Forum
Your purchase of a synthetic or cotton shirt helps support 14ers.com. Thank you!

Other ways to help...

A win for the San Juans

Colorado 14ers access and fee issues only, please
User avatar
Posts: 1958
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 12:55 pm

Re: A win for the San Juans

Postby Jon Frohlich » Fri Sep 30, 2011 7:47 am

mattpayne11 wrote:I support the legislation but agree that Wilderness Designation should be altered to allow for mountain bikes.

With that being said - the benefits greatly outweight the costs if that alteration does not happen.


Agreed. Changing the Wilderness Act or removing the regulation the FS put in place to not allow bikes (and hang gliders actually) in wilderness areas is a seperate issue from the issue of designation itself. I'd support modifcation of the Act or the regulation to allow bikes on some trails in wilderness areas but I don't think preventing new designations because of unhappiness with the current law is the way to go.

Re: A win for the San Juans

Postby Bean » Fri Sep 30, 2011 7:48 am

Floyd wrote: Personally, I would rather see the logging, mining and the like be kept out so the damage is not done and then for the bikers of the community continue to "fight for their right to party", so to speak.

I fully understand where you're coming from, but there isn't a great track record as far as governments becoming less restrictive rather than more. Fix the Wilderness interpretation and you'll have a whole lot more supporters overnight.

User avatar
Posts: 336
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 7:33 pm
Location: Southeast CO

Re: A win for the San Juans

Postby sevenvii » Fri Sep 30, 2011 9:02 am

I personally would prefer that mining is kept from the area, but hate letting the govt pass any more regulations. When big brother decides to protect something, its usually ill conceived and horribly executed.

It is pretty amazing how many of us hikers and climbers fail to see from others points of view. We act like we are the only ones who know how to enjoy the wilderness properly, and mtn bikers, hunters, atvers, snowmobilers, horseback riders and all others are ruining it for us :roll:

User avatar
Posts: 967
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 8:13 am
Location: Grand Junction, CO

Re: A win for the San Juans

Postby metalmountain » Fri Sep 30, 2011 9:33 am

sevenvii wrote:I personally would prefer that mining is kept from the area, but hate letting the govt pass any more regulations. When big brother decides to protect something, its usually ill conceived and horribly executed.

It is pretty amazing how many of us hikers and climbers fail to see from others points of view. We act like we are the only ones who know how to enjoy the wilderness properly, and mtn bikers, hunters, atvers, snowmobilers, horseback riders and all others are ruining it for us :roll:



I hate horse poop...
"The greatest battle is not physical but psychological. The demons telling us to give up when we push ourselves to the limit can never be silenced for good. They must always be answered by the quiet, steady dignity that simply refuses to give in. Courage. We all suffer. Keep going." - Graeme Fife

"I found that nothing truly matters, that you cannot find for free." - The Gaslight Anthem

User avatar
Posts: 175
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 6:47 pm
Location: Keystone, CO

Re: A win for the San Juans

Postby screefieldstevie » Fri Sep 30, 2011 9:36 am

More like a BIG loss....IMO
"Cause the Rocky Mountain Way Is better than the way we had" - Joe Walsh

User avatar
Posts: 1958
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 12:55 pm

Re: A win for the San Juans

Postby Jon Frohlich » Fri Sep 30, 2011 9:43 am

screefieldstevie wrote:More like a BIG loss....IMO


Loss of what exactly? Is there a specific trail impacted by the areas in this bill? At least as far as the Whitehouse addition is concerned I don't see any trails marked in that area. The Sheep Mountain SMA appears to be covering the Ice Lakes Basin area if I'm not mistaken.
Last edited by Jon Frohlich on Fri Sep 30, 2011 9:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

Re: A win for the San Juans

Postby Bean » Fri Sep 30, 2011 9:47 am

Jon Frohlich wrote:Loss of what exactly? Is there a specific trail impacted by the areas in this bill? At least as far as the Whitehouse addition is concerned I don't see any trails marked in that area.

Faulty logic. Just because something is not currently popular in an area does not mean it should be banned.

User avatar
Posts: 1958
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 12:55 pm

Re: A win for the San Juans

Postby Jon Frohlich » Fri Sep 30, 2011 9:53 am

Bean wrote:
Jon Frohlich wrote:Loss of what exactly? Is there a specific trail impacted by the areas in this bill? At least as far as the Whitehouse addition is concerned I don't see any trails marked in that area.

Faulty logic. Just because something is not currently popular in an area does not mean it should be banned.


Nope, and the question wasn't answered. You're making an emotional argument. I'm asking a logical question based on the areas marked on the map. You can't lose something that wasn't there in the first place. Also, found this as well:

"21,620 acres will be designated as the Sheep Mountain Special Management Area. Existing uses including heliisking will be allowed to continue, but no new roads or other development will be permitted."

So heliskiing is not impacted either.

Re: A win for the San Juans

Postby Bean » Fri Sep 30, 2011 10:03 am

Jon Frohlich wrote:Nope, and the question wasn't answered. You're making an emotional argument. I'm asking a logical question based on the areas marked on the map. You can't lose something that wasn't there in the first place.

You elitist walkers just don't get it. Where is the logic in your call to ban bicycles? Your entire argument is "you don't mountain bike there so you should be fine with banning it." I have not been there and as such am not familiar with the area; I assume there is at least one hiking trail in the area, what logical reason do you have to ban bicycles from areas that hikers and horses are allowed?

User avatar
Posts: 119
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 11:10 pm

Re: A win for the San Juans

Postby habaceeba » Fri Sep 30, 2011 10:04 am

Bean wrote:
habaceeba wrote:So you would prefer these areas still be open to exploitation by mining and logging interests just because you can't ride your bike there?

Politics makes for strange bedfellows. You Wilderness people are putting people who would otherwise be big supporters of the cause (for example, mountain bikers) in the same camp as O&G, mining, and logging folks because of your absurd interpretation of the law.

Let me rephrase your question for you: you would prefer these areas still be open to exploitation by mining and logging interests just because you can't stand to see a bike there?


Did you (Bean) mean to rephrase this question and pose it to me? Did you call me a "Wilderness person" too? If so, that's way too many implications and assumptions. If this is not what you meant, please forgive me for taking offense. I have nothing against bikes, but I do have something against exploitation for monetary gain by private companies of our public lands. The win comes from the fact that the land would be protected from this, not mountain bikers, hang-gliders, and equestrians. I'm on board with ammending those restrictions within the Wilderness Act of 1993.

User avatar
Posts: 1958
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 12:55 pm

Re: A win for the San Juans

Postby Jon Frohlich » Fri Sep 30, 2011 10:05 am

Bean wrote:
Jon Frohlich wrote:Nope, and the question wasn't answered. You're making an emotional argument. I'm asking a logical question based on the areas marked on the map. You can't lose something that wasn't there in the first place.

You elitist walkers just don't get it. Where is the logic in your call to ban bicycles? Your entire argument is "you don't mountain bike there so you should be fine with banning it." I have not been there and as such am not familiar with the area; I assume there is at least one hiking trail in the area, what logical reason do you have to ban bicycles from areas that hikers and horses are allowed?


Read my posts above. I supported modifying the wilderness act and the anti mountain bike regulation earlier in this thread as a separate issue. I never said what you quoted.

Re: A win for the San Juans

Postby Bean » Fri Sep 30, 2011 10:08 am

Jon Frohlich wrote:Read my posts above. I supported modifying the wilderness act and the anti mountain bike regulation earlier in this thread as a separate issue. I never said what you quoted.

Do you like having mountain bikers as enemies in the fight to preserve public lands? You "support" correcting the absurd clarification that keeps bikes out of Wilderness areas, and I've heard the same from many Wilderness advocates - so where's the action? IMBA refuses to stand up on the issue, so action is going to have to come from Wilderness groups.

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest