitism by the author. The article flip flops more than the worst politician. It just stinks of elitism, and that's about it.
Your judging of the biking community from a few posts says alot about your character. Your comments make you seem bitter and violent, at best.
Can anyone explain to me a logical reason why bikes are somehow more harmful to this area than a hiker?
Care to comment on your silly article?
This 'article' doesn't deserve the pixels or bandwidth it occupies.
You know what's funny, I guarantee you and your group had a far greater impact simply trampling to your spot of protest than the bikers did on their entire ride.
While we're on the subject of irony, your attitude does more to prevent the protection of the amazing places in this country that it does to facilitate it. The more people you alienate, the more people you have working against you. I suggest you attend a local gathering of mountain bikers. I think you'll see that they actually practice the ideals that you preach.
I have worked with advocacy groups while they assured me that MTB access wasn't in their gunsights.
They freaking lied through thier teeth and filed suit to ban mountain bikes from areas that already contain roads and lack the values that are required under Wilderness designation.
No more!
Jill its obvious you care about our natural resources but you are fighting with the wrong group of people.
I mountain bike through wild areas to see them and spend some time and move on, leaving nothing but a tire print and taking nothing but memories and the occasional picture. Where I ride (the Yellowstone eco-system) I rarely see other people and have yet to suffer from any confrontations with extremists. The horse people and few hikers I come across are civil and see no conflict between the user groups.
If you want more Wilderness at the expense of my access to areas I have ridden in the past, forget it. I will side with the motorized users if you force me into that corner.
It is people like you who give the enviromental movement such a bad name. Keep it up.
I'm all for people expressing opinions, but this is a pathetic piece that offers nothing but an unjustified attack on a low-impact trail user group, mountain bikers.
We are very passionate about biking because it is a very positive thing. That's why we are very defensive of it. It's a way of life that is worth fighting for for most of us. We move to different states because of mountainbiking. We chose to live in ridiculously expensive places just because there is great mountainbiking there. It is a very positive and low-impact activity. We also see its potential to teach the younger folk to respect nature by experiencing it. It is not a sport that springboards us to take up ATVing or motocrossing because by nature, and anyone with common sense can see this, low-mpact recreation is incompatible with throttle-twisting. When we discover mountain biking, we stick to riding mountain bikes as it becomes a passion.
We are quick to protest these new wilderness proposals because we lose access to traditional riding areas. A loss of access THAT IS UNNECESSARY AND UNFAIR. We are hostile to the idea of losing access not to the idea of adding more "Wilderness". There's more than one way to protect land from destruction and pollution and the Wilderness Act should be modified to include bikes. Bikes and wilderness are compatible. Poeple with selfish agendas like the author just find that supporting these new wilderness bills as a convenient way to shut out a user group that they don't understand/refuse to understand and thus hate.
END the selfish hate and keep mountain bikes in in nature. We are a nice and numerous lot that are an important ally of TRUE environmentalists. Don't shut us out!
How long have you lived in Missoula, I wonder? Are you a brand new transplant...maybe you spend time on the courthouse steps downtown trying to get us to sign petitions that might, for example, attempt to ban all logging in the National Forest system? Maybe you tie your puppy to your Land Cruiser in front of the Top Hat with a piece of climbing rope and a carabiner, to show how core you are, but no matter, because you are so clearly in the wrong here.
Until you give up your car, your dog, and your nylon backpack, please STFU and stick to being a moron in town, where you aren't hurting access opportunities for people who know more about their local forests than you ever will.
As someone who regularly recreates in the Selway Bitterroot Wilderness, on skis, in a kayak, and on foot, I fail to see where a mountain bike can do any damage compared to horses. But no matter...I respect existing Wilderness boundaries but you can be damn sure I don't support the creation of any more until this ridiculous ban on bikes is addressed. Bikes are no more mechanized that AT or telemark ski gear, and yet those uses are allowed. Or what about oars on a raft? Allowed. What about outfitters packing in huge pack strings and setting up long term camps, trampling native vegetation and leaving their mark on the area for a long time?
But you don't really care, right? Because you made a statement.
Shame on Newwest for publishing this piece of junk.
- you learned that a protest would disturb "your" weekend
- you didn't talk to any of the protesters to understand their reasons
- you staged a counter protest instead
- you do not want to "share" public land with people who ride bicycles
- you believe you have the moral high ground because you arrived in your car with the intent to fish and camp and you actually believe your actions would be less detrimental to the land than bicycle riding
No wonder you are reaping so much criticism. The only types of uses you want are the ones you approve of or participate in. You also haven't taken the time to do any research on the different uses and their consequences. If you had, you may have put the protest signs away and reconsidered your own plans.
Shameful.
I have spent great amounts of times in the outdoors during my life, both in widerness areas & other open lands. I did a lot of hiking and backpacking as a child & young adult. I even did some pack animal assisted trips in the wilderness as a child, although it seemed like cheating. 20 some years ago I began Mt. biking & continue to this day. I still like to hike, but it is a lot harder on my joints than the bike, so I find myself hiking less. For the person who said bicyclists are lazy, you have no clue.
In my experience & observations, horses have the greatest negative impact on the areas that I have been. It is sometimes downright disgusting. I would venture to say that motorcycles & ATV's have less impact.
Something in your cause is backwards, uninformed & confused.
JF
Thanks,
JF
I'm assuming that the biker in your picture is on the trail and that you and your entire group are the ones 15 feet off that trail. and not to mention the photog 15 feet off the trail on the other side. Yeah that's a great example for how Bikers are destroying wilderness. At least their tires are on the trail, while your boots are busy trampling vegetation.... Oh and that's weird cause animals eat vegetation... yeah really good work
Nice journalism.
Did the editor even read this ridiculous article?
CA must be short one hippy chick.
I'm an avid mountain biker and also an attorney. Mechanized recreation is a slippery slope in the USA. If mountain bikes were allowed in a new wilderness area, any reasonably smart ATV organization could combine it with the ADA:
"I am disabled, allergic to horses, and I can't ride my bike, so yes, I need this little motor attached. This is nothing but mechanized recreation."
Pretty soon, not only new wilderness areas would have "mechanized recreation" but the legal precedent would not save our existing areas. This is straightforward litigation.
So, one has to be realistic, you have to ask yourself if you want more wilderness (with no mechanized recreation) or not. Personally, I do.
Thanks to New West for providing the forum for the article and the discussion.
JF
Big difference in asthetics.
the Wilderness Act is poorly conceived and it's a tool being used by a very small group of very elitist people. People who are much more concerned with their 'personal experience' in nature than about preserving any nature.
...and let's face it, it's not like ANY of this legislation prevents REAL damage by major corporations when they want access. Take a look at ANWR, how's that working out?
The Wilderness Act was concieved quite a while ago and didn't take into account developing forms of recreation. What is done is done.
There are other designations for areas that are restrictive of development and motorized recreation, provide protection to public lands and do not restrict mountain biking or other forms of quiet recreation.
See this link for further information
http://www.imba.com/resources/land_protection/wilderness_toolkit_8.html
The folks who only want areas designated as Wilderness are pusing an agenda that is simply to get rid of users they don't approve of. That slippery slope argument is a canard.
As a mountain biker I find that to be incredibly childish, I am willing to share with all user groups and so are the people who are helping to represent me.
http://www.montanamountainbikealliance.com/advocacy
Wilderness is a political topic that will continue to evolve through the political process. The Act itself is not guaranteed. I expect resource extraction to be the straw that breaks the Act's back, although our systems of rigid and artificial land use boundaries is as likely to break under a globally changing climate.
I would also like to comment on the idea that allowing "mechanized" bikes will lead to allowing motorized vehicles. Taking that same logic, allowing any human could lead to allowing any human use. That's a logical fallacy. A bike is no more mechanized than a fishing rod or tent made from petroleum and mined metals. If people are truly pursuing a wilderness ethic and not just the legal haze of the Act, they should look to New Zealand as an example. No trails, no bridges over raging streams, no camp sites. That's wilderness.
Mountain bikers are non-motorized outdoor enthusiasts. There is a great diversity within that group, just like any user group. For example, I just about 50, married for 20+ years, have a PhD in ecology, and have worked in conservation or ecological research for 20 years. Do I fit Jill's sterotype? I doubt it. Mountain bikers come from all age groups, male and female, and most are hard working professionals.
The vast majority of mountain bikers are environmentally aware (if not active) and support existing Wilderness Areas. The main issue in this case is that there are wilderness study areas that currently allow bikes. In some of these areas, the managing entity (in this case USFS) is taking away that existing use without the area having official Wilderness designation and without any evidence that cycling negatively impacts any aspect of the area that would affect official Wilderness designation.
So, in this case, all I see is a self-righteous rant against a compatible visitor group.
As for MTBer's being lazy, obviously you've not really ridden a mountain bike in mountains.
This really is a sad commentary of the selfish shallowness of most people's views on land use. The hikers hate the horses hate the MTBers -- the more exclusive the use pattern the more intense the ire.
