Forum
Buying gear? Please use these links to help 14ers.com:

More info...

Other ways to help...

A win for the San Juans

Colorado 14ers access and fee issues only, please
User avatar
Posts: 179
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 9:15 pm
Location: Durango, CO

Re: A win for the San Juans

Postby Vincopotamus » Fri Sep 30, 2011 4:03 pm

Bean wrote:Mountain bikes? Unconscionably destructive. Huge herds of cattle? No problem.


While one of the Wilderness Act's purposes is to protect the land in its pristine condition, it also aims to protect primitive travel - foot or horse. Those can be mutually exclusive, and I'm not defending it. But the real aim of keeping bikes out of wilderness isn't that they cause tangible damage to the land, but just the fact (interpretation) that they aren't "primitive."

Again, I'm not saying I agree with it, but the mountain bike ban has more to do with wilderness....ambiance....than land destruction.
Because I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me!

Online
Posts: 2025
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 7:44 am

Re: A win for the San Juans

Postby Doug Shaw » Fri Sep 30, 2011 4:04 pm

Bean wrote:Mountain bikes? Unconscionably destructive. Huge herds of cattle? No problem.

Can any of you Wilderness advocates explain this apparent conflict without looking like a hypocrite?


Easy - it's not a matter of destructiveness, it's a matter of natural vs unnatural. Bikes = mechanical, cattle = biological. As we all know, mechanical = bad, which is why I advocate hard time for anybody in a wilderness area who uses a tree branch as a component in any sort of levering or pulleying system.

(And before you ask - those steel bridges over creeks in the IPW were found created like that naturally and simply willed into position by the sheer power of the environmentalist's self of self-importance.)

User avatar
Posts: 791
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 12:16 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: A win for the San Juans

Postby Oman » Fri Sep 30, 2011 4:05 pm

In politics, you do what is possible. The Wilderness Act of 1964 couldn't have passed without support (or at least lack of strong opposition) from ranchers. Thus, livestock is permitted in wilderness.

I don't think mountain bikes are banned because they are, in your words, "unconscionably destructive." Bikes are banned because the law bans mechanized transport in protected wilderness tracts.

Sounds like you are a mountain biker who would open all wilderness to mountain bikes, and you also would ban the protection of new wilderness anywhere unless mountain bikes are specifically allowed in. This makes you a political minority within a political minority. You're certainly entitled to your point of view, but you shouldn't be surprised when people fail to genuflect to your apparent genius.

Posts: 174
Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 11:10 am
Location: Evergreen, Colorado

Re: A win for the San Juans

Postby JE242 » Fri Sep 30, 2011 4:09 pm


User avatar
Posts: 592
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 11:14 am
Location: Golden

Re: A win for the San Juans

Postby madbuck » Fri Sep 30, 2011 4:10 pm

Oman wrote:In politics, you do what is possible. The Wilderness Act of 1964 couldn't have passed without support (or at least lack of strong opposition) from ranchers. Thus, livestock is permitted in wilderness.
.


Yes, the simple answer to the question is, mt. biking (especially in its existing form) did not exist on September 3, 1964.

Re: A win for the San Juans

Postby lordhelmut » Fri Sep 30, 2011 4:42 pm

I think that makes the aggregious assumption that us "wilderness advocates" are also pro-stock. Again, it's not the additional wilderness lands that you seem to be against, but the distinction that bikes are not allowed in them. I am perfectly comfortable in my opinion that I support additional wilderness lands (regardless whether or not it excludes bikes) and, at the same time if I had my way, changing the definition to exclude stock. Unfortunately (for both of us to different degrees apparently), that's how the law is currently interpreted and doesn't seem to be changing any time soon. If you want to change the distinction for cattle/horses/llamas/etc and bikes, then that is a seperate fight. But it appears that the voices for additional lands are much louder than those attempting to change the way the law is interpreted (or at least going about it in much more cordial methods


Yeah, send those f'ing Llamas back to Peru and keep the trails poo free.

Online
User avatar
Posts: 328
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 8:33 pm
Location: Southeast CO

Re: A win for the San Juans

Postby sevenvii » Fri Sep 30, 2011 7:02 pm

Doug Shaw wrote:Easy - it's not a matter of destructiveness, it's a matter of natural vs unnatural. Bikes = mechanical, cattle = biological. As we all know, mechanical = bad, which is why I advocate hard time for anybody in a wilderness area who uses a tree branch as a component in any sort of levering or pulleying system.

(And before you ask - those steel bridges over creeks in the IPW were found created like that naturally and simply willed into position by the sheer power of the environmentalist's self of self-importance.)


Love it :lol:

Re: A win for the San Juans

Postby Bean » Fri Sep 30, 2011 7:22 pm

Doug Shaw wrote:Easy - it's not a matter of destructiveness, it's a matter of natural vs unnatural. Bikes = mechanical, cattle = biological. As we all know, mechanical = bad, which is why I advocate hard time for anybody in a wilderness area who uses a tree branch as a component in any sort of levering or pulleying system.

(And before you ask - those steel bridges over creeks in the IPW were found created like that naturally and simply willed into position by the sheer power of the environmentalist's self of self-importance.)

