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 query@newwest.net.
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 think you wrote it prematurely without thinking it through and I think you will regret doing it. There shouldn't be a war between bikers and hikers, most of us do both and have the same love for nature.
We weren’t happy about having to share the trails ...
That's really about all there is to her argument.
"Hi all:
Thanks again for a great discussion. Obviously it is one that is needed and wanted by many..."
Further investigation leads one to notice that the many are overwhelmingly against her. When I first read this I was irate, I am now greatly heartened and mightily amused. Jill, please continue to protest cyclists and write articles like this one, you have done much to bring the cycling community together. IMBA probably doubled their membership for the last week.
Oh, by the way cyclists, give to and engage with your local cycling club and IMBA, help to educate narrow people like this.
There are indeed 3.3 million acres of Forest Service wilderness in Montana. OUT OF 17 million Forest Service acres. There are indeed 3.4 million wilderness acres total in Montana. Out of 94 million total acres. Nationwide there are 107 million acres of wilderness, most of which is in Alaska. A mere 4.8 percent of the total land in the country. Is this REALLY all that we want to preserve for our children and grandchildren? REALLY? Would it kill the sport of mountain biking in Montana if there were 5 million acres of Forest Service Wilderness? 12 million acres wouldn't be enough for bikers to explore? I submit that it would take several lifetimes, not to mention the time to explore over seven million acres of BLM land. As I pointed out above: how selfish do you have to be? A little balance is not a bad thing. I want to bike too. But I also want to explore some areas on their own terms. And more importantly, I want to know that they will be there untrammeled for future generations, not only of people, but elk, deer, grizzly bears, wolves and eagles as well.
"There shouldn't be a war between bikers and hikers, most of us do both and have the same love for nature." I agree, montanabiker; but there are places for both and there are places for each, and so it should be.
"I want to bike too. But I also want to explore some areas on their own terms."
______________________
This is what's known as opening with a lie.
Frank doesn't want to "bike" anywhere. "Biking" is not what we're talking about here. "Bikers" are people who ride Harleys.
Frank is doing the same thing that bigots do when they say, for example,
"Some of my friends are Blacks, so don't assume I'm a racist when I say that Black people are lazy and stupid."
Arguing about relative acres of Wilderness is BESIDE THE POINT of this essay. This essay is about whether spoiled little yuppie Jill and her spoiled little trustafarian hipster pals are entitled to banish cyclists from wherever those spoiled little hypocrites do not want to see cyclists.
Nice lies and distractions, Frank. I suggest you go work in Public Affairs for the US Forest Service. They can use a good dissembler!
"how selfish do you have to be"
Well, you're the one arguing to kick other users off the trail. That's the thing, mtn bikers aren't asking for MORE access, or asking to close trails to others. Only Wilderness proponents are doing that. Mtn bikers merely the access they currently have to continue.
BTW, in your acreage calculations, you didn't include national parks. And yes, that is enough designated wilderness.
When was the last time a mtn biker protested a hiker for spoiling their ride?
"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?"
You're not going to get the USFS to admit what are its true goals. That's what bureaucrats do -- they hide their goals behind doublespeak.
IMO the agenda is to reduce recreation in USFS lands. The fewer the number of people recreating, the less likely people will complain about the USFS sell-off of its forests.
The USFS is confused right now. Its historic mission is silviculture for profit -- it's in the Department of Agriculture, and Gifford Pinchot conceived of it as a way for the US Govt to make money off forest lands. In the years that have passed since Pinchot's idea was implemented, the USFS has become basically a sycophant for logging and timber interests.
Recreation is at odds with logging and timber extraction, of course.
Compound this perspective with the fact that fighting fires has become a high priority for the USFS, but the fire-fighting is another cluster-frag of profiteering, where contractors mop up the money and deliver very little practical return to the forest-using public.
Compound this perspective further with a policy from the top which says that recreational people are likely to be agitators and activists, and should be curtailed to the greatest extent possible, to grease the wheels of forest-related commerce.
You'll find the answer lies within that thicket of confused perspectives.
+1 for all lthe other comments blasting this BS.
Bikers also share your love of the unspoiled outdoors. Bikers stay on trail , maintain trails , and fight to keep your boots access to the trails.
Reexamine your values and find if you can call yourself an American , in the land of the free? Or if you are an elitest pig wanting to keep a national treasure to yourselfishness?
There are currently 3.4 million Wilderness acres and another nearly 3 million acres that is NPS lands.
That is the current state of affairs. If the additional acreage is all made Wilderness that figure (3.4 million) will nearly triple.
I ride the areas under consideration frequently, AND I NEVER SEE ANYONE!
We have plenty of Wilderness already.
Just curious, do you live in Montana?
Well it does not surprise me that you felt your opinion needed to be heard. I’m sorry to see that you can’t open your eyes and see that how people choose to enjoy quiet recreation should not matter. You are obviously a very selfish person, and since I met you on the trail and saw you and you’re friends actions, I can’t believe you are standing on a soap box. I think wilderness is great thing but, this in not Russia I think we should all be able to compromise and get along in the woods.
