Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Wheels in wilderness bill gets hearing.
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
mb
Member
Member


Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 507 | TRs | Pics
mb
Member
PostMon Dec 11, 2017 1:53 pm 
Token Civilian wrote:
The likes of a Ms DelBene, Mr. Larson, Ms. Murray or Ms. Cantwell would probably be a bit confused if a bunch of chaps & cowboy hat wearing horsemen came into the office and were asking to oppose this legislation
Most of the Backcountry Horsemen groups are opposing this legislation. Not surprising--bike/horse user conflict is typically the most significant one, especially between untrained horses encountering untrained bikers. It's not a 'party line' issue by intent or values, but by politics. As an example, part of the reason Boulder-White Clouds is Wilderness was because Obama was about to designate it as a National Monument to offer it a good level of protection. But as you know there's a large 'anti-Obama' contingent, so they created a wilderness--sponsored by people who are normally pro-extraction industry, but wanted their own 'win' to deny Obama a 'win'. (Now you could argue over the validity of executive vs congress, but again that's not actually the issue, surely you've noted that many will argue whichever side of procedural issues they want to that day.)
DIYSteve wrote:
One of my frustrations discussing the issues with bikes-in-WAs advocates is that most of them limit the discussion to trails. IMO, trails are a side issue. The Wilderness Act is about protecting places. When a wild place that was accessible via 2 days of walking becomes a place accessible via 3 hours of bicycling, it becomes a less wild place and that change is irreparable.
By that standard, horses should also be excluded. They're not quite as fast as bicycling, but you can carry a whole heck of a lot more, and commercial packers use that to set up base camp deep in the 'wilderness'. Bikes have often less impact on the wild than horse or hikers--they tend to go off trail much less and spook animals less. (And eat and poop way less than horses.) Speed can be used to spend less time camping if that's an impact of concern.
DIYSteve wrote:
The Act prohibits "mechanical transport." A GPSr nor a stove has moving parts and thus are not "mechanical," and certainly are not means of "transport."
OK, it's true the act bans mechanized *transport*. This is the key argument after all--'mechanized' frequently means a device powered by external sources (be that a motor or a water wheel), but it's ambiguous. But that still leaves machines like climbing gear and skis., which have moving parts.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Schroder
Member
Member


Joined: 26 Oct 2007
Posts: 6696 | TRs | Pics
Location: on the beach
Schroder
Member
PostMon Dec 11, 2017 1:55 pm 
How about a road through Wilderness: King Cove to Cold Bay Road Project

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Randito
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9495 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
Randito
Snarky Member
PostMon Dec 11, 2017 3:17 pm 
DIYSteve wrote:
When a wild place that was accessible via 2 days of walking becomes a place accessible via 3 hours of bicycling, it becomes a less wild place and that change is irreparable.
^ This Also the claims of proponents that the participation of wheeled users will improve trail maintenance is tone-deaf to the goal of wilderness as a wild place when humans are rare visitors and the community of life exists in a primeval state.
1964 Wilderness Act wrote:
...an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence without permanent improvements or human habitation....

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Randito
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9495 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
Randito
Snarky Member
PostMon Dec 11, 2017 3:27 pm 
mb wrote:
By that standard, horses should also be excluded.
Bike advocates often get all worked up about the "impact" of hooves vs tires and their view that horses have greater "impact" than bike riders and it "isn't fair" that horses are allowed and bikes aren't. However such a view ignores the important role that horse packers played in the passage of the 1964 wilderness act. Without lobbying by Colorado based commercial horse packers on the Colorado congressional representative that was chair of the committee -- the bill would have never got out of committee and to the floor for approval (where it was widely supported: house 374-1 senate 73-12). So without including horses -- we wouldn't have wilderness trails to discuss about the maintenance backlog -- they would all be logging roads by now.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
DIYSteve
seeking hygge



