Mountain Biking Wilderness Poll

[Scott P]

As a mountain biker, do you support wilderness designation, as long as it is reasonable and still leaves many areas open to mountain biking (mountain bikes are not allowed in wilderness areas)?

Also, let me know if I should edit the poll options to read clearer.

[Gixxer]

I am undecided and have mixed feelings on this issue. I believe there should be areas set aside as wilderness, so that people can get away from it all.
My problem is about having horses doing lots more damage to trails than bikes ever do. Maybe "getting away from it all" also means getting away from horses, too. Where do you draw the line in mechanized? Saddles, bridles, harnesses......all products of technology.
I'm not anti-horses so much as I am questioning the justification and consistency in establishing policies.

[asdf]

I feel the same was as Gixxer.
There are so many areas I would like to ride but cant like the slick rock areas around temple mountain. I understand why you cant ride orv's up there but my bike would leave far less marks on the sandstone compared to an ATV or motor bike.

[price1869]

You can't answer these questions with a "yes" "no" or "Maybe" Scott, you ask really baited questions and it's rather . . . :frustrated:

I'm down for sharing the outdoors. If you're so concerned about running into other people that you can't allow activities that allow people to have fun while they're outside, antartica is a good option.

[Scott P]

You can't answer these questions with a "yes" "no" or "Maybe" Scott, you ask really baited questions and it's rather

What questions are baited and how would you change them? I tried to make them as un baited as possible.

Read the below thread to see why the poll was started and why we were interested in some answers:

http://uutah.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6532&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Tell me how you would rephrase the question or answers.

Otherwise, you can just state your opinion if no answer fits.

[PunchKing]

http://uutah.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6532&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Tell me how you would rephrase the question or answers.

Iffins I wanted to read the environMENTALS issues section and pretend to have a say I would go there. Someone please move this to whence it belongs.

[asdf]

http://uutah.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6532&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Tell me how you would rephrase the question or answers.

Iffins I wanted to read the environMENTALS issues section and pretend to have a say I would go there. Someone please move this to whence it belongs.

its right where it needs to be.

[PunchKing]

Fine I will just ignore it since no one seems to share my opinion. I just think it is retarded just because it is specified to mountain bike it belongs here. We should make a thread like this in each section. Motor Bikers would you think that wilderness was okay if they allowed you to ride in it. (they currently do not). Or hikers do you think you should have to pack out the poop if you take a dump.

Sounds retarded to me. That is all.

[Sombeech]

I am also the occasional horseback rider. I know that they rip up the trail pretty bad, especially in the mud.

I find it ironic to ban bicyclists in certain areas, who on average, are more environmentally aware of horseback riders.

I think the whole concept comes from "artificial tread" on the trail, as in tire tracks. We hear that it's about creating a single endless line on the trail that leads to erosion. But if hiker and horses frequent this trail, that should void the "single rut" theory.

It's my opinion that a 2.5" wide tire track causes less trail erosion than 2 5" wide shoe tracks, with a span of 2' wide.

[fourtycal]

Fine I will just ignore it since no one seems to share my opinion.

Hey I been ignoring it all day :haha: It is an enviromental thread but what the hey.

As I age I feel less inclined to hike and more inclined to drive or ride. I believe in protecting certain land against certain things (being sold or leased and closed by enviromentaists or hunting groups or developers or private parties). but there has to be a good way to protect this land and allow public use to more than just hikers. What is wrong with designating corridor for existing roads and trails in wilderness area for motorized and non motorized use? Like the Dark Canyon motorized corridor from the Kigalia canyon trailhead to Scorup Cabin, what a great way to enjoy this historic place while jeeping,biking, atv's, etc.. and at the same time be surrounded by designated wilderness area.

[Scott P]

Hmmm, does every thread on this site have to be controversial? :ne_nau:

Two people were just curious about how many mountain bikers also support wilderness and how many mountain bikers do not. What so controveral or hard about that? I just thought it would be interesting.

I have made the questions with as little bias as possible, invited people to state their opinion and have even asked if anyone had a better idea about how to phrase the question or asnwers to be clearer.

What is so wrong with an innocently asked question in a thread?

I even added the phrase "as long as it is reasonable" to keep any extemism of any kind in the thread.

Here I just thought it would be an interesting poll? Or maybe it really was interesting, but not in the way I had hoped. If anyone else has a better idea of how to phrase the anwers or question then by all means, feel free to start a poll.

