important for all riders
Thread started by
pporras at 02.5.09 - 1:19 pm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Important Call For Comments: National Park Mtn. Biking Proposal Now is the 60 day comment period The U.S. National Park Service (NPS) has proposed an important rule change that will make it easier for parks to open trails to mountain biking. IMBA has been asking the NPS to make this change since the 1990s We now enter a 60-day commentary period to make the change official. IMBA has made it easy for you to lend support by filling out an online letter:
https://secure2.convio.net/imba/site...roxgyk31.app8b
Several groups are working hard to defeat this proposal. It will take thousands of comments supporting the NPS to ensure the rule is approved. Now it's your opportunity to lend a hand and make a historic difference. Please ask your family members and friends to sign the proposal as well. The more support we give, the better our change of passing the new proposal.
reply
Wasn't this supposed to be Bush's last deal?
Joe Borfo02.5.09 - 1:35 pm
reply
Don't they keep the trails off limits to protect wild life?
Roadblock02.5.09 - 1:45 pm
reply
This is a tuff call for me. Being that I'm a Sierra Club member 4 life, a hiker, a MTBr that loves to scare the fuck outa hikers, and an environmentalist, I'm really torn on this.
You download a pdf and send in a letter, info here,
http://sdmba.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=159&Itemid=19
User102.5.09 - 2:06 pm
reply
a MTBr that loves to scare the fuck outa hikers,
You sound like a great guy to share the wilderness with. NICE!
sexy02.5.09 - 2:13 pm
reply
Just copy paste the link! Yeah they close some trails off so that preservation can happen! This will help open designated trails for bikes!
pporras02.5.09 - 2:44 pm
reply
"Don't they keep the trails off limits to protect wild life?"
Not directly, the main problem is trail erosion. Skidding erodes trails, and riding when the trails are wet can be very destructive.
However, National Parks, and even National Wildernesses allow horses, which most studies show to have a greater destructive force than bikes. Horses also eat vegetation, and can act as a host for introducing invasive species, etc.
From a purely conservationist POV, the reason to allow any recreational activity is so that people will get involved in the parks, support them, lobby for more parks, pay for them, etc. Allowing mountain biking certainly would increase the support for many parks.
It's debatable whether the overall effect is positive. Personally I think bikes should be allowed, but car access should be much more restricted than it currently is. Most national parks are polluted by thousands of car tourists driving on the roads.
Also if it is harder to access trails by car, it would inhibit the downhill riders and shuttle MTBers, who are the most destructive riders.
zombiefiesta02.5.09 - 2:56 pm
reply
Nice post Zombie, covers a lot of views.
Roadblock02.5.09 - 5:58 pm
reply
zoombie fiesta you are the man and thank you my friend! I will see you on the road/trails!
pporras02.5.09 - 6:01 pm
reply
to hate on a thread that is asking for support.....
i mountain bike myself and believe that not every mountain needs to be climbed and not every trail needs to be mtbiked.
please DONT support.
preservation should trump recreation and natioanl parks are where i draw the line
some local parks are already fair game, do we really need more or are we all just too extreme for them now and need to shred in different places?
plus didint the rest of the mtb community get the memo and figure out that we can just go to some third world country and shred all we want there?
sorry but i think the attitude of entitlement to every road and trail- that the bike community takes- is a bit misguided.
and the notions that it will create support, interest, and revenue for parklands just rubs me wrong.
dont know i may be wrong but it feels like extortion---"you let us ride here and we will support parklands" isnt this something thats already in our best interest to do, even w/o bikes?
bicioso02.6.09 - 12:04 am
reply
So Bush was trying to fuck us over yet again?
Joe Borfo02.6.09 - 12:11 am
reply
sorry but really dont mean to hate...
it is def. a contentious issue...especially when you take into consideration questions about access as it pertains to the afformentioned horses and hikers but also rock climbers, hunters, skiers, and snowmobilers
actually im more on a rant about a militant and knee-jerk entitlement that the cycling community sometimes takes.
bicioso02.6.09 - 12:13 am
reply
This is why I said I was torn on weather I would support this or not. Tell you the truth, I don't even like horses on the trail. I do think MTBs should be allowed on fire roads and former jeep trails.
User102.6.09 - 12:15 am
reply
Nobody has acknowledged my mention about Bush trying to pass something about this in his last days of office, can someone back me up? If I'm right, don't you think it could be used as a good argument to dissuade people from wanting to support it, realizing that there may be something fishy about it to begin with?
THANKS!
Joe Borfo02.6.09 - 12:18 am
reply
They should ban horses and allow bicycles. Simple.
No, I don't need to ride to Half Dome or anything like that but there are plenty of less traveled natl parks that would do well with mtn bikes. You can already ride the Ossagon - Gold Bluff Loop in Redwoods Natl Park.
Allan, are you coming on the Memorial Day trip???
toweliesbong02.6.09 - 12:28 am
reply
borfo....
not 100% sure about bush and mtb....
but if im going to get "fishy" i think allowing mtb on trails will set a precedent that snowmobilers and their industry could follow and point too.....the connection with bush here would be that he supported snowmobiles in yellowstone.
conspiracy... maybe?
how much i believe that that is the case and should be a reason not to support? not much cause irregardless i dont think mtb should be allowed in national park wilderness areas.
bicioso02.6.09 - 12:32 am
reply
I didn't hear about the Memorial Day trip.
User102.6.09 - 12:33 am
reply
I sent it to the R2RRRR google group two days ago. check your yahoo account.
toweliesbong02.6.09 - 12:36 am
reply
Oh. I thought it had to do with mountain bikes. I'll have to dig it up.
Joe Borfo02.6.09 - 12:43 am
reply
The title of the email is "[R2RRRR Poker Ride] Wait, wait wait..." is that what you're referring to? Yeah it is confusing. BTW you aren't doing a poker ride at slab city?
User102.6.09 - 12:48 am
reply
no, it was titled HAPPY BIRTHDAY TOMATOES, i'll forward it directly to you.
no, no poker ride at slab city. it's unofficially back to it's originally scheduled time and place. unofficially.
toweliesbong02.6.09 - 12:52 am
reply
I think itd be horrible if bike were allowed into a wilderness area.
Horsepackers get a pass (because its the only way to reration hikers)
robin swabin02.6.09 - 12:58 am
reply
My girl's got it right! I'm built like a tank. And ahhhh dense down there too, if you know what I mean.
User102.6.09 - 1:00 am
reply
I FOUND IT EVERYBODY!!!
http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/27183753/wid/18298287/?GT1=45002
this was from the MR thread -
Prez Bush to help mtn bikers
If you don't want to click, in the article, it says -
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration plans to make it easier for mountain bikers to gain access to national parks and other public lands before the president — an avid cyclist himself — leaves office.
The National Park Service confirmed Tuesday that it is preparing a rule that will allow decisions about some mountain bike trails to be made by park managers instead of federal regulators in Washington, a process that can take years.
A park service spokesman said the rule would be proposed no later than Nov. 15 so it could be final before Bush leaves office. If adopted, the proposal would likely result in more mountain biking opportunities on public lands.
--More in article
So there! I was right!
What do you all think about that?
Joe Borfo02.6.09 - 1:04 am
reply
My opinion:
For a narrow minded mountain bike enthusiast, it's a plus.
For an environmentally conscious person, it sucks ass.
Joe Borfo02.6.09 - 1:07 am
reply
For the poor bastard maintaining the trail, it means increased upper-body strength to pound both of the "stay-trimmers" should they wanna scrap!!!!
bentstrider02.6.09 - 1:10 am
reply
"I think itd be horrible if bike were allowed into a wilderness area."
Why?
There are wilderness areas that should have never been designated wilderness. Areas with tons of man made improvements, that are within sight of civilization, and that don't receive any visitors. Just look at most of the wilderness in the California Desert Conservation Area that was designated in the last 10 years. Fucking absurd.
And why is rerationing hikers an excuse to allow a wilderness destroying stupid animal into the wilderness?
toweliesbong02.6.09 - 1:11 am
reply
Sorry Borfo, but the Wilderness Act of 1964 has been abused to no end over the last 20 years.
"The Wilderness Act is well known for its succinct and poetic definition of wilderness:
...an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain."
None of the designations over the past 2 decades meet that very basic criteria.
toweliesbong02.6.09 - 1:15 am
reply
“We’re able to enjoy the beauty without really disrupting pristine nature of the place. It’s a classic way for mankind to enjoy God’s gift.”
Me -
If he said it, it must be true. So you guys wana run amok in god's country?