Multiple use is a great concept, a fine legacy and none of you fully appreciate it. That's a tragedy.
If we really want to preserve this piece of land, all human activity must be banned from it for perpetuity. Let's do it, guys!
"Oh those mountain bikers -- they tried to KILL US with their high-speed fun! We were just walking along, 6-across on the trail, having a pleasant conversation about what a miracle Barack Obama is, and here comes this CRAZY mountain bike rider going at least 3 miles per hour! He tried to KILL US! We actually had to interrupt our impressively deep and sophisticated political conversation! CLEARLY mountain bikes should be banned!"
"Signed,
Peter Predenshus
Jill Konducenshun
Bob Sooperyer
Ted Eauppie
Gladys Cnobb"
I find it interesting that with your advanced education, your mind has grown impossibly narrow. Nothing in your comments indicates a powerful intellect with an open perspective, a holistic person who knows how to encounter all possibilities and address them sensibly and logically. Instead what I see is a fear-mongering, closed-minded, spoiled and arrogant yuppie.
Maybe the solution is for all these yuppies like Jill the author, and Jon the lawyer, and the other nay-sayers, to move someplace where their "outdoor experience" can be as fully sterile as possible.
While they all quarrel over whether mountain bikes are even 0.00001% of the threat that their night terrors suggest, the US Forest Service hands its lands over to mining, timber extraction, natural gas extraction, thermal energy exploration, commercial concessionaires, and other despoilers.
And you whining yuppies are worried about BICYCLES.
Grow up.
Please.
Don't respond to the personal jabs, but please do respond to how you feel your presence in the area (camping, fishing, hiking) is somehow less of an impact than a bicycle coming and going in an afternoon.
One more question. Were the fish you were fishing for planted by the forest service, or do they occur naturally?
Thanks.
With respect to the logical fallacy, I have to respectfully disagree. Plaintiff's law, especially in this country, has very little to do with logic and a lot to do with litigation and entitlements, in that "I was entitled to enjoy the [name your public resource] now I can't, so I'll use [broad existing law and precedent, e.g. ADA] and a broad definition [mechanized recreation] to regain my entitlement."
Again, this is not logic per se, in fact, it's well outside what any person would call logic, it's just how our legal system is used and will be used in this case. Again, this will be very straightforward litigation.
I talked to one of the leaders of an ATV advocacy group and they are very supportive of mountain bikes in wilderness areas chiefly because they see it as their legal wedge into the wilderness. Some ATV riders do have walking disabilities. I have nothing against ATV riders per se, other than I would prefer to keep our wilderness areas non-mechanized.
Dwight, I completely agree with you that it is disconcerting to see two groups who should be working together, going after each other. We do need to find some common ground. I mountain bike at least 3 times a week and absolutely love it. I just know how this issue can be used legally.
For others on the thread, I hate to do this, but I am 5th generation of the Northern Rockies. Let's try to drop the name calling and try to learn from each other.
Bikes are of a technology not compatible with the idea of wilderness. People move too fast on foot trails when biking and break up the flow of the place, being able to access wild country in much less time than those on foot or stock. Bikes do not belong some places and the Lima Peaks is one of those places.
Mountain biking is an important activity and trails should be managed and maintained for mountain bikes. However, it isn't appropriate everywhere.
All I'm seeing in this thread are a bunch of extremist users who don't care about the land. Instead they just want to ride their bikes, no matter what other values might exist in a place. Grow up, you have tons of places to ride.
How is a rifle, scope, and gunpowder more compatible with an area than a bike? Is it because it's been around longer, like horses? So it's established?
Seems to me a gun blast is far more disturbing than a squeaky chain.
I'm not anti-hunting. I enjoy a good slab of elk when the opprotunity arises.
Thanks again for a great discussion. Obviously it is one that is needed and wanted by many.
My argument remains pretty simple. I am in favor of the wilderness proposal for Lima Peaks (and the wilderness designation in general), for all of the reasons I stated above. The
sorry for 2nd send.
Thanks again for a great discussion. Obviously it is one that is needed and wanted by many.
My argument remains pretty simple. I am in favor of the wilderness proposal for Lima Peaks (and the wilderness designation in general), for all of the reasons I stated above. The Montana Mountain Bike Alliance rode a few weekends ago in the area to protest the impending designation. I chose to "counter protest" their effort in action and later in writing this piece. I am not against mountain biking, I mountain bike occasionally myself and road bike quite frequently. I do not think mountain bikers are lazy. I do not think I am better than mountain bikers. I am in favor of wilderness and the present rules in place that are associated with wilderness. As for impact of bike vs. hunting, this is my perception, but I agree with backcountryhunter that bike technology does do not correspond with wilderness and that foot travel is more suitable for these areas.
