-
Posts
-
-
And as a mountain biker, I believe the single best way to preserve the Boulder-White Clouds area is wilderness designation.
I am extremely disappointed in the overall selfish message from the mountain-biking community that seems to believe that all public lands are nothing more than a playground or outdoor gymnasium for their self-gratification. Wilderness is about limits. It is the recognition that some places are so special they should be off-limits to mechanical advantages. I have been riding versions of mountain bikes since the 1980s when I first encountered some prototypes in bike shops in Missoula, Mont. Mostly, we used those early bikes to ride dirt roads. However, the technological advantage of mountain bikes has improved tremendously since that time. People on the latest equipment can climb hills, go farther, go longer and descend steeper terrain than ever before. There is really no limit to the technological advantages. And each advance shrinks wilderness. It means fewer areas of our wildlands will be truly remote. It means fewer refuges for sensitive wildlife. Many of today’s hardcore mountain bikers are essentially thrillcraft enthusiasts, no different than dirt bikers, jet skiers and others who relish speed and daredevil antics.Read more here: http://www.mtexpress.com/index2.php?ID= … qnjzGRDtq1
Obviously, I disagree. What do you think?
-
I think he needs a Snickers bar. He sounds like a Sierra Clubber when he’s hungry.
-
"CraigCreekRider" wrote
I think he needs a Snickers bar. He sounds like a Sierra Clubber when he’s hungry.
-
"mtbgreg1" wroteMany of today’s hardcore mountain bikers are essentially thrillcraft enthusiasts, no different than dirt bikers, jet skiers and others who relish speed and daredevil antics.
Read more here: http://www.mtexpress.com/index2.php?ID= … qnjzGRDtq1
Obviously, I disagree. What do you think?
I agree per say, however, I strongly disagree as well with what this MTB’r has stated in his comments. Now, for the latter half of his statement quoted in bold above….
REALLY???? Isn’t this how MTB’ing, Freeriding, Downhill, and other extreme cycle sports got started??? 😏
Look, I respect what he has to say, but also demand that he respects mine as well. 😄
-
"CraigCreekRider" wrote
I think he needs a Snickers bar. He sounds like a Sierra Clubber when hes hungry.
😆 awesome!
-
Bikes were allowed in Wilderness Areas ’til the 80’s when they changed the rules. A hiker explained it because it was a mechanical advantage thing, if that is so, snowshoes and skis should be banned also. that being said, there are some place I do believe mt bikes should not be allowed because of fragile ecosystems or other factors. However i have seen damage done by hikers in areas that have taken years to recover. Why is this ignored in the hiking community when mt bikes are brought up?
As someone that grew up and lived most of my life in New England, I have seen how hikers have approached other trail users let it be bikers, horses, or even trail runners (aren’t they just fast hikers?) as arch enemies to nature. I have also seen/heard bikers do the same to other trail users. IMO, we as bikers, hikers, equestrians, skiers, snowshoes, etc. should be working together in preserving trails/nature instead of fighting with other trail using groups.
-
This argument fails on many levels. For the moment, I’ll address three fallacies in particular since others have already addressed the fact that other mechanical aids are allowed in Wilderness along with the false generalization of mountain bikers as a whole.
First, the author presents a false dilemma of [i:3uc1hsuy]would you rather protect our wild areas or have mountain biking access?[/i:3uc1hsuy] and then takes "selfish" mountain bikers to task for choosing the latter over the former. This fallacy presents only two alternatives as if those were the only two available. The USFS has many designations and tools at its disposal for protecting our wild places from all the other evils Wilderness designation seeks to avoid (i.e. road development, logging, natural resource extraction, etc), while still allowing mountain biking. There are National Scenic Areas, National Scenic Trails, National Recreation Trails, and, as is most commonly employed, management plans for each and every National Forest, where any tailoring of restrictions may be employed. Here the author is, at best, horribly shortsighted or, at worst, deliberately presenting a false dilemma in a blatantly transparent attempt to push his agenda.
Second, the author states "And each advance shrinks wilderness. It means fewer areas of our wildlands will be truly remote." in hopes that the reader will accept his personal value system as some sort of natural fact. Certainly, the wilderness doesn’t shrink in a literal sense, only the perception of if. Having acknowledge this, why should we accept as some sort of self-evident truth that seeing 6 (a typical backcountry riding speed) miles of wilderness in an hour is somehow less valid than seeing only 3 miles in an hour (a typical hiking speed). Furthermore, horses are allowed in the Wilderness, can travel faster and further than I can on my bike, and provide the greatest advantage of all; at least the bike is human-powered while[i:3uc1hsuy] the horse is doing all the work[/i:3uc1hsuy] for the rider! Lastly with regard to this point, the hiker often uses electronic, space -age technology in the form of GPS to his/her advantage while traversing the wilderness. Certainly triangulating your position to within a few feet by coordinating signals off a constellation of space satellites represents a higher application of technology than a simple mechanical device.
Third, the author states "It means fewer refuges for sensitive wildlife." without any evidence to back up that statement; again, we are expected to accept his analysis without reason. Studies have shown that wildlife is often less affected by cyclists than by hikers. This certainly makes sense when you think about it: wildlife is conditioned to be wary of humans on foot–after all, those are the ones who carry guns! As an avid backcountry hiker for 40 years and a cyclist for only 15, I have seen just as much wildlife from my WTB saddle as I have from my hiking boots. When I’m on foot, the deer and elk bolt–when I’m on my bike, they simply watch me glide on by–same goes for wild turkeys and just about every species I’ve ever encountered. The only species I’ve seen on foot but not on bike is the grizzly bear, I suspect because I’ve spent many days on foot in grizzly country and almost no bike time in the same areas (after all most grizzly country is off limits to bikes–Wilderness, you know).
-
As much as I like the idea of there being reserves of land where animals can be without human disturbance, mountain bikers really don’t do anything against the wildlife actually. Natural trailways form due to the continual passing of larger animals through the same area. Mountain bike trails pretty much are the same thing in essences. Not like we’re adding anything bad to the environment by building trails. As for mountain bikers zooming around, as skibum said the animals really don’t mind or run away. And if they run away, that’s a healthy dose of fear to protect themselves from danger. A natural instinctive reaction. It’s a good thing that animals know to avoid humans, unlike the ones being fed by stupid tourists and then become dependent.
Mountain bikers really don’t do anything wrong. What is this guy’s issue. Gosh.
-
"mtbgreg1" wroteWilderness is about limits
That needs to be on a t-shirt. We could do a whole series:
Space is about gravity
or
Freedom and privacy, courtesy of the NSA
-
"brianW" wrote
Bikes were allowed in Wilderness Areas ’til the 80’s when they changed the rules. A hiker explained it because it was a mechanical advantage thing, if that is so, snowshoes and skis should be banned also. that being said, there are some place I do believe mt bikes should not be allowed because of fragile ecosystems or other factors. However i have seen damage done by hikers in areas that have taken years to recover. Why is this ignored in the hiking community when mt bikes are brought up?
As someone that grew up and lived most of my life in New England, I have seen how hikers have approached other trail users let it be bikers, horses, or even trail runners (aren’t they just fast hikers?) as arch enemies to nature. I have also seen/heard bikers do the same to other trail users. IMO, we as bikers, hikers, equestrians, skiers, snowshoes, etc. should be working together in preserving trails/nature instead of fighting with other trail using groups.
++++++++++++++++1 😉
-
"schwim" wrote
[quote="mtbgreg1":esom4696]
Wilderness is about limitsThat needs to be on a t-shirt. We could do a whole series:
Space is about gravity
or
Freedom and privacy, courtesy of the NSA[/quote:esom4696]
HAHAHAHA! DO IT!
-
You nailed it Scwhim!
-
"skibum" wrote
…Studies have shown that wildlife is often less affected by cyclists than by hikers. This certainly makes sense when you think about it: wildlife is conditioned to be wary of humans on foot–after all, those are the ones who carry guns! As an avid backcountry hiker for 40 years and a cyclist for only 15, I have seen just as much wildlife from my WTB saddle as I have from my hiking boots. When I’m on foot, the deer and elk bolt–when I’m on my bike, they simply watch me glide on by–same goes for wild turkeys and just about every species I’ve ever encountered…
So, so, true. BUT those turkeys are playing games with me man. Always trail cutting to get in front! 😎
-
He has a point of view that goes against what we feel is having more trails. We have a lot of trails already. I feel there should be area where wildlife have not much human connection and I am sure the animals would agree. 😎
-
It’s a good read. At least, bikes make less damage then horses
[url:2gi42rxl]http://reviews.mtbr.com/the-angry-singlespeeder-our-environmental-impact-is-a-joke[/url:2gi42rxl] -
"RobertD" wrote
He has a point of view that goes against what we feel is having more trails. We have a lot of trails already. I feel there should be area where wildlife have not much human connection and I am sure the animals would agree. 😎
Yeah, I always find it interesting when folks say bikers need to build their own trails and leave hikers alone, but then say bikers need to stay out of the back country because they may disturb wildlife. Conflicting arguments to be sure. I see this constantly with anti-cycling advocates. But when a supposedly environmentally driven hiker says "build your own trails," he just proves that preserving his bike free experience takes precedence over his desire to leave wild places in their pristine state.
-
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.