Post by: avidnwoutdoorsman on June 10, 2019, 09:37:58 AM
I am in OPPOSITION of this bill.
From a hunters perspective.... Why wouldn't we keep an area as walk in access only, I mean this makes a true wilderness area.
From a recreational biking stand point.... mountain bikers are less than 3% of the Population and Wilderness Areas are less than 3% of the land area in the lower 48 States. This is not even going to make a dent in any mountain biking access issues if such issues actually exist. 78% of the US Forest Service Trails already allow mountain bikes and the Forest Service has the largest trail system on earth…
Another point... how fun would it be hunting a wilderness area having to worry about a mountain biker roaming by busting up your hunt?
Take the time to let your Senator and/or Rep know that we like Wilderness areas as they are, without bicycles in them.
Post by: SteelheadDC on June 10, 2019, 09:56:30 AM
Post by: 2MANY on June 10, 2019, 10:01:43 AM
Seems they have forgotten how to use them.
Post by: coyotecrazy on June 10, 2019, 10:02:37 AM
Post by: zwickeyman on June 10, 2019, 10:24:36 AM
Post by: Karl Blanchard on June 10, 2019, 10:30:54 AM
Post by: bigtex on June 10, 2019, 10:40:36 AM
Anything coming out of Utah and from Lee is usually agenda driven and not in the best interest of fair chase and wild places. I put a lot of mountain bike miles on and I put even more foot miles on in wilderness areas. Keep em separate in my opinion.:yeah:
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Mudman on June 10, 2019, 11:05:14 AM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on June 10, 2019, 11:49:01 AM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on June 10, 2019, 11:50:36 AM
I would like to see the FS get their crosscut saws and shovels out.
Seems they have forgotten how to use them.
Yea especially when it's WTA that does all the work
Post by: avidnwoutdoorsman on June 10, 2019, 11:50:58 AM
Did take the time to write my Rep, and our lovely two Senators...
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/2877 - what I found on it aside from the different publications from interest groups.
Post by: Special T on June 10, 2019, 11:54:52 AM
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: 2MANY on June 10, 2019, 12:15:57 PM
I would like to see the FS get their crosscut saws and shovels out.
Seems they have forgotten how to use them.
Yea especially when it's WTA that does all the work
I didn't realize I was a member?
Post by: Mudman on June 10, 2019, 12:22:42 PM
Post by: Bob33 on June 10, 2019, 12:47:05 PM
Mountain bike: 15-20 mph on many trails. I do not support allowing anything in the wilderness that goes faster than a human can walk.
Post by: stlusn30-06 on June 10, 2019, 12:56:03 PM
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.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on June 10, 2019, 01:49:07 PM
absolutely fantastic post sir! Summed up my thoughts to a T! :tup: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.
Post by: Mudman on June 10, 2019, 02:20:12 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on June 10, 2019, 03:36:16 PM
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?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.
Post by: theleo on June 11, 2019, 07:36:49 AM
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.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?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.
Post by: theleo on June 11, 2019, 07:41:38 AM
I would like to see the FS get their crosscut saws and shovels out.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.
Seems they have forgotten how to use them.
Post by: Birdgetter on June 11, 2019, 07:45:11 AM
Post by: Pegasus on June 11, 2019, 08:02:54 AM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on June 11, 2019, 08:06:03 AM
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.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.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?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.
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.
Post by: baker5150 on June 11, 2019, 08:41:04 AM
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.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 11, 2019, 09:01:55 AM
I agree.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.
We need landscapes that are tough to access; wildlife needs it and people that require wild places need it.
Post by: Pegasus on June 11, 2019, 09:06:49 AM
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/
Post by: Karl Blanchard on June 11, 2019, 09:18:16 AM
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.
Post by: baker5150 on June 11, 2019, 09:27:28 AM
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.
Post by: jstone on June 11, 2019, 09:31:50 AM
Post by: cbond3318 on June 11, 2019, 09:39:39 AM
Post by: avidnwoutdoorsman on June 11, 2019, 09:41:44 AM
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.
:yeah: 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.
:yeah:
Post by: theleo on June 11, 2019, 10:20:57 AM
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.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.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.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?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.
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.
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.
Post by: theleo on June 11, 2019, 10:29:33 AM
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.
Post by: KFhunter on June 11, 2019, 10:32:09 AM
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
Post by: Knocker of rocks on June 11, 2019, 10:33:36 AM
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
Post by: theleo on June 11, 2019, 10:37:44 AM
:yeah: 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.
Post by: 2MANY on June 11, 2019, 10:56:12 AM
Make the whole state a volcanic monument.
Change you can believe in.