User102.6.09 - 1:16 am
reply
I want people to be able to ride through it, if feasible. But I don't want people to be shredding it up.
Joe Borfo02.6.09 - 1:22 am
reply
"But I don't want people to be shredding it up. "
Absolutely.
toweliesbong02.6.09 - 1:22 am
reply
Most of the shredding and over use is from shuttling and wilderness singletrack rarely has easy access from roads so it's unlikely that it will get abused.
toweliesbong02.6.09 - 1:24 am
reply
You guys have to think not only about damage to the trail, but to the additional noise bikes will create. A bike is pretty freaking noisy if ever had a chance of listening to one on the trail. Opening the trails to bikes means more people on the trials, and not exactly the most wanted, such as hikers. Adding people on the trials would seriously reduce roaming areas of wildlife too. Not exactly the best way of dealing with wildlife that is constantly losing it's roaming area.
User102.6.09 - 1:38 am
reply
Use the trails, this keeps it from development, as park lands will be sold of in the future to help pay national debt.
The mountains and wilderness will be there long after the mtn bikers are done using it.
The erosion issue is B.S.
I have found that;
the people that bring up this argument suck at mtn biking, aka poor bike handling skills,and lack of fitness.
Dedicated81802.6.09 - 9:28 am
reply
F.Y.I.
horses create more errosion than mtn bikes.
Dedicated81802.6.09 - 9:46 am
reply
OK, don't everyone speak all at once...
Joe Borfo02.6.09 - 11:15 am
reply
dedicated818....
sorry cant buy your argument.
---"horses cause more erosion than mtb"?---
so than you agree mtb do cause erosion, albeit less than that of horses. so than the argument is not bull shit. it is real
---"I have found that;
the people that bring up this argument suck at mtn biking, aka poor bike handling skills,and lack of fitness."---
this is just silly you are making a blanket statement that is intended to undermine the credibility of my argument by attacking my character (and the character of those that share my view) by questioning my bike skills and fitness???
what, am i suppose to say that ive been riding longer than you, can smoke circles around you, and challenge you to a 24 hour non supported singletrack race over the GDMBR? so that you take my argument seriously?
please this kind of machismo will just delve what can be an interesting conversation about the future of cycling, issues over access and/or entitlement, etc... into internet shit talking.
bicioso02.6.09 - 11:22 am
reply
i also know for a fact that us true MTB's do maintain the trails we put so much time in! I have and will always clear or help to keep a trail proper! so one day others can use it and hopefully do the same!
pporras02.6.09 - 11:36 am
reply
"so than you agree mtb do cause erosion, albeit less than that of horses. so than the argument is not bull shit. it is real "
ah, peds cause erosion, too, so if we're going to create wilderness it should be closed to all human impact.
toweliesbong02.6.09 - 11:48 am
reply
wild = non-civilized.
People for the most part are civilized.
rayrayray02.6.09 - 11:50 am
reply
People are going to have to be allowed access to wild areas or there will be a shit fit. There's no way around it. You are not going to successfully close people out.
It's all just got to be regulated better. That has to be the focus.
Joe Borfo02.6.09 - 11:58 am
reply
Or we could burn the forest to a char.
rayrayray02.6.09 - 12:00 pm
reply
only if edward abbey had his way...
but i think the issue here is not horses or even humans using trails.
this will get us into a childish game of "well if they can do it why cant we....and if we arent allowed than no one else should"
my concern is how do we as cyclist (or mtb in this case) reconcile or responsively engage with different communities with divergent interest?
like do we say "well if you are afraid of erosion and so concerned with preservation than why dont you close trails completely?"
which of course seems very counterproductive to me.
or do we show by example that we have a record of trail maintnance, regulation, and enforcement?
which DOES exist but i believe not to a level that anyone should have any confidence in us.
i dont see any education program and/or a "leave no trace" attitude being a major concern with the mtb community/industry as a whole.
what i do see is a shortsightedness in the way we interact with our enviroment...which to me runs counter to all that is important and powerful about cycling.
(herein of course is the major rift between commuters and mtb and well the whole cycling community as a whole)
bicioso02.6.09 - 12:11 pm
reply
Wow, enough with the broad paint strokes. Not all mtn bikers are off-trail mtn dewd freeriding north shore yayhoos. Some of us have been riding singletrack responsibly for over 20 years, and I'm sick and tired of seeing areas designated as wilderness that don't even come close to meeting the wording of the wilderness act.
Cases in point:
Kiavah Wilderness, adjacent to Hwy 178
Owens Peak Wilderness, adjacent to Hwy 178
How can you have a wilderness experience when you're almost always in sight or hearing of a highway?
There are plenty more but I need to get some work done.
toweliesbong02.6.09 - 12:34 pm
reply
this is one of the great MTB sites im on and these guys maintain and know the rules!
http://www.socaltrailriders.org/
every one should know trail rules!
pporras02.6.09 - 12:39 pm
reply
bicioso - I understand that you have some issue about "knee jerk reactionary militant cyclists", but your point is really not being listened to in this forum, sorry. Perhaps you may try to address it again more skillfully to promote a healthy dialogue about your ire?
Otherwise, I think it's pretty much useless to argue that this proposal that Bush had opened up for us will be thwarted. I don't know what the right answer is, but I want to be able to ride in the wilderness - I just think there needs to be more attention made to how we will treat it through regulatory means. Pipe dream? I dong know.
Joe Borfo02.6.09 - 12:46 pm
reply
If Bush personally bought each rida their dream bike out of his own pocket, there would be a lot of people here who would find a way to hate him for that. Sheesh.
NixonTwin02.6.09 - 2:31 pm
reply
yeah people are making an effort (santa barbara mountain bike trail volunteers for example are putting it down) but i dont find it endemic to the culture yet....what seems to prevail is this i can ride where i want attitude.
although i dont know the specific area of preservation you are talking about i do agree that unfortunately sometimes "wilderness/conservation" areas are the handmaiden of land schemes to inflate adjecent real-estate values ("like hey pay million and come live here next to this wilderness preserve where your view will never be obstructed, theres also restricted access so you can have it all to yourself"). i believe national parks however to be another thing.
i guess what im interested in is figuring out how someone like me (and i would presume others as well) who rides mtb, road bike, commutes by bike, and pretends to be interested in a sustainable lifestyle and relationship with his enviroment mitigate what some may call a contradiction. like shit i got a downhill/freeride bike as well and would love to jam down some places that ive backpacked before. so yeah i feel torn as well. national parks are just where i draw the line...there are plenty of other places to ride.
bicioso02.6.09 - 3:21 pm
reply
Borfo -
bicioso - I understand that you have some issue about "knee jerk reactionary militant cyclists", but your point is really not being listened to in this forum, sorry. Perhaps you may try to address it again more skillfully to promote a healthy dialogue about your ire?
Me -
aaahhhmm actually I thought he was doing a mighty find job explaining his position, and pretty much mine. I did find 818's broham machismo dialog a bit over the top. Wait, I take that back, alot over the top. There does seem to be a bit of this entitlement going on with MTBers. I wouldn't mine bombing some of the trails I used to hike myself. But I also realize I'm not the only in these woods, and also realize that I would disrupting their blissful getaway. So I curtain my desires. This disruption, more than likely would not be the case hiking.
And for the record, I don't like horses on the trail. They make just as much damage, and many cases more damage than MTBers. I don't care if it's for supplying hikers or what. I don't like horses on the trails.
Keep the wild areas wild. If you do visit the area, minimal impact should be the creed followed.
User102.6.09 - 9:26 pm
reply
YOU GUYS ARE OFF THE BACK.
The wilderness trail mtb issue was 20 years ago. at he start of mtn biking. Not being mtb riders you have no credibility.
It's allways the non mtb crowd that complains. sniviling about mt bikers. Go join the Serria club . Lame ass hipsters.
Again if you could ride offroad you would be for trail access.
Dedicated81802.6.09 - 9:40 pm
reply
@bisco
I was riding and racing mt bikes when you where still swiming
in you dadys nuts.
A champion racer several times over, you would be lucky if you could eat my dust.
Dedicated81802.6.09 - 9:50 pm
reply
There's that broham machismo bs again! OK DedicatedTroll818, show me where this yardstick is that measures me if I'm a MTBer or not.
Your dribble leaves me with very little desire to be standing with you on this issue. I just wonder if others feel the same.
User102.6.09 - 10:02 pm
reply
I didn't hear about the Memorial Day trip.
User1
02.6.09 - 3:33 am
Maybe you weren't invited!
sexy02.7.09 - 1:55 am
reply
-->
Ridazz Roulette!