Jill you forgot to mention that you and your friends pulled logs into the trail after our encounter to disrupt our ride, or was it with the intent to injure one of the riders. It didn’t ruin our ride we took the time to remove them. I wish you could of taken to the time to meet our group, there were many people who spend many hours in the woods doing trail work (without recognition) and many more hours trying to protect places for future generations.
Remember Jill just because you came from else where, it doesn’t mean you have to change Montana into the place you came from, remember you moved hear for a reason.
As the world becomes more and more complex, and more and more crowded, future generations may well look back at the accomplishments of the current one and consider the Wilderness Act of 1964, and the preservation of wilderness as its greatest contribution.
I thought that we were talking about designated Wilderness Areas? Glacier National Park is not designated a Wilderness Area. Nor is Yellowstone (which BTW is 90% in Wyoming....thought we were talking about Montana?) The figures you are quoting (tripling the amount of wilderness) would be if every single wilderness study area were to pass (pretty unlikely), and WOULD include designating over three million acres of National Park back country as Wilderness. (Which means that ACTUAL wilderness would only double.)
The fact that you ride Wilderness Study Areas all the time and never see anyone is good. I used to go to Yellowstone in January and hardly see anyone. Times change. As populations increase, and especially as fuel costs rise and fewer and fewer people can afford to travel, you can bet you will see more and more users.
This isn't personal. Not about you or any of the other posters here; but my observations show that if someone spends six hours hiking into their favorite lake, they are much more likely to leave it as they found it than if they rode in in a fraction of that time. Personally I would even ban horses, for that reason alone. But as I said: Wilderness is not about US! It is about the future. The future viability of our wildlife populations. The future of hunting, fishing and just plain SOLITUDE opportunities for our children and grandchildren. Plus, these areas will increasingly become "canaries in the mine shaft" as it were to the natural world.
I was born and raised near Deer Lodge and, though I was gone for many years chasing the ol' mighty buck, I currently (past ten years) live just north of Livingston, Mt.
"my observations show that if someone spends six hours hiking into their favorite lake, they are much more likely to leave it as they found it than if they rode in in a fraction of that time."
________________________
Frank, let's be honest here.
Those aren't your "observations." They are your unfounded conclusions.
As someone who regularly rides 4-6 hours into the backcountry with one or two others, I can tell you that we are no less likely to disturb things.
You would like everyone to believe that the mere act of using a mountain bike means that someone would be likely to trash the environment. But I notice -- GLARINGLY -- that you have nothing other than an opinion to support this statement.
Compared to someone like Author Jill and her friends, I and my MTB riding friends are far less likely to ruin things. Remember, Author Jill and her pals destroyed plant life, trashed the trail out of a desire for "revenge" on MTB riders, and then wrote in to New West to glorify her pathetically selfish practices.
When you have evidence to support your claim that the mere fact of riding a MTB means someone is likely to ruin the environment where they travel, please show it. Thus far all you've shown is a bunch of hot air and unfounded opinion.
This essay is about MTBs.
It's not about raw acreage.
I realize you'd like to imply that with all the acreage available it shouldn't matter if Lima Peaks switches to MTB access closure. But that's not the issue. It's not about raw acreage.
It's about you and others LYING about the impact of MTB riders.
So let's be honest, Frank.
And please -- admit you're just trying to build negative sentiments for MTB riders.
"I can tell you that we are no less likely to disturb things.".....You probably want to rephrase that! I know that is not what you meant.
No, we are NOT talking about designated Wilderness areas. They are what they are. Mtn Bikes are not allowed under the Wilderness act. I and most, not all, but most mountain bikers are just fine with that. We do not want to access those places although there are some great potential rides there.
We are pissed because we are being kicked out of areas under consideration for Wilderness designation. Understand?
The GYC and The Wildeness Society want us out now, regardless of whether or not these areas ever become Wilderness.
Out of one side of your mounth you say this isn't personal while you spout about our values based on what method of recreation we choose from the other. I agree with other posters here, at least be honest.
You and others like you want to convery wild lands into temples that only those you feel are worthy may visit and worship. That is selfish.
And BTW, I do not plan on having childeren. My way of thanking the earth.
Later.
You're a rank liar. You say you're not against MTBs. But look at what you also said.
_____________________________________________
You said:
"My statement was merely that on the occasions that I have seen trash left behind it was more likely by a bike rider (not a biker...I've been put in my place on that one!!) than a hiker."
_____________________________________________
MORE LIKELY based on what, Frank?
You're a bad liar, Frank. A very bad liar. And quite obviously, you want to ban MTBs from Lima Peaks and other places, and you're struggling with a variety of lying techniques to best present this lying perspective of yours.
Stop lying, Frank.
Can I get a show of hands. How many people want more feces on our trails. If that's what it takes to get acceptance as a trail user, I'll carb-load a little more the day before a ride. I'll also use a one-ton diesel truck to get to the trail-head and pull a huge trailer with my bikes in it to lower my gas mileage to about four.
If you're really into any type of conservation think a little about what you're truly promoting.
Jill-I don't think we would get along but I would still give a hello, a yield, and say "have a nice hike" anytime I was riding and we met.
You don't have to share views to share a trail. Your hypocrisy is ridiculous.
Bunion: Yes. I understand. That sounds reasonable to me, but I don't think that most other posters here agree with your more moderate opinions. If it is not against the law to ride in these areas, then you should be allowed to ride. However, being a free country, Jill and her friends are also perfectly within their rights to protest. Also to voice their opinions here without a barrage of disrespect, accusations and name calling. If we disagree based on our own personal experiences and beliefs, we should be able to do that in a civil manner. We are, after all, adults. I presume.
"You and others like you want to convery (sic) wild lands into temples that only those you feel are worthy may visit and worship. That is selfish." Here you are assuming that you know my motivations and that they are the same as some others that you disagree with. Actually, anyone who can sit on, or get strapped to, a horse; or can walk on their own two feet, is welcome to visit a wilderness area. Am I to assume that my local shopping center is a temple because I can't ride my bike down the aisles? What I believe is selfish is man insisting on using every square inch of this planet for his own desires. For today. For now. The heck with the future. 4.8% of all the land in the United States (most of it in Alaska or in extremely rugged, inaccessible places) set aside for God's other creatures, and for our children and grandchildren and great grandchildren to forever have a piece of what America, indeed our world, used to be. And by God, you know what? For some folks that's too much! Already. Would it kill us to make that 6% or 8%. Most of it would STILL be in Alaska. Would it kill us to insure this much for our descendants? For the other creatures that we share the planet with, and who have given us so much? Is our momentary recreation so much more important? Especially when there will always be so many other places to ride? Can we think of nothing but today? No one but ourselves?
This site has a policy, written just above where I write this, that says in part that it..."encourages robust and lively, but civil participation from our readers". I hope that I always follow that.
You stated that trash is more likely to be left by a MTB rider. PERIOD.
And you're trying to persuade us MTB riders to NOT challenge Author Jill and others (presumably YOU as well) because YOU think we already have enough places to ride MTBs and we MTB riders don't need Lima Peaks or anyplace else that you and Author Jill and the other naysayers don't think we belong.
Over and over you try to point fingers at MTB riders for being trash throwers.
Over and over you try to suggest that Lima Peaks should be wilderness because we don't yet have enough.
Over and over you try to distract from the FACTS, Frank. The FACTS are that a MTB alone, in itself, doesn't cause people to toss trash. NOTHING you can offer will substantiate this fraudulent position you are advancing.
When you try to demean me by suggesting I'm not an adult, you're being a patronizing fool who thinks he's superior.
The only thing in which you may possibly be my superior is in lying and deceit. I'll gladly grant you superior status there. You've shown as much in your comments in this thread.
You want a real mature discussion, Frank? Start being honest. And maybe you should come to Missoula and meet some of us "trash-throwing" MTB riders.
Or would that be too difficult for an "adult" like you to manage?
If so then we should look to the reactions of wildlife to users. Observations have revealed that 70 percent of animals located within 330 feet of a trail were likely to flee when a trail user passed, and that wildlife exhibited statistically similar responses to mountain biking and hiking (Taylor and Knight 2003). So if wildlife had the same response to both hiking and biking then the occurance of either activity will have the same impact. A deer or elk does not care if you are walking or biking. I want to preserve and protect the wildlife for future generations and these areas.
We can do this today and maybe even pass legislation within a year to protect these areas. Future Generations who look back, frankly will not care if an area was protected as a National Protection Area or as Wilderness. They will just look back on the accomplishments of this generation and the ability of people of diverse backgrounds to come toegther to preserve the land and the wildlife and leave the mode of travel into these areas up to the user. A hundred years from now my children will not care if this trail had a tire tread on it or a boot print, because they left the same impact on the land.
Chris
While I'm at it: stereotypes don't help the conversation either. In fact, I'd argue that certain stereotypes (tofu-eating trustafarian environmentalists versus hard-working, self-reliant, red-blooded loggers and ranchers, for example) have done more to poison politics in this region than anything else. They are a useful tool for people who see division as a way to advance their agenda.
It's very striking that the fierce argument on this thread is among people who, I think, would agree on about 95% of what's at issue, i.e. that wild places are worth protecting from and that spending time in those places (in whatever fashion) is good for the body and the soul.
I disagree with your premise. This person is not interested in protecting anything, that is merely a justification for her agenda. You don't see cyclists trying to kick any trail users out, even though there are many who are far more damaging to the environment than we are. The data are in, if this were only about mitigating impact kicking cyclists out of any trail area wouldn't be on the table.
If stereotyping and name-calling are so antithetical to New West, how did Jill's essay make it past the editorial cut?
Its whole premise is based on arrogance, stereotyping, and name-calling. The essay is an elaborate bit of condescension, grounded in massively mistaken stereotyping.
Maybe you could explain this conundrum for us all, Jonathan.
++++++++++++++++++++++
Lastly -- I agree with Casey. You're distorting Jill's perspective and her essay well beyond its plain wording.
(FWIW, I was a USFS wilderness ranger for 5 years, it was a great job but made me despise the USFS)
Again. We are pissed because we are being forced out of areas that are not and may never be Wilderness.
A hypothetical question.
Which group has more of an impact on an area.
1. 4 mountain bikers. They show up at a trailhead at 9:00, ride 25 miles through an area in about 6-7 hrs. Stop and take a few breaks. Eat their miserable food (most energy bars really do suck compared to a pastrami on rye), maybe take a few pictures and by 18:00 are back at the trailhead, load up and go home.
2. 4 backpackers. They show up at the trailhead at 9:00, hike 8 miles to the lake, set up a camp for the night. They may catch a few fish (high mountain lakes are loaded with trout, no harm done) and practice LNT (leave no trace) ethics. In the morning they cook breakfast, wander off, dig a cathole and leave their human waste. They bag a peak and hike out at the end of the day.
Answer?
It depends!
But the mountain bikers probably had less total impact due to their shorter stay.
Frank your analagy about showing less respect for an area due to less time & effort spent getting their really made me howl. Today I rode Emerald Lake outside of Bozeman. It is a very popular area (one we will also not be riding if the powers that want to be have their way).
I arrived at the trailhead just as 2 hikers were also getting there. We exchanged greeting and they let us go ahead. It is about 5 miles and 2500 vert feet to the lake. Guess what. They were about 10 minutes behind us when we arrived.
Mountain bikes going uphill are not much faster than a hiker (I averaged just under 4 mph).
Jonathan, thanks for bringing up a "time out". Divisive politics seems to be the meat and potatos of all debates these days.
Also, when we decided to publish this piece we invited a counter-point from the mountain bikers association, which I believe is forthcoming (though might be redundant in light of the conversation here).
Personally, I don't really have strong opinions on this issue. I'm not much of a mountain biker myself, but I find that most of the time when I'm in the backcountry there is hardly anyone around (on bikes or foot or otherwise) and I've never seen a big conflict. The ATVs and snowmobiles, on the other hand, you can hear for miles.
And Casey, it's dangerous to attribute nefarious motives to people you (presumably) don't know. Reasonable people could argue that mountain bikers have more impact on a wilderness area than hikers, and while they may (or may not) be incorrect in that view, there is no reason to assume they are not sincere.
Well, that says it all, Jonathan. You share Jill's views. No wonder you see "name-calling" only from those of us who disagree with Jill.
Please pay attention, Jonathan. Jill is not the one who talked about trash-throwing. That was Frank N. Frank N is the one I took to task for his lies about MTB riders.
Jill's lies are of a different sort. She believes that only she is entitled to the Lima Peaks trails. She also believes that she's entitled to put obstacles in the trails to thwart -- and likely injure -- MTB riders, whom she feels do not belong there.
And you support all that?
Brilliant, Jonathan.
I'd happily buy a couple of drinks for each of you and Jill at Charlie B's. Name the day, I'll meet you both there. We can discuss this in person, in a way that I'm sure you and Jill will find suitably "professional" and adequately Correct, Politically speaking.
Thanks in advance
Bunion, New West staff members would only comment under their own name, so I think just Court and myself have commented.
Regular Joe, is the story about logs and branches laid across a USFS trail really true?
I have seen that posted here but it went away. Can you or anyone else who was actually in Lima Peaks on the day of the protest confirm that you actually witnessed such an act.
If this is in fact true, there could be federal charges brought against those responsible.
This is a very important issue.
Thanks
No one wants to press federal charges, (I think). We were just amused and educated that they would actually do that. I guess it's similar to spiking a tree or stringing wire across a trail, but greatly safer. If these folks are the type to do the more damaging acts, then we are debating with criminals. However, my guess is that they are only misguided juvenile misfits that are idealistic, only seeing the world in black and white.
No one saw them place the logs across the trail. The trail was clean when we rode up. No one else was on the trail except my wife, who was walking Aaron's dog. She was hiking and met the protesters too. Three of our party rode down faster and encountered the logs. They cleared the trail. They confronted the protesters and accused them. The protesters said they didn't do it, so it must have been one of us. That leaves the 5 bike riders who turned around early because of fatigue, sunburn, or having to return home on schedule. Or my wife. Form your own conclusion.
There is also the issue of defacing the sign at the Sawmill Trailhead by drawing a bike with a slash through it. That is where the protesters started from. Funny that the defacing was done with the same type of marker that the protest signs were made from. Sure it's a circumstantial evidence, but quite easy to draw conclusions from.
Still, these people have some soul, and it may be possible to arrive at a logical agreement with them someday. I made a point to tell them that there was plenty of room out there for two groups to have a protest. (even if we weren't protesting, after meeting them it kinda felt like we were).
Did any of you guys happen to write to the Beaverhead Deerlodge forest last spring during the final comment period? That's when we needed this energy!
I'm sorry, but all sincerity intended (and I promise I'm trying to speak in good faith here) the hard data are literally crunched, calculated, and published. If you wish to debate from a conservation perspective, there is no argument whatsoever. Period. Cycling does as little or less damage than hiking. It's peer reviewed. It's done.
At this point the only argument is whether you feel emotionally that bikes are good or bad, and frankly that's not much of a premise for a debate. I have no love for equestrian or motorized travel. I will also never say (from my personal feelings) that they have less right than me to use trails I personally enjoy. If one is of the opinion that X = A, one must prove so mathematically. Hence, the author's argument, completely devoid of factual data, depending solely on her self-righteous assertion that bikes = bad, for no reason beside her feeling, not to mention her seeming inability to counter factual argument, lacks merit. All I've seen from this 'poet/scholar' is an aloof statement that she's ignoring personal attacks, and a glowing example of an individual using a situation in which they felt so self righteous that it overcame any shred of insecurity. If you (Jonathan) are for some reason moderating this with a modicum of journalistic integrity, why not call on the author to counter the overwhelming number of reasoned counter-arguments posted to this piece? Along with admonishing the relatively few readers who responded to a purely emotional argument with understandably great emotion, how about acknowledging that the author has some responsibility as a journalist, which she has utterly shirked?
I will admit I fall both into the former camp as well as the latter.
Case
You can say that I had to "squint really hard" to find it, but I think if you don't see condescension, personal attack, and immature selfishness in Jill's essay, YOU are not looking. Or perhaps you don't give a flying fork about MTB riders and essentially agree with her position.
She is BRAGGING about annoying people. She and her friends obstructed the trail, harassed MTB riders. She superficially claims to be a MTB rider herself, but pub cruising and campus commuting is not MTB riding. Nor is riding the Kim Williams. She's a condescending, immature hypocrite. More troubling is the fact that her attitude is commonplace among the many people who have moved to Missoula in the past 5 years or so -- slick yuppies and preppies from elsewhere who think they know better because they're "professional" and "liberal" and therefore superior in their own minds.
By publishing her "essay" without a counterpoint from someone like Greg, who organized the Lima Peaks ride, you are supporting her side by implicit endorsement -- no matter whether New West has a hands off, "we don't endorse what we print" disclaimer.
I have long questioned the journalistic integrity of New West. The impression it has consistently left me with is this: you folks think "integrity" is a flexible concept that basically means, "we're superior, you're not, so we can make words mean whatever we like" -- very much like the folks of the Bush Administration, who "create their own reality."
I find it repugnant, personally. I moved west to escape such obnoxious "professional" faux-liberal attitudes that aren't the least bit liberal in the literal sense, but clearly are "liberal" in the Barack Obama / "professional" sense.
A true liberal works toward liberty and equality -- not a division between the supposedly superior "professional class" of "liberals" and the rest of society, whom these "professionals" deem sub-human in many (if not all) respects.
Being a more open-minded sort who prefers to destroy polarizing puffery, I'd still have drinks with you. Mainly to discuss this like real people, with real exchange, and not in some artificial forum where there are no faces, persons, and true perspectives in the mix. This is no more than a polarizing setting, and if you find that's the drift in modern politics, you can thank yourself for contributing heavily to it via New West.
I for one would encourage the formation of a wilderness area here, but one which allows bike access. Keep a close eye on conditions here, and make a study out of it. Access can then be allowed/removed based on science and reason, not on the biased opinion of individuals.
I did comment about the Lionshead ban and posted on the TGR website, a link to the MMBA. I urged others to also comment.
It is amusing to see faux enviros lose their mind to the point that vandalism is their answer. Trail spiking and wirestringing could be the next step from one sick or confused person.
Has there been any thought to further group rides in threatened areas? I keep up as best I can on these but always seem to find out after the fact. I am a member of IMBA and MMBA and occasionally visit the GVBC website but most of the postings are old and out of date.
Thanks for your work on this and other access issues. Many of us want to help further but have no way of knowing how other than writing comments that probably end up round filed.
That's what we should be working toward, together.
BTW, I don't like sharing the trail with bike riders. I don't like sharing the trail with horses. I don't like sharing the trail with other hikers (outside my own party). The reason I'm out there (or one of them) is for nature's solitude. Fortunately, I share it only momentarily...I pass them or they pass me...and I am alone with my thoughts once again. Unlike a snowmobile or ATV, which lingers long after it is out of sight.
Bunion, I never meant to imply that riding a mountain bike is a piece of cake. It certainly is not! On some trails it is HARDER than hiking.
The choice isn't Wilderness or despoliation, Frank. Only a fool who knows nothing of USFS management and USFS history would argue that.
Thanks for admitting you're an elitist who believes he shouldn't have to share the trails. I suggest you, Jill and Jill's friends should go live in Fantasy World, where you are entitled to banish everyone you prefer to not encounter ANYwhere. Perhaps you'd get some ideas from watching the movie by Vincent Natali called "Nothing" -- it should help send the message that you, Jill, Jill's friends, and the other elitists need to hear.
What all you MTB haters and/or fearers fail to see is that the real enemy is not a bike, or a horse, or a person riding a bike or a horse. It is the loss of lands. This is the ONLY thing that Frank has correctly.
There are many possible solutions outside a "Wilderness" designation that uses a specious interpretation of "mechanical" and applies that fallacy in a very inconsistent manner. What galls most of us MTB riders is that MTBs are banished because they are "mechanized," while other mechanized tools are permitted.
skis
ski bindings
ski boots
hiking boots
clothing
camp stoves
tents
sleeping bags
hiking staffs
trekking poles
ski poles
fishing gear
hunting gear
snowboards
snowboard bindings
snowboard boots
snowshoes
All the above are mechanized. None is banished, while MTBs are banished.
Somehow, in the mind of MTB haters and fearers, this is entirely fair.
As is defacing trail signs, pulling logs into the trail path, trampling vegetation, and harassing MTB riders.
And that's the "liberal" perspective. How honest. How moral. How ethical. How exemplary.
Clearly, something to be admired and replicated at every opportunity.
In the mean time Mountain Bikers will continue to get screwed.
Fine, but you and I both know that there are designations that will protect wildlands without keeping bikes out.
It's disingenuous at best for you to claim that we are on the same side of anything when you are trying to kick me out.
Your problem is that you are willing to hose other user groups to get something you want. You need to realize that your truer allies would be those wanting to keep what they have...that's ranchers who want grazing, loggers who want trees, motorheads who want trails, pickers who want roads and camps, et cetera.
Support multiple use, you'll be fine. Think in the context of responsible forms of use other than just yours and yours only.
Otherwise, go ahead and form transitory coalitions of convenience to advance your cause at the complete exclusion of others and someday you won't be convenient. And you will, inevitably, lose.
You've done a fine job of attacking a ghost.
Nobody in here has argued on behalf of EXCLUSIVE access for MTBs. You have mistaken things gravely.
It is Author Jill who seeks exclusive access for her particular sub-group of users.
Not MTB riders -- Author Jill.
The more I think about this, the more I am convinced. Compromise is the way to go!
"In the mean time Mountain Bikers will continue to get screwed."
Let's insist that they don't. But let's also, all of us, insist that these lands get the protection they deserve.
If you encounter a hiker, in an inopportune spot, is it your prerogative to knock them about, beat them with your bike, and then smash their heads with your bike lock? Should hikers wear helmets to protect them from cycling Nazis?
Of if they are parked at the trailhead and going to use the same trails as you, is it ok for you to smash their cars, break their windows, because you don't like them?
Since none live in the area to be used, we have to assume that the mountain bikers are from town, are urban people. The recent experience, the notable actions, of urban bikers is to believe that they can beat up on cars and auto drivers if they don't like their driving. If a person tells a biker that he ought to obey traffic signals, and the biker's answer is to beat on the car, then what is in the offing for hikers without the shield of automobile body and frame?
The last month has seen way, way too many physical outbursts by elitist bikers, by "critical mass" riders who believe it is their right to obstruct auto traffic, to keep law abiding people from driving on the roads their gas taxes pay for. The vicious beatings and violent outbursts by bikers is all the more reason to keep them off mountain trail in Wilderness. Or hikers will need to carry bear spray just for bikers, and a .45 for self protection. I am not going to drive off the freeway in Portland or Seattle without my shooter laying in plain sight on the console. If some entitled biker thinks they he or she is going to beat on my car, break my windows, threaten my life, I will defend my self. I have that right.
So, bikers, you have a lot of work to do to convince the public that bicycling is a non-contact, peace loving endeavor. That is not apparent at this time in the urban Northwest, and like I said, no cyclists live on the trails in the Wilderness, so we have to assume that the ones on the trail are the very same hooligans on bikes in town.
Call me at home. Most of the folks at Bangtail Bikes know who I am. I have no idea who you are.
There are other congressional designations that are more socially responsible than Wilderness for several areas in Beaverhead County and Beaverhead National Forest. National Protection Area, National Conservation Area, National Recreation Area are just three that have been used successfully in other states. It seems to me it would be more than possible to pass a bill using one or a mix of these designations for several areas in the Beaverhead National Forest. As users of the forest, we all have a responsibility to the resource and to society. We need to learn how to share and get along with other user groups.
As for the Lima Peaks RWA, the boundary was ill conceived and ill thought out by MWA, on the second go around of the Beaverhead National Forest Plan. (The second comment period should never have been allowed). Beaverhead County should have a say in what happens in the County, and Lima Peaks was a complete slap in the face for the commissioners. They are trying to do the right thing socially and for the residents of Beaverhead County. The residents of Beaverhead County deserve to be part of the decision when it affects the economies of the area. This is not all about hikers and bicycles, it is about every individual that lives near these areas, and it is about every business in Beaverhead County.
Concerning the ride that was protested, it was an advocacy ride endorsed by Beaverhead County and some businesses in Lima and Dell. It was an opportunity to give this community a visual of what the economic benefits of a quiet, human powered form of recreation could bring to the area. The trails are in place, no resource extraction is required and we ARE compatible with wild places. The group was from mid 20s to mid 50s in age, from the most conservative to the most liberal in politics and occupations ranging from students to business owners. We all have in common a respect for the environment, a love of wild places and the opportunity to visit these non Wilderness areas on a bicycle.
Corey Biggers
“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.”
This was taken directly from her article. Bikes are allowed there now and the author admits that the ecosystem is fine and things are functioning "pretty well".
So Jill, why don't you follow your advice and "let things be" in the Lima Peaks area. Share the trails, protect them from what they really need protecting from.