Time to go to work, so I won't be on any more today. Thanks all for provoking discussion and i do agree that we with common interests can/should find a way to work together for our goals and for the good of wildlife and landscapes.
Jill
You are a lunatic.
Share the Trails,
That Guy
It should be about pace, tradition, and the idea of wilderness. A human form in pink lycra hunched over a wheeled metal frame busting down wild slopes at full speed does not come to mind when imagining wilderness.
The problem is that is you OPINION. Public lands should be managed with facts, not opinions. While the HOHAs (a pacific NW term - hatefold old hiker association) preach as you do, we have freedom of religion in the US. Just because that's not YOUR vision of Wilderness doesn't mean it's not mine. That's why impact, not opinion, should be the deciding factor. Of course if it were, bikes would be allowed in far more places, and horses in far less.
All - there's a big difference between mechanized and motorized. The idea that allowing a mtn bike is a slippery slope to ATV's is about the most ridiculous thing I've heard.
Interesting that this area still it's Wilderness characteristics, despite being open to bikes for so many years. Seems like that should be grandfathered in.
I suppose none of you ever has been involved in a horse/human collision. Let's just say the human fares poorly.
Horses cause the most environmental damage of any non-motorized user group.
Bicycles are not motorized and cause LESS impact than horses. This has been demonstrated time and again with scientific study.
Just because a spoiled yuppie is JEALOUS of a cyclist's superior fitness and athletic ability isn't cause to banish cyclists from "wilderness."
If I can't ride my bicycle because it's mechanized, then I want all you pretentious Yuppies to give up YOUR mechanized assistance
hiking boots (lacing = mechanical)
hiking staff (mechanical leverage assistance)
camp stove (mechanical)
tent (mechanical zippers and fasteners)
sleeping bag (mechanical zippers)
clothing (mechanically fastened)
water filter (mechanical)
How ridiculous are you people going to be? You have a naive pretentious Yuppie view of what is "Wilderness" and what harms it. You are obnoxious in your condescension. What are you really complaining about here? It's not bicycles. That much is clear. If it were about impact you'd want to banish horses, fat people, and people who walk in a sloppy fashion, people who alter the land to suit their preferences.
If you people want to be properly pristine, you need to travel completely naked. Nothing with you, just you and the land. And you need to stop displacing grains of sand when you walk.
If it's going to be pristine, EVERYONE and EVERYTHING must be banished from it.
That's the only fair way.
Unless you're a pretentious Yuppie Transplant who moved to Montana to tell others how to live, that is.
-------------------
"I talked to one of the leaders of an ATV advocacy group and they are very supportive of mountain bikes in wilderness areas chiefly because they see it as their legal wedge into the wilderness. Some ATV riders do have walking disabilities. I have nothing against ATV riders per se, other than I would prefer to keep our wilderness areas non-mechanized."
--------------------
Listen, Jon, if you're going to be a lying attorney, admit you're pitching your case and not being even-handed.
Those ATV users you describe -- they don't control anyone or anything. Whether they HOPE cyclists serve as their entry wedge is irrelevant. It's only a HOPE.
What other people HOPE or WISH regarding cyclists is not the issue.
The issue is how cyclists behave RELATIVE TO OTHER USERS.
And the solution is not to banish cyclists, but to banish people who are harming the land.
Naturally, first on the list is extractive uses. So, Jon Wilson, are you saying you want to stop all logging, mining, and other "development" in these Wilderness areas? If so, you and Author Jill have a new focus. Perhaps you both don't realize this, but the US Forest Service's priority is COMMERCE, and that commerce is always going to leave the land looking different from the Idyllic Yuppie Paradise that you and Author Jill and the other whiners seem to think is the controlling view.
You need to put your emphases where they are warranted.
Besides, all of you who say cyclists come careening down the trail trying to kill you -- what in Hades do you fools think happens when there's snow up there? Skiers and snowshoers and snowboarders come careeening down the hills.
That's right.
The vaunted peaceful yuppie Telemarker is destructive, if a cyclist is destructive.
How about some even-handed treatment? Can we expect that?
Not from Yuppie Transplants, it seems. Only from long-time Montanans can we see even-handedness. So I guess that tells us who is the target audience for New West -- arrogant yuppie transplants who seek to tell long-time residents how to do things.
