Human-Powered Travel in Wilderness Areas Act

[stlusn30-06]

Its so hard to access lands by foot.  Which leads to horseback.  Bicycle is great but the argument of noise issue leads me to why not elect bikes?  Then the issue of other motorized vehicles used by Gov. employees leads me to why not us too?  Then I think WAIT I don't want idiots trashing it like other lands either!  Preserve the land I am for but need to enjoy access it reasonable as well.  What about the disabled?  So I say they should give out limited motorized permits for hunters and hiking groups under supervision/stewardship of the lands!

The issue is that this defeats the entire purpose of a Wilderness area. These are places that are meant to remain truly wild, as wilderness has become a part of America's, and the American hunter's heritage. There is an intrinsic value (that is priceless to me) to still have places we can go where there is silence and the experience that comes along with knowing you are in a wild place. I mountain bike (used to competitively), and honestly I don't know anyone in the community that is begging for access to Wilderness areas due to a lack of access opportunity. The majority of Wilderness areas are in the alpine and above anyhow.

As far as access by foot goes. So what? There are literally 100s of millions of acres accessible by motorized or non-motorized vehicle. Why is that not enough? It is back to the intrinsic value of being one of the few developed countries in the world that you can still experience this in. To use Jim Posewitz's argument, why would you want to deprive future generations of the opportunity to experience this thing that we have all had the opportunity to enjoy? One day I'll be too old to hike into the wilderness. When that day comes, I'll gladly look back the times that I had and pass it on to future generations. Not argue that we should punch a few Side by Side trails through it so I can take my old ass in.

[Karl Blanchard]

Its so hard to access lands by foot.  Which leads to horseback.  Bicycle is great but the argument of noise issue leads me to why not elect bikes?  Then the issue of other motorized vehicles used by Gov. employees leads me to why not us too?  Then I think WAIT I don't want idiots trashing it like other lands either!  Preserve the land I am for but need to enjoy access it reasonable as well.  What about the disabled?  So I say they should give out limited motorized permits for hunters and hiking groups under supervision/stewardship of the lands!

The issue is that this defeats the entire purpose of a Wilderness area. These are places that are meant to remain truly wild, as wilderness has become a part of America's, and the American hunter's heritage. There is an intrinsic value (that is priceless to me) to still have places we can go where there is silence and the experience that comes along with knowing you are in a wild place. I mountain bike (used to competitively), and honestly I don't know anyone in the community that is begging for access to Wilderness areas due to a lack of access opportunity. The majority of Wilderness areas are in the alpine and above anyhow.

As far as access by foot goes. So what? There are literally 100s of millions of acres accessible by motorized or non-motorized vehicle. Why is that not enough? It is back to the intrinsic value of being one of the few developed countries in the world that you can still experience this in. To use Jim Posewitz's argument, why would you want to deprive future generations of the opportunity to experience this thing that we have all had the opportunity to enjoy? One day I'll be too old to hike into the wilderness. When that day comes, I'll gladly look back the times that I had and pass it on to future generations. Not argue that we should punch a few Side by Side trails through it so I can take my old ass in.

absolutely fantastic post sir! Summed up my thoughts to a T!

[Mudman]

  I don't disagree.   But one could argue we shouldn't even step foot in it or fight fires or recover/aid animals in the spirit of "wild" right?  So its a compromise based on majority use and opinions of conservation.  I get it.  But I still would like to see at least a base trail system for vehichles to allow access to deep remote areas that the majority public cannot realistically ACCESS including disabled and elderly.  Im ok with either way but that's my opinion as it is land belonging to all of us.  Pros n cons both ways.  Im good with either.

[JimmyHoffa]

Its so hard to access lands by foot.  Which leads to horseback.  Bicycle is great but the argument of noise issue leads me to why not elect bikes?  Then the issue of other motorized vehicles used by Gov. employees leads me to why not us too?  Then I think WAIT I don't want idiots trashing it like other lands either!  Preserve the land I am for but need to enjoy access it reasonable as well.  What about the disabled?  So I say they should give out limited motorized permits for hunters and hiking groups under supervision/stewardship of the lands!

The issue is that this defeats the entire purpose of a Wilderness area. These are places that are meant to remain truly wild, as wilderness has become a part of America's, and the American hunter's heritage. There is an intrinsic value (that is priceless to me) to still have places we can go where there is silence and the experience that comes along with knowing you are in a wild place. I mountain bike (used to competitively), and honestly I don't know anyone in the community that is begging for access to Wilderness areas due to a lack of access opportunity. The majority of Wilderness areas are in the alpine and above anyhow.

As far as access by foot goes. So what? There are literally 100s of millions of acres accessible by motorized or non-motorized vehicle. Why is that not enough? It is back to the intrinsic value of being one of the few developed countries in the world that you can still experience this in. To use Jim Posewitz's argument, why would you want to deprive future generations of the opportunity to experience this thing that we have all had the opportunity to enjoy? One day I'll be too old to hike into the wilderness. When that day comes, I'll gladly look back the times that I had and pass it on to future generations. Not argue that we should punch a few Side by Side trails through it so I can take my old ass in.

For the bolded, it also seems that the majority of alpine and above are wilderness (from what I've seen in WA).  Is there any alpine and above that can be hunted without horse or pack?  I know that some national parks have roads up in wilderness that bikers and skiers can use, but any high mountain terrain for hunters?  Likewise, is there much or any low elevation river valley wilderness open for hunting?

[theleo]

Its so hard to access lands by foot.  Which leads to horseback.  Bicycle is great but the argument of noise issue leads me to why not elect bikes?  Then the issue of other motorized vehicles used by Gov. employees leads me to why not us too?  Then I think WAIT I don't want idiots trashing it like other lands either!  Preserve the land I am for but need to enjoy access it reasonable as well.  What about the disabled?  So I say they should give out limited motorized permits for hunters and hiking groups under supervision/stewardship of the lands!

The issue is that this defeats the entire purpose of a Wilderness area. These are places that are meant to remain truly wild, as wilderness has become a part of America's, and the American hunter's heritage. There is an intrinsic value (that is priceless to me) to still have places we can go where there is silence and the experience that comes along with knowing you are in a wild place. I mountain bike (used to competitively), and honestly I don't know anyone in the community that is begging for access to Wilderness areas due to a lack of access opportunity. The majority of Wilderness areas are in the alpine and above anyhow.

As far as access by foot goes. So what? There are literally 100s of millions of acres accessible by motorized or non-motorized vehicle. Why is that not enough? It is back to the intrinsic value of being one of the few developed countries in the world that you can still experience this in. To use Jim Posewitz's argument, why would you want to deprive future generations of the opportunity to experience this thing that we have all had the opportunity to enjoy? One day I'll be too old to hike into the wilderness. When that day comes, I'll gladly look back the times that I had and pass it on to future generations. Not argue that we should punch a few Side by Side trails through it so I can take my old ass in.

For the bolded, it also seems that the majority of alpine and above are wilderness (from what I've seen in WA).  Is there any alpine and above that can be hunted without horse or pack?  I know that some national parks have roads up in wilderness that bikers and skiers can use, but any high mountain terrain for hunters?  Likewise, is there much or any low elevation river valley wilderness open for hunting?

National Parks and Wilderness areas are 2 separate federal designations. Parks have roads where they want, Wilderness areas allow for no mechanical means of transportation.

[theleo]

I would like to see the FS get their crosscut saws and shovels out.

Seems they have forgotten how to use them.

Funding for trail crews isn't what it used to be. I'd rather them go ahead and use chainsaws so trails might actually get cleared and have them make it legal for volunteer groups like WTA or BCHMA can use them for for chapter work parties.

[Birdgetter]

  I've always thought there should be a season in the spring to use chainsaws and clear trails, otherwise they never get cleared except for when Backcountry Horsemen and Wta do.

[Pegasus]

It is OK to ride on horses in a wilderness area but a bicycle is not OK? Seems like horses do more damage than a bicycle does. Looks like the original rules were set up to favor one group over other groups without any scientific facts to back it up. Reality is the less people in a wilderness area no matter how they get there the better the hunting is. I think that is what most people are concerned about. Giving access to bikes will allow more people into the area and thus most hunters already using the wilderness areas see this as more competition and more crowds coming into their favorite wilderness areas. The real question is do we allow more access into the wilderness areas for more people to enjoy or do we restrict the amount of people  by preventing bicycles for access?

[JimmyHoffa]

Its so hard to access lands by foot.  Which leads to horseback.  Bicycle is great but the argument of noise issue leads me to why not elect bikes?  Then the issue of other motorized vehicles used by Gov. employees leads me to why not us too?  Then I think WAIT I don't want idiots trashing it like other lands either!  Preserve the land I am for but need to enjoy access it reasonable as well.  What about the disabled?  So I say they should give out limited motorized permits for hunters and hiking groups under supervision/stewardship of the lands!

The issue is that this defeats the entire purpose of a Wilderness area. These are places that are meant to remain truly wild, as wilderness has become a part of America's, and the American hunter's heritage. There is an intrinsic value (that is priceless to me) to still have places we can go where there is silence and the experience that comes along with knowing you are in a wild place. I mountain bike (used to competitively), and honestly I don't know anyone in the community that is begging for access to Wilderness areas due to a lack of access opportunity. The majority of Wilderness areas are in the alpine and above anyhow.

As far as access by foot goes. So what? There are literally 100s of millions of acres accessible by motorized or non-motorized vehicle. Why is that not enough? It is back to the intrinsic value of being one of the few developed countries in the world that you can still experience this in. To use Jim Posewitz's argument, why would you want to deprive future generations of the opportunity to experience this thing that we have all had the opportunity to enjoy? One day I'll be too old to hike into the wilderness. When that day comes, I'll gladly look back the times that I had and pass it on to future generations. Not argue that we should punch a few Side by Side trails through it so I can take my old ass in.

For the bolded, it also seems that the majority of alpine and above are wilderness (from what I've seen in WA).  Is there any alpine and above that can be hunted without horse or pack?  I know that some national parks have roads up in wilderness that bikers and skiers can use, but any high mountain terrain for hunters?  Likewise, is there much or any low elevation river valley wilderness open for hunting?

National Parks and Wilderness areas are 2 separate federal designations. Parks have roads where they want, Wilderness areas allow for no mechanical means of transportation.

Most of the parks are Wilderness and maybe even Wild and Scenic.  They just put the boundary by the roads, which makes it difficult to repair roads after washouts and slides. 
I'm not wanting roads in wilderness, just pointing out it would be nice if not all alpine was pretty much off limits to vehicles for hunters.  Is there some on the eastside?  All the huntable alpine on the westside is wilderness (I think)--correct me if wrong.

[baker5150]

It is OK to ride on horses in a wilderness area but a bicycle is not OK? Seems like horses do more damage than a bicycle does. Looks like the original rules were set up to favor one group over other groups without any scientific facts to back it up. Reality is the less people in a wilderness area no matter how they get there the better the hunting is. I think that is what most people are concerned about. Giving access to bikes will allow more people into the area and thus most hunters already using the wilderness areas see this as more competition and more crowds coming into their favorite wilderness areas. The real question is do we allow more access into the wilderness areas for more people to enjoy or do we restrict the amount of people  by preventing bicycles for access?

I don't believe mountain biking was much of a sport when these rules were written.

I am 100% in favor of keeping it "Heartbeat" only transportation.   Keep it as wild as possible. 

[WAcoyotehunter]

It is OK to ride on horses in a wilderness area but a bicycle is not OK? Seems like horses do more damage than a bicycle does. Looks like the original rules were set up to favor one group over other groups without any scientific facts to back it up. Reality is the less people in a wilderness area no matter how they get there the better the hunting is. I think that is what most people are concerned about. Giving access to bikes will allow more people into the area and thus most hunters already using the wilderness areas see this as more competition and more crowds coming into their favorite wilderness areas. The real question is do we allow more access into the wilderness areas for more people to enjoy or do we restrict the amount of people  by preventing bicycles for access?

I don't believe mountain biking was much of a sport when these rules were written.

I am 100% in favor of keeping it "Heartbeat" only transportation.   Keep it as wild as possible. 

I agree. 

We need landscapes that are tough to access; wildlife needs it and people that require wild places need it.

[Pegasus]

It is OK to ride on horses in a wilderness area but a bicycle is not OK? Seems like horses do more damage than a bicycle does. Looks like the original rules were set up to favor one group over other groups without any scientific facts to back it up. Reality is the less people in a wilderness area no matter how they get there the better the hunting is. I think that is what most people are concerned about. Giving access to bikes will allow more people into the area and thus most hunters already using the wilderness areas see this as more competition and more crowds coming into their favorite wilderness areas. The real question is do we allow more access into the wilderness areas for more people to enjoy or do we restrict the amount of people  by preventing bicycles for access?

I don't believe mountain biking was much of a sport when these rules were written.

I am 100% in favor of keeping it "Heartbeat" only transportation.   Keep it as wild as possible.

"Mountain bikes weren’t originally banned by the Wilderness Act; that breed of bike didn’t actually exist at the time. The act explicitly prohibited motorized transport. A number of groups, including the Sierra Club and Wilderness Society, convinced the U.S. Forest Service to publish a regulation in 1984 explicitly prohibiting mountain bikes in wilderness areas-essentially broadening the prohibition from motorized to mechanized transport. The other government agencies that manage wilderness areas (the BLM, the National Park Service, and the Fish and Wildlife Service) followed suit."

"Most studies, in fact, show that mountain bikes cause about the same amount of erosion as foot traffic and significantly less damage to trails than horseback riders–both groups have largely unfettered access to wilderness areas. "

https://www.adventure-journal.com/2015/05/a-look-at-the-ban-on-wilderness-mountain-biking/

[Karl Blanchard]

If you can peddle a bike uphill you can walk.  Plenty of spots to go ride a bike.  If we allow anything and everything into the wilderness then it defeats the whole purpose of having wilderness. Makes no sense to me why people feel that there shouldn't be places that are left largely untouched by man. Seems selfish to me to deprive future generations just because some dont want to have to work a bit to experience a place. 

Like others have said in many threads on this subject, when I am too old or crippled to climb high and deep, I will look back on past experiences and smile because at least I got to experience it. I want my children to be able to do the same when they are old. 

[baker5150]

It is OK to ride on horses in a wilderness area but a bicycle is not OK? Seems like horses do more damage than a bicycle does. Looks like the original rules were set up to favor one group over other groups without any scientific facts to back it up. Reality is the less people in a wilderness area no matter how they get there the better the hunting is. I think that is what most people are concerned about. Giving access to bikes will allow more people into the area and thus most hunters already using the wilderness areas see this as more competition and more crowds coming into their favorite wilderness areas. The real question is do we allow more access into the wilderness areas for more people to enjoy or do we restrict the amount of people  by preventing bicycles for access?

I don't believe mountain biking was much of a sport when these rules were written.

I am 100% in favor of keeping it "Heartbeat" only transportation.   Keep it as wild as possible.

"Mountain bikes weren’t originally banned by the Wilderness Act; that breed of bike didn’t actually exist at the time. The act explicitly prohibited motorized transport. A number of groups, including the Sierra Club and Wilderness Society, convinced the U.S. Forest Service to publish a regulation in 1984 explicitly prohibiting mountain bikes in wilderness areas-essentially broadening the prohibition from motorized to mechanized transport. The other government agencies that manage wilderness areas (the BLM, the National Park Service, and the Fish and Wildlife Service) followed suit."

"Most studies, in fact, show that mountain bikes cause about the same amount of erosion as foot traffic and significantly less damage to trails than horseback riders–both groups have largely unfettered access to wilderness areas. "

https://www.adventure-journal.com/2015/05/a-look-at-the-ban-on-wilderness-mountain-biking/

I agree that a bike itself is mostly harmless.  My issue is what happens when areas that are otherwise "wild" become more accessible.

The "need" for access shouldn't out way the need for wild places to stay wild.

[jstone]

Hike only.!! Need places to get away from the lazy people