Peace
I don't see anyone on here calling for exclusivity other than the author and her meager supporters. Our only problem is that for too long we let people like you frame the debate. Trust me, we're not trying to 'hose' anyone, and I'm plenty confident that we'll be just fine with our adjective laced, cause advancing groups.
All I know is I got a hammer and nails out in the garage, and I'm no carpenter.
This has morphed into a Wilderness debate. In the story, the riders were not in a Wilderness. Nice job getting the Thoreau quote correct... most Wilderness types insert Wilderness for Wildness. I guarantee, there's people right now in concrete jungles that experience more wildness everyday b/f you and I roll out of bed.
For the record, I support more wild areas... much more. Our current Wilderness system is flawed, and current designated areas are mis-managed. I don't think bikes should be allowed, or Ipods, generators, solar panels, gps, republicans, etc.
The people in charge of OUR National Forests need to get their heads out of their asses and wake up to the fact that they are public servants. It used to be that logging was king so nothing got done as far as trail work. Well, those days are gone. What's the excuse now? It's people like Andy Kulla and Maggie Pitman pushing their own personal agendas, instead of managing for the greatest good of the public.
Bikes, hiking, and hunting bring in huge money, and biking numbers are growing. If these front country areas were actually managed well, The whole bikes in Wilderness debate would be moot in large part. Look to Oregon and South Dakota for examples of National Forests that actually cater to their users. New trails, trail maintenance, signed trails (imagine!). I know in the Rattlesnake, trail clearing is almost exclusively carried out by bikers, and hunters to a lesser degree, since they show up later in the season, and the hunting is not as big a use as other areas.
The Wilderness system is not the panacea you make it out to be. It's common knowledge that once your favorite wild spot becomes a WSA, and then designated, you can kiss much of the wildness good bye, thanks in large part to Wilder Weenies like Jill.
-CAMT-
ps, the posting guidelines for New West are terrible, and typical. Let people say what they want. We're in the freekin West aren't we? I'd rather have someone call me names (patently offensive) and throw in some good points, than read vacuous pc elitist barf.
"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."
Hikers, cyclists, and horse people all use this area currently. Jill seems to think in her own words "things are functioning pretty well as they are". Why would she want to change anything, especially an "intact ecosystem that's in place"? Why protest? Why try to fix something you think is already working?
We should share and pick our battles with those that are truely affecting OUR recreating areas.
I think someone wakes up and takes their crazy pills every morning. Putting logs across the trail and vandalizing signs is not the way to handle these things.
It's not just your experience Jill, it's everyone's.
What are you talking about? Who is trying to exclude who here?
And where does this bikes-only concept come from? No mountain biker is asking for that.
Hikers and mountain bikers have MUCH more in common with each other then either does with horsemen/women or motorized users (let alone loggers and cattle drives) so why can't we work together for our COMMON interests? What is going on here?
And Jill, do you have anything else to add? Maybe about logs and signs?
160 comments. . .
Mountain bikers are not looking to "hose" anyone, though we sometimes feel like our allies in the conservation community have doused us a few times too often.
MTBers are all for building coalitions with a wide variety of stakeholders in public land discussions.
But the choice is not between what you term "multiple use" and no use whatsoever. Mountain biking is quiet, low-impact and human powered. It should be managed in a similar fashion as other such activities, including hiking.
There are appropriate management strategies for motorized recreation too, but since mountain biking is much more like other forms of quiet recreation, so those are the most relevant partnerships for MTBers to explore.
Just so you know, there are already multiple examples of land protection bills that have been crafted with the goal of protecting access to mountain biking trails. There's no reason why these strategies can't work in Montana too.
If four thousand pounds of steel and hundreds of horsepower aren't enough to make you feel secure from my twenty pound fixie and .25 horsepower legs, I'm not really sure your 'shooter' is going to accommodate such colossal insecurity. It's road ragers like you that cause cyclists to organize into critical mass type endeavors. The fact that we have a legal right to the road and you have a legal obligation to conduct yourself in a safe manner while driving is not in dispute anywhere in this article, city, state, country, or planet as near as I can tell. So other than coming right out and admitting you're intimidated by big, bad, cyclists while operating an incredibly inefficient machine that has the very real danger of taking human life, what is your point?
And yes, if a driver tries to kill me with his car I will most likely pound on his window, if not chase him down and have a semi-polite, if infuriated, discussion with him about the legal ramifications of aggressive driving. If he waves a gun I'll call the police and have him arrested. Such an individual is clearly not fit to be out on the street.
I'm trying to figure out your point. You prattle on about urban cyclists and CMers and magically associate them with off-road cyclists in a state with less than a million people. I've been mountain biking for 18 years. I grew up on a dairy farm. I now live in Bozeman, which is a far cry from an urban center. And what rogue gangs of mountain bikers are roving trails looking for unsuspecting hikers to "knock them about, beat them with your bike, and then smash their heads with your bike lock?" and then when finished turn to the defenseless automobiles and "smash their cars, break their windows"?? Make sense. Please.
As for the rest of this article and the comments, I was initially infuriated, which would most likely make you smile the same way that you "couldn't help but smile" when you got to perform your pithy little "protest". But then I read the comments, and my anger turned to elation. I even giggled. The majority of the cyclist-friendly comments were framed with rational thought and backed with facts, while most of the anti-cyclist comments held onto a very tenuous yet noble-sounding argument: "we only want to save these areas from development."
Well, here's a well-researched, peer-reviewed news flash for you:
Mountain Bikers want the same damn thing.
If we wanted to ride previously wild land that has been permanently scarred by human "progress" we'd all be roadies. We ride in the mountains, on untrammeled land because we love the mountains and untrammeled land as much as Wilderness advocates do. We love the wildness of these lands so much that we choose to use the most efficient means of transportation yet invented to get into them. We can ride swiftly, quietly, and respectfully into the mountains because we want to be in the midst of the natural grandeur that the Northern Rockies embody. We don't want it developed, we don't want ski lifts or hotels or condos, and we don't want parking lots.
Also take into account the passion that many of us share for using the mighty bicycle to replace cars in everyday life for transportation. Is the noblest invention a savior in permanently scarred environs and demonic in (relatively) undeveloped land?
Listen, we want the same thing. Work with us, and you've got the strength of a $6 Billion (annually) industry on your side. Fight us, and we side with motorized groups. Your call.
p.s. I'm going to try to make it down to the Dell/Lima area in the next few weeks, since I was unable to go when this occurred. I'd love if you (i'm pointing my finger at you, New West) could make it down there. I'll see if I can bring some extra bikes for you to ride. We could go for a ride and a hike, and then grab some beers at Yesterday's. Leave a comment here: bozemantrailreport.blogspot.com.
What is this 'mighty bicycle' you speak of? Certainly you've heard of the automobile? I'm an American, and here in America, we use American muscle to get around. What is it with you weak cyclists who think that cars are beneath you? How dare you utilize oxygen fueled muscle to get from place to place rather than fossil fuel?
No, seriously. I know nothing about your background Mr. DNA, but here in America, we drive to the trailhead in the SUV that our daddy bought us, and then post a self-righteous rant against individuals that are using their efficient ventricles and massive quads alone to move them through both time and space.
Jill, by our very nature cyclists are prone to a far more sustainable form of transportation than 99 out of 100 Americans. You can join us, or you can be 'present' in a meaningless moment where you tore a cardboard box apart and did something irrelevant while feeling inhumanly self-righteous.
BTW (DNA), polo was so good tonight. I hope the painting went well.
Jesus
"Hikers and mountain bikers have MUCH more in common with each other then either does with horsemen/women or motorized users (let alone loggers and cattle drives) so why can't we work together for our COMMON interests? What is going on here?"
Oh yes, you're quiet and against everyone else. Darn those horses, darn those motorized riders, and DANG those loggers and cow people. How dare they share MY public lands with ME?!? Perish the thought! Perish their use, too.
Jill is just a worst case here. You MTBers that just want to be added to the exclusive PC "quiet use" club at the exclusion of all others are only marginally less selfish and short-sighted. Have a nice ride.
Most of Montana's mountain trails are only possible to ride for 2-3 months of the year, and then they get very little use due their difficulty and remote nature. It is unlikely that a hiker will ever encounter a mountain biker on a remote trail. Even if/when a mountain biker is encountered, it is likely only for a brief instant. Mountain bikes are quiet, low impact, and easily compatible with most hiking trails.
With enough bickering, non-motorized proponents may successfully lose to motorized users and reckless extraction industries. We would all be better off recognizing our common need for access to quiet remote locations, and looking for opportunities to collaborate.
we're not against<i> anyone. it's just patently absurd to protest bikes in an area that has been <i>proposed as wilderness. furthermore, we don't feel that equestrian traffic is bad per se, but the juxtaposition of banning bikes and allowing horses is hypocritical at best. seeing people smugly protesting bikes and calling for wilderness while claiming they have the best interest of the land at heart causes us to logically point out this hypocrisy. we're not saying 'darn' horses, but if you want to kick us out you'd better explain why you want to keep equine traffic and all the trail damage and feces that it focuses on that area.
as for the other user groups, i don't love motorized use, but i still acknowledge motorcyclists on the trail, and i'm (we're) not trying to kick them off of anything.
where did you get this idea that cyclists want exclude other trail users?
Dave, the travel plans that were formulated by the various National Forests weren't perfect, but they were fair enough for me. All I am asking is that the respective National Forests abide by the travel plans they came up with and ignore the extremists on both sides.
Does the author have anything substantive to say?
Is this person off crusading for EtOH production so she can feel good about her jeep, while common people pay more for food? Did you pack out all your dogs' feces? Do you have any response that is not trite and smug, and lacking utterly in quantifiable reality?
I'm confused. On the farm I come from, we back it up or we shut the f#@% up.
Guess the 'protest' wasn't important enough to continue it's efforts beyond the cardboard sign and the weaksauce article.
She can spew all her good intentions. The fact is, she has never rode a mountain bike and doesn't understand.
The lack of comment from Jill is typical. "I won't engage with you because your'e not like me, and you don't agree with me."
Cheers to the riders for their level heads and class.
-CAMT-
Copy and paste this link.
http://thebozemanfix.blogspot.com/2008/07/photshopgimp-contest.html