Bike Forums

Bike Forums (http://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)
-   Advocacy & Safety (http://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-safety/)
-   -   penality for riding on prohibited trails on federal land ? (http://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-safety/872665-penality-riding-prohibited-trails-federal-land.html)

shipwreck 02-14-13 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angio Graham (Post 15273844)
Mountain biking on trails isnt harmful to the environment. Thats a myth.


How much time have you spent volunteering on trail maintainance? Have you ever built or designed a trail? Professional trail builders I know would not agree with you.

The existing trail systems were not designed for the kind of abuse that mountainbikes can do. Bikers will find cuts, alternate switchbacks, and rut out that fun mud hole. properly designed and planned trails take this into consideration, and bikers still find ways to create problems. Working on trails I have seen bikers do more damage than horses on certain surfaces, slopes, ridges, and wallows.
For every one considerate and concientious mountainbiker out there, there are four of you.

shipwreck 02-14-13 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrouchoWretch (Post 15273913)
The trails themselves are harmful.

Even hiking has a detrimental impact on fragile habitats.

All human use is burdensome to wilderness areas.

Suggesting otherwise is just a non-starter.

Now, the NFS, NPS, BLM, and so on make a great many mistakes. At the same time, trails do get closed for a reason. I understand that you want to ride your bike on the trails. But the question isn't, what's the most fun for you? It's, what's best for the bears, owls, skunks, and so on, which inhabit that particular bit of land? And it's probably best for them if humans stay out of their faces, especially humans aboard rad machinery. Just a thought.

This. No doubt the meany officials who choose to shut down a trail to certain or all users have a better understanding of the impact those users have been having up to that point.

I love caving, but when almost all caves were blocked off because of the effects on bat populations I and almost everyone else respected that. The few who don't are widely recognized as pieces of bat Sh-tt.

DirtRoadRunner 02-14-13 07:29 PM

Article I found, describing the area the OP is talking about:

http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com...cc4c002e0.html

I have a little more sympathy now. I can't help but wonder if the MTBs were banned because of actual overuse and damage to trails, or for political reasons (e.g. hiker-only types wanting a new wilderness are and banning MTBs is the first step to that). Without actually hiking the Gallatin National Forest, and the banned trails of interest, it is impossible for me to know.

howsteepisit 02-14-13 08:17 PM

I lived in Bozeman for the last 10 years, and there is a strong movement to designate more of the Gallatin National Forest as wilderness area. There is still huge amounts of area to ride in that will not be closed, there is room for all. The OP has demonstrated that he is not concerned with law and regulation, or the elements of the social contract that helps to make a functional social structure. He is not concerned with the impacts to wildlife nor the fragile high altitude flora in that area, he just wants to have fun. Hope they nail his butt, and really I hope that he strays into the designated wilderness so that the penalties are severe enough to give him reason to pause.

Flame away.

GrouchoWretch 02-14-13 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by howsteepisit (Post 15275210)
I lived in Bozeman for the last 10 years, and there is a strong movement to designate more of the Gallatin National Forest as wilderness area. There is still huge amounts of area to ride in that will not be closed, there is room for all. The OP has demonstrated that he is not concerned with law and regulation, or the elements of the social contract that helps to make a functional social structure. He is not concerned with the impacts to wildlife nor the fragile high altitude flora in that area, he just wants to have fun. Hope they nail his butt, and really I hope that he strays into the designated wilderness so that the penalties are severe enough to give him reason to pause.

Flame away.

I'm leaning more towards your side on this one. I don't see why you'd get flamed. But I hope Angio sees some sense in what we've said, not so much that he'll get nailed.

Angio Graham 02-14-13 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by howsteepisit (Post 15275210)
The OP has demonstrated that he is not concerned with law and regulation, or the elements of the social contract that helps to make a functional social structure.

The truth comes out.

Its not about the environment. Its not about the flowers or the trout or the bighorn sheep.

Its about the federal government having control over everything people do.

You are a freedom robber.

Stay tuned for my future threads this summer because I will post videos and pictures of me riding on your holy land.

Bikepacker67 02-14-13 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kmv2 (Post 15270000)
Here in Canada crown lands (our version of federal land, basically the queen's "back yard") are pretty vast yet easy to access. We (the more adventurous of us) head out of our igloo cities to camp, mountain bike, etc. on crown land all the time.

The chance of getting caught or charged is next to minimal.


I ♥ Canada. It's like America, if it were smarter and saner.
Been here seven years. You ain't ever getting rid of me.

GrouchoWretch 02-14-13 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angio Graham (Post 15275765)
The truth comes out.

Its not about the environment. Its not about the flowers or the trout or the bighorn sheep.

Its about the federal government having control over everything people do.

You are a freedom robber.

Stay tuned for my future threads this summer because I will post videos and pictures of me riding on your holy land.

Haha. Well. So much for hope. Behold the tragedy of the commons in process.

howsteepisit 02-14-13 11:43 PM

post deleted, its not worth it.

GrouchoWretch 02-15-13 11:16 AM

This is Angio.

http://i909.photobucket.com/albums/a...o-seagulls.jpg

gcottay 02-15-13 12:00 PM

The OP's attitude reflects a completely understandable phase in human development often observed beginning at about age two years and recurring every so often until full adulthood.

Leebo 02-15-13 12:15 PM

Many studies have shown that mt biking and hiking have similar trail impacts. That said, don't poach. Here in the Boston.MA area, my mt bike group (NEMBA) has great relationships with local land managers. This partnership has led to trail improvement projects, new multi use trails and new access to areas once off limits to mt bikers. Responsible trail use and trail stewardship goes a long way. YRMV. The actual ban on mt biking in wilderness areas has to do with faulty language. It bans mechanized transport, so you can ride a horse but not a horse and wagon. This wilderness ban was drafted before mt bikes were around.

noisebeam 02-15-13 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leebo (Post 15277500)
The actual ban on mt biking in wilderness areas has to do with faulty language. It bans mechanized transport, so you can ride a horse but not a horse and wagon. This wilderness ban was drafted before mt bikes were around.

incorrect x2

CB HI 02-15-13 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noisebeam (Post 15277672)
incorrect x2

How so?

CB HI 02-15-13 06:56 PM

"Congress passed and President Lyndon Johnson signed the Wilderness Act on September 3, 1964"

"Marin County is the birthplace of the mountain bike, which had its origins in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Steve Potts, who was already building bike frames in Mill Valley in 1980, teamed up with Mark Slate to help meet demand. Charlie Cunningham, in Fairfax, had been building mountain bikes since 1979 with heat-treated aluminum frames which had unique Type II forks, roller-cam brakes, custom-made hubs and other components that were among the first of their kind designed specifically for mountain bikes."

"The Wilderness Act was reinterpreted by the Administration in 1986 to ban bicycles from Wilderness areas, which led to the current vocal opposition from mountain bikers to the opening of new Wilderness areas."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilderness_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilderness_Trail_Bikes

Leebo 02-19-13 10:26 AM

Uhh, 1964 came before 1979.

cderalow 02-20-13 07:26 AM

but the reinterpretation in 1986 definitely occurred after 1979.

CB HI 02-20-13 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cderalow (Post 15295096)
but the reinterpretation in 1986 definitely occurred after 1979.

Yes, to twist the original meaning of the law in such a way to outlaw bicycles. Which is what Leebo stated with noting the faulty wording as it was applied to bicycles.

Chicago Al 02-20-13 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cderalow (Post 15295096)
but the reinterpretation in 1986 definitely occurred after 1979.

The reinterpretation in 1986 must have been by those tree-hugging, sandal-wearing, owl-worshipping environmental extremists in the Reagan Administration.

CB HI 02-20-13 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chicago Al (Post 15297617)
The reinterpretation in 1986 must have been by those tree-hugging, sandal-wearing, owl-worshipping environmental extremists in the Reagan Administration.

Actually true. Too bad Reagon did not fire all the career environmental nut job bureaucrats within the forest service and BLM, the way he fired air traffic controllers.

rydabent 02-24-13 08:02 AM

The problem as I see it is that all these trail bans were instituted by the bike hating granola and rudabaga crowd.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:11 AM.