The arrogance includes pretending to be above the "personal" and "name-calling" aspects of discussion, while telling others simply that they do not matter.
I see who's the mature group. It's not the Yuppie Transplants, who behave like spoiled little 4-year-olds.
http://www.utahmountainbiking.com/UMBphpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=4793
http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/showthread.php?t=128483
http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=424007
Wonder what the greenie forums sound like ...
As many others have said, to call mtn bikes out for doing damage to the environment by riding on existing trails is ignorant. They do no more damage to trails than hikers and far less damage to trails than ATV's or Horses.
Jill, I respect what you think you are trying to do, but if you were a REAL environmentalist, and not some poser, you'd realized that there are much bigger fights than this.
Like,
Air pollution due to increased automobile use in the 3rd world with lack of emission standards.
Ship Busting in the 3rd world.
Unregulated Coal fired power plants worldwide leading to air pollution, mercury deposition and acid rain.
Deforestation of the worlds rain forests and loss of bio-diversity
Mining of gold and other minerals in China, Canada, Alaska, Russia and South Africa and all of the air and ground and surface water pollution associated with these activities.
Lack of sewage treatment and clean drinking water due to pollution in over 1/2 the world.
Over fishing and destruction of the worlds coral reefs.
The list goes on and on and none of it even mentions global warming....
So, if you want to continue to protest mtn biking in "wilderness" areas, go ahead. Those of us the really understand what REAL environmental issues are will continue to call you out as a selfish poser.
L
PS Witherspoon, get over yourself you prick.
Are you guys all on trail there or just trampling native veg?
The bottom line is that your article does not even deserve a well thought out, dignified response.
You are a narrow minded moron - don't be pissed at me just because you can't handle a real challenge like mountain biking.
Sounds like even though everyone is incredibly "I" and "my" oriented, like every other special interest group in the world, they are all are so willing to share - on their terms - and are all outstanding environmentalists!
I enjoyed the comments that rationally took exception to the author's premise or found challenges with that group's approach that needed to be aired.
As to New West, I note the "Comment policy" is not a policy, perhaps not even a "suggestion".
Judging from this exchange, the true wilderness appears to be in Missoula and Bozeman.
Perhaps that's why some conflict on the trail produces such bile on the boards.
Any more of this kind of behavior and we'll have to shut the forum down completely so if you'd like to continue discussing this issue, keep it clean, free of personal attacks and civil.
Open discussion and full airing are part of the tradition here. I don't think ivory tower "liberal" political correctness EVER has sat well with Montanans.
Of course, one sure way to slant the outcome of ANY discussion is to eliminate all the opinion expressions that you find uncomfortable, or which you disagree with for whatever reason.
New West has a nice history of Politically Correct "debate" in which there IS NO debate, only an echo chamber of Proper Liberal Perspective.
I would suggest that all the people who support the author of this ridiculously obnoxious and condescending essay should come to Missoula and sit down and have a few drinks with me and my friends at Charlie B's. We'll show you how things get hashed out -- not with fake-polite discussion, but with clear, open, honest expression of one's viewpoint.
No editors allowed, no redaction permitted.
Yeah, would that ruin your spiritual experience? What entitles you to these trails and not us? How would you feel if you were on a trail peacefully riding and enjoying the remote, natural location and a bunch self righteous hippycrites were protesting your peaceful, low impact use with signs and malicious attitudes? What if they were putting logs on the trail hoping you would hit them and hurt yourself and then denying it through their teeth minutes later? What about my spiritual experience? Or are bikers below hikers in the caste system?
I'm from Montana and am well aware of how much beautiful backcountry we have, and my method of choice for enjoying it is on a bike. I never left the trail and trampled vegetation or mauled any fish while I was on Little Sheep creek. I didn't bring a dog to chase wildlife. The moose and it's calf never even saw me.
Seeing you four protesting and talking to you while up there made me sick to my stomach, and so does reading your article.
I've always thought that hikers, bikers and horsemen will eventually realize that they all want the same thing, and then everyone will get along. After this experience I can see that some people will never be happy until they have it all for themselves.
AMEN, AMEN, AMEN.
Thank you for your post.
As a matter of fact, we are considering requiring all commenters to register, and perhaps to use real names as well, in the hope that might improve the quality of the conversation. We'd be interested in your feedback on that, though of course if your feedback consists of insults, please spare everyone the trouble.
There are real, important questions around wilderness policy, obviously, and it would sure be nice if those questions could be discussed in a constructive and respectful manner. Sincere thanks to the majority of you who are engaging in that fashion.
Thanks for the laugh. If you're going to pose an argument on the internet, make it rational and maybe even well-written. I don't live in MT and I don't really stand to benefit or suffer either way. But I did got to the U of O, where Protestitis is also rampant--where "enviromentalists" would drive to their emissions protests, where if you weren't protesting something, you weren't helping anyone!
Do some research next time. Come up with emperical evidence to support your argument. Don't tell us that you "weren't happy to share the trails" and expect your readers to digest your argument with an ounce of credibility. Emotion tends to immediately disqualify an argument, particularly one that seems utterly whimsical from the beginning.
"Why not park the bike and take a stoll?"
_________________________
Because, Connie, we choose to ride bikes. We enjoy the physical challenge of moving uphill on a bike, requiring balance, strength, fitness, technique, finesse. Despite your attempt to denigrate cycling, it is actually an excellent way to get invigorated. Maybe you should try to recall that Albert Einstein was a fan of cycling -- essentially, he said that it's impossible to feel old when you know how to ride a bike.
But maybe that's your quarrel. Maybe you think riding a bike is not "adult," and that only foot travel is permissible?
What do you think of winter recreation using skis, snowshoes, or a snowboard? When you see a group of XC skiers at a trailhead, do you lecture them on using their mechanical devices to get access to wherever they want to go? Do you suggest that they leave the skis at home and walk?
Let me ask you something, Connie. Why don't you ditch your shoes and clothes, and travel totally naked? What do those hiking boots do for you? They displace all that soil and rock. They trample insects underfoot. They have a much more disastrous impact upon the ground than a bare foot does.
What gives you the right to be so destructive with your shoes?
What makes you the Queen who can dictate that the only possible means of travel is to walk?
Why does everyone have to see things YOUR way?
The fact that the most thrilling part of your weekend is protesting people being healthy and having a low impact tells me that YOU shouldn't be allowed there. I'm starting a new movement, banning all none constructive protesting in wild areas. Don't forget the fact that Mtn bikers build and maintain more trails for all types of users than any other groups.
Goodness gracious I wasn't meaning for you to give up your bike,
only suggesting a stroll after you get to your destination. I never said riding a bike is "not adult". I would ditch my shoes and clothes and travel totally naked but at my age I'd definitely scare not only you but the wildlife as well. Although, come to think of it,
perhaps this might keep you away and I really wouldn't want to do this to you.
Sounds like most readers found your article and it's 'ideas' to be shit. That's good, because shit is pretty wild. Leopold didn't touch on that, but I'm sure Abbey did.
Where does New West find these guest 'writers'?
-CAMT-
You still didn't answer my question on whether you lecture XC skiers and tell them to leave their skis at home. You're still behaving as though only YOUR chosen method -- "a stroll" -- is the only viable way to recreate.
Selfish Sock Puppet. Nice!
Okay you may have me here but don't XC skiers only ski in
winter on what I'll call snow covered paths? I'd admit I'm
not all that familiar with XC skiers but I don't think cross
country skiers make all that much noise and/or damage the
ground under the snow. Again, I open the door for you to
knock me but I'd prefer you educate me on this particular sport
so I can respond accordingly.
Thanks.
As you pointed out, wilderness areas are not primarily for recreation. There are millions of acres of public lands that are. They are to preserve, in a world where preservation has become increasingly difficult, a small part of what was. It isn't a matter of whether a mountain bike does more "damage" than a man on foot, but rather that it is inappropriate in a truly wild place where man is the "visitor".
Good for you for having the "guts" to stand up for what you believe in. I fully support bicycle trails, ATV trails, snowmobile trails, and fire roads that I can drive. But I also support places where these things are not allowed. I cannot understand how selfish someone would have to be not to support this balance.
The point isn't whether the commenters support Wilderness areas. It's whether they support MORE wilderness area. You state that you've never had any problem finding places to ride your mountain bike, but with each trail closed, there are less and less places to ride. The best trails go first, which is why people argue so strenuously to continue bike access. If bike access to date hasn't diminished the Wilderness quality of this area, why shouldn't it continue?
Frankly (no pun intended), I think there's more then enough Wilderness in the west. There may be reason to designate more areas with less restrictive designations, but there's already more then enough Wilderness. The real problem is intolerance and near religious anti-bike fervor from hiking groups.
It's ironic that many of these posts make much better, and better supported points then the original author's fluff opinion piece.
I've Mtn biked for 20 years, consider myself low impact, courteous to other trail users, and thoughtful about Wilderness Areas. I don't ride in them. However, nor do I agree with the ban.
Some mtn bikers suck, in terms of respecting the land, not skidding, etc., but they are the same people who would suck regardless of being on a bike or hiking.
The comparison I like to make is what is worse, my 28 pound mtn bike touching the dirt trail, or the 10 ton bulldozer plowing over acres of land to build the next housing tract.
Let's put reality into perspective and concentrate on issues that really matter, like controlling sprawl, not banishing some bike in the woods.
And, last time I checked, my bike don't shit either.
Currently there are over 4 million acres of designated Wilderness in Montana. That does not include YNP and GNP.
Wilderness is not "rare" in Montana.
Wilderness Acreage in MT By Agency
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency Acres Percent of Total Wilderness Acres
Bureau of Land Management 6,000 0.17%
Fish & Wildlife Service 64,535 1.87%
Forest Service 3,372,503 97.95%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 3,443,038
They were merely pointing out that the argument used against there has no legs to stand on. Case after case are made and go unanswered by the author.
It is easy to quickly come up with an article that sounds good, but it is often times more difficult to substantiate it.
Protesteritis is rampant in some communities, I think it is the driving force behind this particular article and "protest".
About 3% of the total acreage in Montana.
If the Advocates of more Wilderness get their way that number will triple and just over 11% of all of Montana will be locked up.
That does not include over 3 million more acres that is YNP and GNP.
Good point Pickles. Mountain Bikers ARE willing to share.
It's out in the middle of nowhere, get over it. Do you even know what you are protesting? Like someone noted earlier, Mt. Bikers tend to stay on the trail and cause equal and significantly less trail problems than horses. So, what's the problem? Seems to me that you were the ones loitering around off trail tramping down grass and traumatizing fish.
Spare me, and spare the rest of us.
That area is not yet a Wilderness.
That area seldmon gets ridden (but I'm sure b/c of this exposure that will change).
The ride was billed as a fat tire festival to raise money for the local group. It was also a chance to ride an area that will likely be off limits in the future.
What is a truly wild place Frank? Do they exist outside of our minds? A construct of an industrialized nation? If you think Wilderness is wilderness or 'true wilderness', get a grip.
These riders did nothing wrong. The author is all about 'me' and 'I'. All the crap going on in the world, and this is what she chooses to spend her time on. What a stroker.
I'd rather see someone on a bike in a perfect synergy of man and machine, coming quickly, and leaving just as quickly, than some self centered clueless dillwads with dogs, Ipods, and a pack full of shit made in China strewn all over the side of a lake. Or holding up cardboard signs.
PS Jill, I'll be riding the Curly Lake loop this weekend, down in the Tobacco Roots. Maybe I'll see you there.
-CAMT-
A beautiful range that is underused and full of roads and old mining claims. Sounds like pristine wilderness, right?
Enjoy Curly Lake, that ride is a classic.
We didn’t intend this ride to be a protest, or a money raiser, and were taken back by the counter protest. Our intent was to just inform a few more folks of the land-planning situation in Montana. We were successful, with 14 riders on Saturday and 12 on Sunday. I guess with Jill’s article, now quite a bunch of people know of the area but not of the whole issue. So, thanks Jill, for helping get the word out.
No one on this ride was a lazy biker. I must take offense to that accusation. Most of these people had rode a difficult 23 mile route the day before, and were suffering under the heat of the day. Others had severe sunburn from being white Montanans who did a river float the day before. Seven of us did gain the Continental Divide Trail and finally the day’s summit. And we did stroll about once on top. No guys wore pink lycra.
Being the oldest person on the ride, I can attest to a lifetime of physical disabilities, which have prevented any significant hiking since I was in my twenties. Biking is a viable method for accessing backcountry. Biking makes sense for many of us.
Some people have made remarks, which saddens me, and that is the ranting against horses. The Montana Mountain Bike Alliance supports horse use in the mountains, and salutes the ongoing work of the chapters of the backcountry horsemen around Montana. Most bicyclists may not realize, but the many of the trails they ride are cleared annually by the backcountry horsemen. There is very heavy horse use near dude ranches, but do not confuse that trail wear with backcountry horse use, it’s a different situation.
We would like to see the hypocrisy taken out of public land planning. About 50 areas are up for Recommended Wilderness consideration in forest plans across Region One. In the Beaverhead-Deerlodge forest alone, 14 areas are being considered. In other regions of the U.S. recommended wilderness is being planned, but mountain biking is not being prohibited. Region One managers and forest supervisors claim there is no policy to prohibit bikes in RWA’s. Something is going on though, but it’s still a secret. If anyone finds out, let us know, OK?
Hypocritical planning, you bet! While prohibiting bicycles, they are still allowing game carts and chain saws. The hypocrisy and focused biased is a real problem that the F.S. won’t address, but promotes in 12 forest plans. Bicycles have historical use, and in many cases, appropriate use. It is now time for our public land managers to be realistic about land planning and make appropriate adjustments to RWA boundaries and recognize the need to add other tools to the toolbox besides wilderness.
Why the furor over bikes and the resulting bike backlash? I think that after not having a voice for many years, bike riders are waking up, and it’s now time to listen to the message, and have some constructive dialog.
Thanks again Jill.
Looks like things are back where they should be. Let me know if you need my help again as I am eager to prove to you that I have changed my ways. I am a happy blogger now.
Bestest wishes,
Tabby
Now, just 'cos the USFS sed so don't mean it is so, but it's a good hint. Also, that doesn't mean the USFS or other Federal Agencies can't decide to comply with ADA guidelines on their own (or on order from above.)
The story's diffrent for state, local & private trails - on those, the flowy singletrack & steep rock gardens may become nice, gentle, wheelchair-accessible boardwalks.
http://www.americantrails.org/resources/accessible/ADASummFeb00.html
... but as far as wheelchairs in Wilderness are concerned, there's no need for any legal wrangling, because Congress already sed:
"... nothing in the Wilderness Act is to be construed as prohibiting the use of a wheelchair in a wilderness area by an individual whose disability requires use of a wheelchair ... no agency is required to provide any form of special treatment or accommodation, or to construct any facilities or modify any conditions of lands within a wilderness area to facilitate such use.
(2) Definition-- ... wheelchair means a device designed solely for use by a mobility-impaired person for locomotion, that is suitable for use in an indoor pedestrian area. "
Imagine the possibilities ...
Not that I really need to say anything at this point, but thanks for giving voice to just how off-the-cuff and from-the-hip people who complain about cyclists are. Despite the smug factor this may give you, you actually have the temerity to complain about the hybridization of plants? You, by your own admission drove a car to the trail. If you want something to complain about, look in the mirror and call yourself slovenly and wasteful. You're doing far more to eff up the planet than cyclists, so get off of your high horse. I don't see any disclaimer in your smug, rhetorical rant, about keeping cars off of the road. FAR more people are harmed by automobiles than by bikes. Here's a quote from your 'article' "we stopped to fill our gas tanks..." most true cyclists can't conceive of using a car, yet to you it's an after-thought. So what do you got?
I use a tank of gas about every three months, if that.
Anything from the whiner who drove to the wilderness?
Oh, and your carbon credits are BS.
I read your article for a second time. As much as your smug rhetoric pained me, I have only to say if you really want to 'save the planet' first pull whatever it is you have in your GI tract out, and second, have the sand to either sell the car you used to drive to the wilderness, or quietly shut up. You've got your priorities far out of whack.
Car's pollute and kill people. If you drive one. You should shut up!
Could you please email me your hiking schedule. I need to know when, where and what time you are hiking so I do not disturb your "wilderness" experiance with mine. I hate to have clashing "wilderness" experiances.
Best
Jesus
Living in Missoula means you probably ride pattee canyon, blue mountain, the rattlesnake and maybe the bitterroot valley. So why is that ok but mountain biking is not ok at the lima peaks area? There are different opinions on what wilderness should be and what areas should be protected. Do you only think that places that have high peaks and mountain lakes should be protected but the areas around missoula that you ride don't qualify? The rattlesnake and much of the trails in the bitterroot valley border wilderness areas so shouldn't all those trails be closed to bikes as well in your opinion?
You say that you road bike often, I do too. Many people hate road bikers being in their way on the roads and highways and in some cases it can be dangerous if there isn't much of a shoulder to move on to so cars can pass. How would you like it if there was a proposal to ban road riding in all your favorite spots? Also how would you like it if you tried to save those riding spots only to find protesters protesting you?
Some thoughts on radical environmentalists. I consider myself and environmentalist but more of a realistic non-hypocritical environmentalist. When you oppose mining, logging, grazing, farming etc. some questions come to mind. Do you use metal? Do you use wood? Does your food come from any other source than your garden? I'm sure every answer is yes so don't be a hypocrite by being against all these things. Also, human beings are just as much a part of nature as the plants and animals and we have a right to to use this earth just as they do. We just need to be smart about it and learn from mistakes made in the past.
Jill, I think if you really sit down and think for yourself and open your mind you will realize how silly and ignorant your article is. I t