For anyone that does think the poll is interesting, feel free to answer. It is based solely on opinion and there are no right or wrong answers, nor was I planning to debate anyones answer here. :2thumbs:

[asdf]

Or hikers do you think you should have to pack out the poop if you take a dump.

I'm not the only one that packs out his own poop? :roflol:

[fourtycal]

nor was I planning to debate anyones answer here. :2thumbs:

darnit! :sleeping:

Truth is I like it, as long as the good guys are ahead! :2thumbs: and really I do want to hear your opinion. "What is wrong with designating corridor for existing roads and trails in wilderness area for motorized and non motorized use?"

[price1869]

Or hikers do you think you should have to pack out the poop if you take a dump.

I'm not the only one that packs out his own poop? :roflol:

Tell me, is this really so bad? I find the biggest rock that I can still move, push it up, do my thing and then drop the rock back down. I'm always afraid that a little will squirt out the side, but it never does. I left a monster dump up on the grand teton, but the rock was huge. I have pictures if anyone cares to see.

[scoutabout]

I feel the same was as Gixxer.
There are so many areas I would like to ride but cant like the slick rock areas around temple mountain. I understand why you cant ride orv's up there but my bike would leave far less marks on the sandstone compared to an ATV or motor bike.

Less perhaps, but still detectable impact.

[scoutabout]

Or hikers do you think you should have to pack out the poop if you take a dump.

I'm not the only one that packs out his own poop? :roflol:

Tell me, is this really so bad? I find the biggest rock that I can still move, push it up, do my thing and then drop the rock back down. I'm always afraid that a little will squirt out the side, but it never does. I left a monster dump up on the grand teton, but the rock was huge. I have pictures if anyone cares to see.

I can't tell if you're joking or being serious. If I had to choose between irresponsible atv users and hiker-bombs under every rock, I'll take the atv tracks.

[price1869]

I feel the same was as Gixxer.
There are so many areas I would like to ride but cant like the slick rock areas around temple mountain. I understand why you cant ride orv's up there but my bike would leave far less marks on the sandstone compared to an ATV or motor bike.

Less perhaps, but still detectable impact.

It's not detectable unless you go walking in there to detect it . . . thereby leaving more detectable impact. A vicious cycle. :roll:

[scoutabout]

I feel the same was as Gixxer.
There are so many areas I would like to ride but cant like the slick rock areas around temple mountain. I understand why you cant ride orv's up there but my bike would leave far less marks on the sandstone compared to an ATV or motor bike.

Less perhaps, but still detectable impact.

It's not detectable unless you go walking in there to detect it . . . thereby leaving more detectable impact. A vicious cycle. :roll:

I was thinking of using a remote controlled model helicopter with a camera. I'll use it to find all your hiker bombs too. :roll:

[Death]

Wilderness areas are a good thing. I like to go out and never hear a car or bike or anything else but nature. I don't see how there hurting anything, if you want to see something walk up there or ride a horse. People need to realize that its not there right to ride there bike or there atv anywhere they please. I understand why there are no bikes its about no mechanized anything. Ever seen those poor trail guys having to cut huge tree's without a chainsaw? Everything is banned but horses and you and I think that's pretty cool to go some were like that.

[live2ride]

Wilderness areas are a good thing. I like to go out and never hear a car or bike or anything else but nature. I don't see how there hurting anything, if you want to see something walk up there or ride a horse. People need to realize that its not there right to ride there bike or there atv anywhere they please. I understand why there are no bikes its about no mechanized anything. Ever seen those poor trail guys having to cut huge tree's without a chainsaw? Everything is banned but horses and you and I think that's pretty cool to go some were like that.

I am all for things being preserved; however, if they want to keep things beautiful and natural horses should also be banned. There is nothing worse than being on a trail hiking with your family and a caravan of ten horses come throguh tearing up the trail and intimidating everyone. If people are against mountain bikes, I find it neccesary to also ban horses.

[TreeHugger]

I totally think that there should be places designated as wilderness with no bikes or anything else. Like Death said, sometimes I just want to chill, walk quietly, and hear nothing but nature. I dont always want to be on the lookout for bikes. As a mountain biker I find I have no shortage of great places to ride, and as a hiker, I would like to have the same option of having no shortage of great places to walk in peace. I see nothing wrong with that.

[Rev. Coyote]

I totally think that there should be places designated as wilderness with no bikes or anything else. Like Death said, sometimes I just want to chill, walk quietly, and hear nothing but nature. I dont always want to be on the lookout for bikes. As a mountain biker I find I have no shortage of great places to ride, and as a hiker, I would like to have the same option of having no shortage of great places to walk in peace. I see nothing wrong with that.

Even beyond that, wilderness designation is not always done with the object of permitting or enhancing certain human activities.

[Sombeech]

Horses vs Bikes.

I'm not a horse hater, because I own some. To ban bikes but not horses? Prejudice.

Horses tear up the trail more, and are louder. I think the whole mechanical thing is a bad classification. What is the definition of mechanical? Why are GPS' allowed? My knee brace? The reigns on the horse? The newest technology in backpacks? If mechanized travel is banned, I probably won't be able to hike the trail nowadays, you should see the shoes available now.

I love seclusion as well. I hate seeing other parties near my camp, it kind of ruins the weekend. We just have to work a little harder and change our timing for those secret spots.

[brettyb]

I totally think that there should be places designated as wilderness with no bikes or anything else. Like Death said, sometimes I just want to chill, walk quietly, and hear nothing but nature. I dont always want to be on the lookout for bikes. As a mountain biker I find I have no shortage of great places to ride, and as a hiker, I would like to have the same option of having no shortage of great places to walk in peace. I see nothing wrong with that.

I agree with Tree Hugger. I am a regular mountain biker who fully supports wilderness designation. There are places that are appropriate to ride and places that aren't, that should be set aside for foot traffic. Sombeech does have a point that there is a bit of a double standard regarding horses and mountain bikes. However, I don't think this is reason to allow mountain bikes into wilderness areas, but rather to restrict horses to certain trails?

The one big change I'd like to see to the wilderness rules is the elimination of domestic livestock grazing. It seems obvious that such practices are in fundamentally conflict with the concept of wilderness.

[Sombeech]

The one big change I'd like to see to the wilderness rules is the elimination of domestic livestock grazing. It seems obvious that such practices are in fundamentally conflict with the concept of wilderness.

I feel this same way. I was raised around the dairy so I'm not anti cow or anything. But when I feel I've worked pretty hard to get away from civilization just to see some cattle grazing nearby, it kind of lowers my self satisfaction. It's like, "I guess people come up here quite often then, to tend this herd."

Our conflict is this; We love the outdoors, love to share our experiences with others, and essentially invite more people to the trails. But we just don't want to run into them.

As far as mechanized travel, we realize that snowmobiles are allowed in these areas as well, just as long as the snow covers the ground. This bias is all mixed up.

[Death]

I have to agree if these are going to be true wilderness areas then nothing should be allowed in, just people. No horses no nothing.

[Nick Danger]

As far as mechanized travel, we realize that snowmobiles are allowed in these areas as well, just as long as the snow covers the ground. This bias is all mixed up.

Sorry. Snowmobiles are NOT allowed in designated Wilderness. Neither are deer carts, horse drawn buggies, and so on. You can't parachute into a Wilderness area or parachute drop supplies into a Wilderness area, you can't take off or land a hang glider. On waters in Wilderness areas, sailboards and sailboats are prohibited.

About the only thing that's inconsistant with current agency management regarding mechanical transport is river rafts or boats using oars and oarlocks (lever/fulcrum machine element) as opposed to a simple paddle.

ADA allows use of wheelchairs in Wilderness areas, but this is limited to wheelchairs that could be used in a public building, and the agency that's managing the Wilderness area isn't required to provide trails that are wheelchair accessible.

There can be exceptions for Search & Rescue, as was recently done in Utah (Pine Mountain Wilderness).

Wilderness designation is fine... in moderation. There's around 2 million acres of additional BLM Wilderness I could support in Utah. But the Red Rock Wilderness Act is absurd. My opinion is based on detailed review on-the-ground of its various incarnations since the early 1990's. Gee whiz, I even have a copy of "Wilderness at the Edge".

What's really exposed in threads like this is extreme ignorance regarding Wilderness. There are numerous other possible designations or planning direction that could be used to achieve the "why Wilderness gives me a big woody" reasons that are given above and in similar threads. Why are all these alternatives ignored?

Oh yeah, just about every time I've been in a Wilderness area, at least one plane flew near enough that its sound was noticeable. I'm sure glad I don't have so many bugs up my butt that it "spoiled my whole day."

[price1869]

As far as mechanized travel, we realize that snowmobiles are allowed in these areas as well, just as long as the snow covers the ground. This bias is all mixed up.

Sorry. Snowmobiles are NOT allowed in designated Wilderness. Neither are deer carts, horse drawn buggies, and so on. You can't parachute into a Wilderness area or parachute drop supplies into a Wilderness area, you can't take off or land a hang glider. On waters in Wilderness areas, sailboards and sailboats are prohibited.

About the only thing that's inconsistant with current agency management regarding mechanical transport is river rafts or boats using oars and oarlocks (lever/fulcrum machine element) as opposed to a simple paddle.

ADA allows use of wheelchairs in Wilderness areas, but this is limited to wheelchairs that could be used in a public building, and the agency that's managing the Wilderness area isn't required to provide trails that are wheelchair accessible.

There can be exceptions for Search & Rescue, as was recently done in Utah (Pine Mountain Wilderness).

Wilderness designation is fine... in moderation. There's around 2 million acres of additional BLM Wilderness I could support in Utah. But the Red Rock Wilderness Act is absurd. My opinion is based on detailed review on-the-ground of its various incarnations since the early 1990's. Gee whiz, I even have a copy of "Wilderness at the Edge".

What's really exposed in threads like this is extreme ignorance regarding Wilderness. There are numerous other possible designations or planning direction that could be used to achieve the "why Wilderness gives me a big woody" reasons that are given above and in similar threads. Why are all these alternatives ignored?

Oh yeah, just about every time I've been in a Wilderness area, at least one plane flew near enough that its sound was noticeable. I'm sure glad I don't have so many bugs up my butt that it "spoiled my whole day."

BIG DITTOS :2thumbs:

[nefarious]

Wilderness areas are a good thing. I like to go out and never hear a car or bike or anything else but nature. I don't see how there hurting anything, if you want to see something walk up there or ride a horse. People need to realize that its not there right to ride there bike or there atv anywhere they please. I understand why there are no bikes its about no mechanized anything. Ever seen those poor trail guys having to cut huge tree's without a chainsaw? Everything is banned but horses and you and I think that's pretty cool to go some were like that.I still don't know which way to vote on this. A single-track bike trail has such a small impact on an area, that I think everyone could take something away from this if we were all to compromise a little bit.

Why not have a very limited number of bike trails allowed in a wilderness area and a few hiking trails as well? Those who want a "true" wilderness experience could use the hiking trails, and those who don't have months of freetime to spend walking vast distances could make use of the biking trails. Also, as much as I hate sharing trails with horses, they shouldn't be completely banned from wilderness areas IMO.

I don't understand how a person could be upset by encountering cattle in the backcountry. I'm not saying it isn't a valid concern just because I don't get it, but I really don't. Besides, it's kinda' fun seeing hobo cows out in the boonies. They react differently than urban cows. When I peddle by on the bike, sometimes they rush up to investigate me, and other times they run like hell.

I guess I suck at this environmentalist thing, but I try hard. I want to be a good environmentalist some day. My take on the subject is this: Easily reversible impact should be allowed, if it proves to be a problem then it can be scaled back or even eliminated.

[Sombeech]

Sorry. Snowmobiles are NOT allowed in designated Wilderness. Neither are deer carts, horse drawn buggies, and so on.

You're probably right. I may have my boundaries mixed up, but I did see a sign at the Christmas Meadows parking lot that prohibited bikes, but allowed snowmobiles as long as there was enough snow cover.

[Gixxer]

I agree with Tree Hugger. I am a regular mountain biker who fully supports wilderness designation. There are places that are appropriate to ride and places that aren't, that should be set aside for foot traffic. Sombeech does have a point that there is a bit of a double standard regarding horses and mountain bikes. However, I don't think this is reason to allow mountain bikes into wilderness areas, but rather to restrict horses to certain trails?
The one big change I'd like to see to the wilderness rules is the elimination of domestic livestock grazing. It seems obvious that such practices are in fundamentally conflict with the concept of wilderness.

well said

[Scott P]

Thanks for all the responses. I think it's fair to say that mountain bikers are split fairly down the middle when it comes to Wilderness issues. That's all we were curious to know.

[UtahFire]

Thanks for all the responses. I think it's fair to say that mountain bikers are split fairly down the middle when it comes to Wilderness issues. That's all we were curious to know.

I'm sorry I didn't see this thread earlier. An interesting discussion. The only problem with your poll question is that you used the term "reasonable" when talking about wilderness designation. What is reasonable? I think most people support wilderness at some level.

If you were to ask "do you support 40% of the BLM lands in Utah becoming wilderness?" I bet your response from this mountain biker group would not be "split down the middle".

If you were to say that under ARWA many single track trails in the Swell and Moab area would be closed, you would get a very different answer.

Support for wilderness is conditional upon how "reasonable" it really is. ARWA is not reasonable and needs to be defeated by those of use who enjoy mechanized recreation.