Best post in the thread.
gdthomas wrote:Bean, you're an idiot.

http://throughpolarizedeyes.com

Re: A win for the San Juans

Postby Furthermore » Fri Sep 30, 2011 8:10 pm

I was looking at the proposed additions and has anyone actually moutain biked in the proposed areas? I can only think of maybe 2-3 trails that might actually allow "decent" biking. I could be wrong as I am not a biker.

I am in full support of the addition as you can't make more "prestine" land; only reduce it.

Posts: 113
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2007 10:05 am
Location: Western PA

Re: A win for the San Juans

Postby XMULE » Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am

"You can't make more 'prestine' (sic) land; only reduce it."

Indeed. I don't have strong feelings either way on mtn bikes in wilderness areas. That said, it seems preferable to me to put irreplaceable pristine/wild/unpopulated lands beyond the reach of commercial developers now -- and then DO the hard work necessary (as opposed to simply bellyaching about it on 14ers.com) to craft reasonable compromises among all manner of non-commercial users (be they hikers, rafters, mountain bikers, hang gliders, nudists, climbers, Druids, kite flyers, etc) -- than trying to re-make those same areas into wilderness after they've been subjected to decades of commercial development/use.

Can anyone say "mountain top removal?" Visit those areas of WVA and Kentucky that have been subjected to mountain top removal (even or especially those that have been "rehabilitated") and then talk to me about your (ultimately) minor quibbles on which activities are and are not allowed in officially designated wilderness areas vs leaving them wide open to development . . . and which course is better, not just for our own selfish interests in the here and now, but for our kids, their kids and countless generations ahead.

Then read Encounters with the Arch Druid by John McPhee.

Thank you. I feel better now.
Se esmera, coracao
E confia
Na forca do amanha

User avatar
Posts: 46
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 12:40 am
Location: Arizona

Re: A win for the San Juans

Postby talamo71 » Sat Oct 01, 2011 12:24 pm

Put me down as agreeing with mtnfiend and Matt Lemke.

Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 12:32 pm
Location: Grand Junction

Re: A win for the San Juans

Postby Garrett » Sat Oct 01, 2011 2:19 pm

XMULE wrote:"You can't make more 'prestine' (sic) land; only reduce it."

Indeed. I don't have strong feelings either way on mtn bikes in wilderness areas. That said, it seems preferable to me to put irreplaceable pristine/wild/unpopulated lands beyond the reach of commercial developers now -- and then DO the hard work necessary (as opposed to simply bellyaching about it on 14ers.com) to craft reasonable compromises among all manner of non-commercial users (be they hikers, rafters, mountain bikers, hang gliders, nudists, climbers, Druids, kite flyers, etc) -- than trying to re-make those same areas into wilderness after they've been subjected to decades of commercial development/use.

Can anyone say "mountain top removal?" Visit those areas of WVA and Kentucky that have been subjected to mountain top removal (even or especially those that have been "rehabilitated") and then talk to me about your (ultimately) minor quibbles on which activities are and are not allowed in officially designated wilderness areas vs leaving them wide open to development . . . and which course is better, not just for our own selfish interests in the here and now, but for our kids, their kids and countless generations ahead.

Then read Encounters with the Arch Druid by John McPhee.

Thank you. I feel better now.


Where to start on this. I say leave it open to all use and stop designating land as wilderness here and in other places. Wilderness designation is outdated and just an easy way for the governing agencies to avoid appropriately managing public lands. Why not address individual issues as they present themselves and actually manage public lands as individual user groups present themselves.

I'd also like to add a few things regarding the mining aspect of this. First off, mountain top removal isn't always the case and all to often people jump to this scenerio because it stirs people up. The layout of a mine has to be determined by the geology of the area, the mineral sought after and the process that allows that mineral to be economically obtained. Secondly, Mines don't just pop up. It takes several years for a mine to happen and a mining company isn't going to just sneak in there one night and start mining. Mining in the US is highly regulated and goes through a large number of permitting processes which allow for public scrutiny and environmental assessment. It is all to common that people look at the sins of the past and think those will still occur today. Mining in the US had very few regulations and reclamation requirements up until the late 1970's. This led to many mines being left open, unreclaimed, and without regard for long term effects on water quality, public safety, etc. Today the US has the most strict mining law and regulation in the world, closing off areas to mining in the US sends the mining industry to foreign countries where real environmental disasters are allowed to happen and still happening because people in the US want $200 hiking boots, fancy mtn bikes, and a GPS but have no clue where they came from beyond REI. It is a shame that we close our lands to mining in a country where we have the economic stability and the public voice to ensure it is done responsibly and instead push the industry to less developed countries where the people directly effected are unable to have their say in the outcome and lasting effects of a mine.

We all depend on mining, logging, ranching, etc to live our lives, get to the trailhead, ride our bikes, go to work, and bs on this forum. Rather than coming to reasonable compromise between only non-commercial users why not come to reasonable compromise between all users, commercial or not. Leave the land open to use and manage the land appropriately for any user group that is actually using the land, be it recreational, Ranching, forestry, or mining.

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests