Human-Powered Travel in Wilderness Areas Act

[cbond3318]

Keep it boots and horses.

[avidnwoutdoorsman]

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

What is the "need" to mountain bike in a wilderness area when there is so much other opportunity that one shouldn't need access to a wilderness area for mountain biking purposes.

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

  Why also it makes sense that horses are allowed and not a bike.

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. 

 

[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.

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.

National parks are national parks, wilderness areas are wilderness areas (in terms of federal designations and management). Examples would be like Mount Rainier National Park can have areas without roads or trails designated for foot traffic only, but those areas are still part of the national park and are managed by the National Park Service. Wilderness areas Like the Goat Rocks Wilderness, Mount Adams Wilderness, or William O Douglas Wilderness are special designations inside National Forests and are managed by the Forest Service. Wilderness areas and National parks are bureaucratic lines on a map, but they don't over lap, you're in one or the other.

Here I'd say yeah, most of the alpine hunt available is predominantly in Wilderness areas. But in states like Idaho or Montana that have more variety in the designations of chunks of their national forests, you could end up alpine hunting there and never set a foot in a Wilderness area because designations like Road-less Backcountry exist.

[theleo]

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?

The original rules were setup up with a certain amount of practicality. If you went ahead and said no horses in any Wilderness areas you'd lose 80-90 percent of the trail system in many of them.

[KFhunter]

There's nothing scientific or practical about a wilderness, it's purely an emotional construct.


tree huggers wanted more and more wilderness, then live with the rules.   No bicycles.

bicycles and horses don't mix well, the bikers would take over the existing trails and push equines out


the whole idea of a wilderness is to preserve, adding more sports to it isn't preserving.  If bicycles get added then I want electric assist added too, then gas assist, then motorbikes added too

[Knocker of rocks]

National parks are national parks, wilderness areas are wilderness areas (in terms of federal designations and management). Examples would be like Mount Rainier National Park can have areas without roads or trails designated for foot traffic only, but those areas are still part of the national park and are managed by the National Park Service. Wilderness areas Like the Goat Rocks Wilderness, Mount Adams Wilderness, or William O Douglas Wilderness are special designations inside National Forests and are managed by the Forest Service. Wilderness areas and National parks are bureaucratic lines on a map, but they don't over lap, you're in one or the other.

 All three National Parks have congressionally designated wilderness inside of them,  these make up the majority of the parks and were created seperately and after the creation of the park.

In the state of Washington designated wilderness can be found in NPS, BLM, USFS, NWR and USFWS lands
https://www.thenewstribune.com/outdoors/article25878187.html

[theleo]

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.

I've heard it brought up before, and it seems a valid point, that if they just let anybody go with a chainsaw a lot of folks would abuse it and go in cutting piles of firewood for hunting season. I can see the abuse that'd bring, but if they'd at least let volunteer organizations use them it'd help the trails a lot. Most groups I've been a part of have a good enough relationship with the Forest Service that each side knows where and when projects are being done, so enforcement wouldn't be that big of a deal.   

[2MANY]

If chainsaws are outlawed only outlaws will have chainsaws.

Make the whole state a volcanic monument.

Change you can believe in.

[theleo]

National parks are national parks, wilderness areas are wilderness areas (in terms of federal designations and management). Examples would be like Mount Rainier National Park can have areas without roads or trails designated for foot traffic only, but those areas are still part of the national park and are managed by the National Park Service. Wilderness areas Like the Goat Rocks Wilderness, Mount Adams Wilderness, or William O Douglas Wilderness are special designations inside National Forests and are managed by the Forest Service. Wilderness areas and National parks are bureaucratic lines on a map, but they don't over lap, you're in one or the other.

 All three National Parks have congressionally designated wilderness inside of them,  these make up the majority of the parks and were created seperately and after the creation of the park.

In the state of Washington designated wilderness can be found in NPS, BLM, USFS, NWR and USFWS lands
https://www.thenewstribune.com/outdoors/article25878187.html

You're correct, my screw up. The bill being talked about is for areas in the National Forest System, so the lines between Wilderness Areas designated in the National Forest and
Wilderness Areas inside National parks hold for where they're trying to allow bikes.

[Knocker of rocks]

And all the agencies are allowed to manage the lands as they see fit as long as their management conforms to the 1964 law.   For instance, the NPS can allow chainsaws for trail crews.

[theleo]

And all the agencies are allowed to manage the lands as they see fit as long as their management conforms to the 1964 law.   For instance, the NPS can allow chainsaws for trail crews.

They can, but not without additional hurdles, paperwork, and public backlash. The recent storm that got kicked up in Colorado from the Forest Service authorizing use of chainsaws for use in wilderness areas is a good example.

[KFhunter]

And all the agencies are allowed to manage the lands as they see fit as long as their management conforms to the 1964 law.   For instance, the NPS can allow chainsaws for trail crews.

They can, but not without additional hurdles, paperwork, and public backlash. The recent storm that got kicked up in Colorado from the Forest Service authorizing use of chainsaws for use in wilderness areas is a good example.

didn't someone get sued for using a helicopter to rescue someone recently in a wilderness?

[Knocker of rocks]

didn't someone get sued for using a helicopter to rescue someone recently in a wilderness?

Absolutely not.

You are probably referring to the use of a helicopter to establish a camp in the search for Sam Sayers. None of that occurred in Wilderness, it was in fact allowed and it was a recovery for a corpse not yet found.

[bigtex]

didn't someone get sued for using a helicopter to rescue someone recently in a wilderness?

Absolutely not.

You are probably referring to the use of a helicopter to establish a camp in the search for Sam Sayers. None of that occurred in Wilderness, it was in fact allowed and it was a recovery for a corpse not yet found.

People can get sue for whatever they want.

There is an exemption in the Wilderness Act which allows first responders to not abide by the wilderness prohibitions. However, it must be serious, life or death, etc. It can't be so that the 21 year old can ride an ATV out of the wilderness instead of limping around on a twisted ankle or getting carried out.

[KFhunter]

This is what I remember

https://www.heraldnet.com/news/lawsuit-challenges-helicopter-use-in-idaho-wilderness-area/

BOISE, Idaho — Three environmental groups sued the U.S. Forest Service to challenge a decision allowing helicopters to land in a central Idaho wilderness area so state wildlife officials can outfit elk with tracking collars.

Wilderness Watch, Western Watersheds Project and Friends of the Clearwater filed the lawsuit Thursday in U.S. District Court in Idaho. They said the federal agency is violating the Wilderness Act and other environmental laws by allowing helicopters into the rugged Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness.

Sorry, I accidently conflated a couple things together, at least I threw in a ? cause I wasn't sure