Joined: 06 Mar 2007
Posts: 12655 | TRs | Pics
Location: here now
DIYSteve
seeking hygge
PostMon Dec 11, 2017 3:52 pm 
mb wrote:
By that standard, horses should also be excluded.
By what standard? My comment was about discourse with bikes-in-WAs advocates, not proposing a standard. The standard is supplied by the Act: no mechanical transport. IMO, making a place accessible to horses does indeed make that place less wild. But that's a different issue for a different thread. This thread is about proposed legislation that would radically amend the Wilderness Act to allow certain kinds of mechanical wheeled transport.
mb wrote:
This is the key argument after all--'mechanized' frequently means a device powered by external sources (be that a motor or a water wheel), but it's ambiguous.
That's like saying the term "fruit" is frequently used to refer to an apple, therefore an orange is not a fruit. And there's no ambiguity. A bicycle is mechanical transport under any reasonable and objective definition of the term. If Congress intended to ban motorized transport, it would have said so. But it didn't. It used the much broader term "mechanical."

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Pyrites
Member
Member


Joined: 16 Sep 2014
Posts: 1880 | TRs | Pics
Location: South Sound
Pyrites
Member
PostMon Dec 11, 2017 5:37 pm 
Gears, races and ball bearings, axles, chains, wheels, spokes, cranks. Sounds mechanical to me. A person in the trade of bicycle maintenance is a bike mechanic. No ambiguity at all.

Keep Calm and Carry On? Heck No. Stay Excited and Get Outside!
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
mb
Member
Member


Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 507 | TRs | Pics
mb
Member
PostMon Dec 11, 2017 8:40 pm 
There's no question that it is in the sense of 'simple machine', e.g. a lever, or 'complex machine', lots of simple machines combined. But so are skis and climbing ascenders, both used for transport and allowed under the current interpretation of the act. Though they are certainly simpler than a bicycle. What's ambiguous is that 'mechanized' sometimes means 'any sort of machine', and sometimes means 'machines driven by an external power source'. It's more like 'is a Tomato a fruit or vegetable' than 'is an orange a fruit'. As for horses being allowed because the horse lobby was significant in the 1960's. Well, the mountain bike lobby is significant today, or at least by # of people it's larger than horses. Why not broaden (or restore, depending on interpretation) the scope to human-powered? The 'unfair because horses' is valid when you say "no bikes because damage" or "no bikes because access". If damage or access are your reasons, then you should be against horses for consistencey. If you have other reasons, then maybe not. (BTW on access, there are 'multi use' trails which are now useless because they cross 1/4 of a mile of wilderness. You can ride up to either side, then turn around. The access argument makes no sense there, though on some places individual trails are excluded from wilderness to allow for a connection.)

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12798 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostMon Dec 11, 2017 10:11 pm 
We've had this conversation somewhere here before. By definition, the zipper on your jacket is a "machine", as well as your BIC lighter, that MSR reactor stove, and any number of other accoutrements you might have in your pack. Where in the Wilderness Act is "mechanical transport" listed in the definitions? (* the actual text reads: "...no other form of mechanical transport..." )

"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Randito
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9495 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
Randito
Snarky Member
PostMon Dec 11, 2017 10:14 pm 
mb wrote:
Why not broaden (or restore, depending on interpretation) the scope to human-powered?
Already answered multiple times above. "mechanized ambiguity" The law doesn't get into the nitty gritty of precisely what "mechanized transport" means. It's up to the administration to interpret and apply the law specifically in the code of federal regulations (CFRs). In 1964 the issue of bicycle use wasn't something anyone was thinking about. But by the '80s it was -- so the CFRs were updated to specifically identify bicycles as "mechanized transport" The CFR's also specifically identify sail powered craft as "mechanized transport" -- but allow the use of human powered watercraft such as canoes, kayaks, rafts and rowboats (with oarlocks!!). If you believe that the USFS has acted capriciously in this interpretation of the act in formulating the CFRs you are certainly welcome to sue them. (I believe that was already tried and didn't get very far) Overall MB the tone of your posts is "deaf" to the experience of others. Which is kind of the problem with Mountain Bikes in Wilderness Consider a trail like the Snow Lake trail at Snoqualmie Pass -- this is a very popular hiking trail in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness. Adding mountain bike riders into the mix on the same trail would cause a lot of conflict between bikers and hikers -- just passing each other on the trail even if everyone is friendly. Certainly some close calls would occur and possibly some injuries. Mountain bike usage to Snow Lake would reasonably require a second trail to be constructed -- as has been done through hard experience on Tiger Mtn. So if this ill-concieved bit of legislation gets passed and signed -- the USFS will have a ton of work to do figuring out which trails to allow bikes on and where bikes will not be permitted . (It is already the case that outside wilderness boundaries some trails allow mountain bike usages and some do not) So I would expect there to be a long series of lawsuits about which trails in WA may have bikes and which may not. There will be suits from bikers over some trails being closed and from hikers about trails that they feel should not have bikes. Sound like a typical "achievement" for the current administration -- more lawsuits.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
DIYSteve
seeking hygge