Post by: theleo on June 11, 2019, 11:21:35 AM
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 andNational 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
Wilderness Areas inside National parks hold for where they're trying to allow bikes.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on June 11, 2019, 11:24:27 AM
Post by: theleo on June 11, 2019, 01:22:48 PM
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.
Post by: KFhunter on June 11, 2019, 03:12:06 PM
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?
Post by: Knocker of rocks on June 11, 2019, 03:23:16 PM
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.
Post by: bigtex on June 11, 2019, 03:36:05 PM
People can get sue for whatever they want.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.
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.
Post by: KFhunter on June 11, 2019, 03:39:07 PM
https://www.heraldnet.com/news/lawsuit-challenges-helicopter-use-in-idaho-wilderness-area/
Quote
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 :chuckle:
Post by: baker5150 on June 11, 2019, 03:40:30 PM
People can get sue for whatever they want.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.
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.
I believe they can use helicopters for snow pack surveys as well. Not positive.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on June 11, 2019, 03:49:57 PM
This is what I remember
https://www.heraldnet.com/news/lawsuit-challenges-helicopter-use-in-idaho-wilderness-area/QuoteBOISE, 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 :chuckle:
That, and things look like fighting the saving of the Green Mountain lookout and the rescue of the Enchanted Valley cabin in the ONP angers many.
I believe they can use helicopters for snow pack surveys as well. Not positive.
That again is something that a few have fought and several water districts have done land swaps of inholdings so they can land on their own private land.
Post by: bearpaw on June 11, 2019, 04:25:55 PM
Wilderness areas allow for no mechanical means of transportation.
:yeah: This was the intent of Wilderness, no mechanized travel, to allow any type of bike would defeat the whole purpose. I'm not in favor of altering existing wilderness just to satisfy certain users. Equally I'm not in favor of taking multiple use lands away from most users to make more wilderness. There is a good balance of existing wilderness and it should not be diminished! :twocents:
Post by: idaho guy on June 11, 2019, 05:01:34 PM
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/
It has nothing to do with trail erosion it’s about keeping wild places wild. You can go back over 100 years in time and they accessed that same country with horses. I don’t ever want to lose that because somebody feels the need to ride a bike. Or anything else we need to leave existing wilderness alone.
Post by: KFhunter on June 11, 2019, 09:54:15 PM
Status Quo on wilderness, no new land added, no changes, no reductions in land...leave it the heck alone! 1000 years from now, same rules!!
Post by: stlusn30-06 on June 12, 2019, 09:43:04 AM
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
Aldo Leopold was the person who first presented the idea of Wilderness designation to the Forest Service. Specifically for the Gila in NM. He would likely argue that he had no scientific or practical reasoning for the designation. Apologies for the length of the quote below, but may be helpful to understand the thought process that went behind the Why of Wilderness, and what its importance is beyond what has already been discussed here.
"The most important characteristic of an organism is that capacity for eternal self-renewal known as health.
There are two organisms whose process of self-renewal have been subjected to human interference and control. One of these is man himself (medicine and public health). The other is land (agriculture and conservation).
The effort to control the health of land has not been very successful. It is now generally understood that when soil loses fertility, or washes away faster than it forms, and when water systems exhibit abnormal floods and shortages, the land is sick.
Other derangements are known as facts, but are not yet thought of as symptoms of land sickness. The disappearance of plants and animal species without visible cause, despite efforts to protect them, and the irruption of others as pests despite efforts to control them, must, in the absence of simpler explanations, be regarded as symptoms of sickness in the land organism. Both are occurring too frequently to be dismissed as normal evolutionary events.
The status of thought on these ailments of the land is reflected in the fact that our treatments for them are still prevailingly local. Thus when a soil loses fertility we pour on fertilizer, or at best alter its tame flora and fauna, without considering the fact that its wild flora and fauna, which built the soil to begin with, may likewise be important to its maintenance. It was recently discovered, for example, that good tobacco crops depend, for some unknown reason, on the preconditioning of the soil by wild ragweed. It does not occur to us that such unexpected chains of dependency may have wide prevalence in nature.
When prairie dogs, ground squirrels, or mice increase to pest levels we poison them, but we do not look beyond the animal to find the cause of the irruption. We assume that animal troubles must have animal causes. The latest scientific evidence points to derangements of the plant community as the real seat of rodent irruptions, but few explorations of this clue are being made.
Many forest plantations are producing one-log or two-log trees on soil which originally grew three-log and four-log trees. Why? Thinking foresters know that the cause probably lies not in the tree, but in the micro-flora of the soil, and that it may take more years to restore the soil flora than it took to destroy it.
Many conservation treatments are obviously superficial. Flood-control dams have no relation to the cause of floods. Check dams and terraces do not touch the cause of erosion. Refuges and hatcheries to maintain the supply of game and fish do not explain why the supply fails to maintain itself.
In general, the trend of the evidence indicates that in land, just as in the human body, the symptoms may lie in one organ and the cause in another. The practices we now call conservation are, to a large extent, local alleviations of biotic pain. They are necessary, but they must not be confused with cures. The art of land doctoring is being practiced with vigor, but the science of land health is yet to be born.
A science of land health needs, first of all, a base datum of normality, a picture of how healthy land maintains itself as an organism.
We have two available norms. One is found where land physiology remains largely normal despite centuries of human occupation. I know of only one such place: north-eastern Europe. It is not likely that we shall fail to study it.
The other and most perfect norm is wilderness. Paleontology offers abundant evidence that wilderness maintained itself for immensely long-periods; that its component species were rarely lost, neither did they get out of hand; that weather and water built soil faster than it was carried away. Wilderness, then, assumes unexpected importance as a laboratory for the study of land-health.
One cannot study the physiology of Montana in the Amazon; each biotic province needs its own wilderness for comparative studies of used and unused land. It is of course too late to salvage more than a lopsided system of wilderness study areas, and most of these remnants are far too small to retain their normality in all respects. Even the National Parks, which run up to a million acres each in size, have not been large enough to retain their natural predators, or to exclude animal diseases carried by livestock. Thus the Yellowstone has lost its wolves and cougars, with the result that elk are ruining flora, particularly on the winter range. At the same time the grizzly bear and the mountain sheep are shrinking, the latter by reason of disease.
While even the largest wilderness areas become partially deranged, it required only a few wild acres for J.E. Weaver to discover why the prairie flora is more drouth-resistant than the agronomic flora which has supplanted it. Weaver found that the prairie species practice ‘team work’ underground by distributing their root systems to cover all levels whereas the species comprising the agronomic rotation over draw one level and neglect another, thus building up cumulative deficits. An important agronomic principle emerged from Weaver’s researches.
Again, it required only a few acres for Togrediak to discover why pines on old fields never achieve the size or wild firmness of pines on uncleared forest soils. In the later case, the roots follow old root channels, and thus strike deeper.
In many cases we literally do not know how good a performance to expect of healthy land unless we have a wild area for comparison with sick ones. Thus, most of the early travelers to the Southwest describe the mountain rivers as originally clear, but a doubt remains, for they may, by accident, have seen them at favorable seasons. Erosion engineers had no base datum until it was discovered that exactly similar rivers in the Sierra Madre of Chihuahua, never grazed or used for fear of Indians, show at their worst a milky hue, not too cloudy for a trout fly. Moss grows to the water’s edge on their banks. Most of the corresponding rivers in Arizona and New Mexico are ribbons of boulders, mossless, soil-less, and all but treeless. The preservation and study of the Sierra Madre wilderness, by an international experiment station, as a norm for the cure of sick land on both sides of the border, would be a good neighbor enterprise well worthy of consideration.
In short all available wild areas, large or small, are likely to have value as norms for land
science. Recreation is not their only, or even their principle utility."
Post by: 2MANY on June 12, 2019, 10:49:29 AM
Post by: avidnwoutdoorsman on June 12, 2019, 11:01:54 AM
Too many people and not enough real estate.
Have you been or lived out east or south? We have so much public land here in Washington it's incredible. Sure nothing like a few of these other western states but I would say we are in the top 10 of the country for acres of public land.... I was off for total acreage but when I looked it up and we are number 12 at 31.7% or 2 acres/person.... not everyone hunts. Texas is 1.0% or 0.1 acre/person and number 2 (excluding Alaska) is Wyoming at 50.5% or 55.7acres/person.
Now is it difficult to access due to terrain? Sure, but that's why we live in WA and similar to what you will experience in the leading states of public land open to hunting and where the wilderness preservation still matter.
https://www.backcountrychronicles.com/public-hunting-land/
Post by: Knocker of rocks on June 12, 2019, 11:04:52 AM
Too many people and not enough real estate.
Number 175
http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/countries-by-density/
Post by: 2MANY on June 12, 2019, 11:05:35 AM
I was simply pointing out the obvious.
North America's population is growing at an incredible rate.
Real estate is not.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on June 12, 2019, 11:34:52 AM
North America's population is growing at an incredible rate.
Source?
Post by: Knocker of rocks on June 12, 2019, 11:37:14 AM
Mexico # 103 w/ 1.12% growth
USA #129 w/0.81%
Can #141 w/ 0.73%
Post by: 2MANY on June 12, 2019, 11:37:23 AM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on June 12, 2019, 11:43:08 AM
Me.
I would vet your source a little more
Post by: 2MANY on June 12, 2019, 11:45:36 AM
The more I talk the more I believe.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on June 12, 2019, 11:47:26 AM
No need.
The more I talk the more I believe.
An echo chamber of one