Joined: 06 Mar 2007
Posts: 12655 | TRs | Pics
Location: here now
DIYSteve
seeking hygge
PostMon Dec 11, 2017 10:36 pm 
Ski wrote:
the zipper on your jacket is a "machine"
A zipper is not a means of transport
Ski wrote:
as well as your BIC lighter
A Bic lighter is not a means of transport
Ski wrote:
that MSR reactor stove
An MSR Reactor stove is not a means of transport
Ski wrote:
any number of other accoutrements you might have in your pack
None of them are a means of transport

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
mb
Member
Member


Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 507 | TRs | Pics
mb
Member
PostMon Dec 11, 2017 11:01 pm 
Yes, the CFR allows executive discretion. I don't think mountain bikes belong anywhere in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness. (Well maybe somewhere obscure but not worth arguing about.) The reason I care is because hundreds of miles of trails closed to mountain bikes due to the combination of new Wilderness Areas in the past decade, plus the determination by some local managers that Wilderness Study Areas should also be closed to bikes (with no congressional anything). Many of these are in places where the usage is small enough that there is no user conflict. Many of these are in places where long-distance routes have been broken.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12798 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostMon Dec 11, 2017 11:53 pm 
DIYSteve wrote:
A zipper is not a means of transport
who said it was?

"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Randito
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9495 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
Randito
Snarky Member
PostTue Dec 12, 2017 5:18 am 
mb wrote:
I don't think mountain bikes belong anywhere in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness. (Well maybe somewhere obscure but not worth arguing about.)
Well the current bill is very broad and makes no distinction between Wilderness areas close to urban centers and those far away with very few visitors. The motorized wheelchair provision seems ripe for unintended consequences-- since the current bill doesn't limit motorized use to the disabled, nor distinguish between electric and gasoline powered wheelchairs.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Token Civilian
Member
Member


Joined: 02 Sep 2010
Posts: 590 | TRs | Pics
Token Civilian
Member
PostTue Dec 12, 2017 7:23 am 
MB As is typical of the wheel crowd, as shown by your posts, you are deceptive in trying to conflate things that are not transportation with those that are. Its tiring, so just quit it. That dog don't hunt. You also attempt to shift to the impact question, some how implying that not only does a bike do less damage than a horse, but that then justifies putting mechanized transport into Wilderness. As to skis - exactly what form a mechanization is there in a polished stick? Are you seriously trying to say the toe pivot pin of the boot that is hooked by the little clip thing on the binding of my cross country ski is a machine comparable with a wheeled vehicle like a bike or horse drawn cart?

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
DIYSteve
seeking hygge



Joined: 06 Mar 2007
Posts: 12655 | TRs | Pics
Location: here now
DIYSteve
seeking hygge
PostTue Dec 12, 2017 9:52 am 
Ski wrote:
who said it was?
plucking out an adjective and ignoring the noun in attempt to make a point about legislative interpretation is the funnhee

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 Reply to topic
Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Wheels in wilderness bill gets hearing.
  Happy Birthday noahk!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum