Forum Index > Trail Talk > Electric bikes soon to be humming along national park trails
Previous :: Next Topic  
Author Message
Tom
Admin



Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 16268 | TRs

Tom
  Top

Admin
PostThu Dec 12, 2019 1:01 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
The wilderness act says no mechanized transport.  You might not get away with rolling it but perhaps you could carry it over the wilderness sections.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
treeswarper
Alleged Sockpuppet!



Joined: 25 Dec 2006
Posts: 9332 | TRs
Location: Don't move here
treeswarper
  Top

Alleged Sockpuppet!
PostThu Dec 12, 2019 6:22 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Pahoehoe wrote:
NPS doesnt know Jimmy switched out the stickers so his over power and over speed ebike doesnt look any different from anyone elses legal class 1 bikes.NPS also doesnt know that the lever Jimmy says is for his dropper is actually the throttle.

From what I read of actual ebike experiences, from actual ebike riders, NPS and others don't care about stickers and throttles and power if Jimmy rides in a polite manner.  Of course, should Jimmy have all or not have, Jimmy is at the mercy of an enthusiastic Junior Ranger.   Also, I am thinking that stickers only apply to our state and others that have mandated them.  I purchased my last bike in Oregon and it has no sticker.  Nor does my Rad because it was purchased in the pre sticker days.  So, that sticker bit isn't all that great. 

This thread really demonstrates all the misconceptions and stereotyping done by non e bike riders.  It shows why such people should not be making the rules and how prejudice they are.

--------------
What's especially fun about sock puppets is that you can make each one unique and individual, so that they each have special characters. And they don't have to be human––animals and aliens are great possibilities
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
treeswarper
Alleged Sockpuppet!



Joined: 25 Dec 2006
Posts: 9332 | TRs
Location: Don't move here
treeswarper
  Top

Alleged Sockpuppet!
PostThu Dec 12, 2019 6:24 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Tom wrote:
The wilderness act says no mechanized transport.  You might not get away with rolling it but perhaps you could carry it over the wilderness sections.

You might have to disassemble a bike.  That's what crews have had to do with chainsaws, or so I heard, whilst carrying them through a wilderness area.

--------------
What's especially fun about sock puppets is that you can make each one unique and individual, so that they each have special characters. And they don't have to be human––animals and aliens are great possibilities
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Pahoehoe
Member
Member


Joined: 12 Oct 2017
Posts: 533 | TRs

Pahoehoe
  Top

Member
PostThu Dec 12, 2019 6:35 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
treeswarper wrote:
Pahoehoe wrote:
NPS doesnt know Jimmy switched out the stickers so his over power and over speed ebike doesnt look any different from anyone elses legal class 1 bikes.NPS also doesnt know that the lever Jimmy says is for his dropper is actually the throttle.

From what I read of actual ebike experiences, from actual ebike riders, NPS and others don't care about stickers and throttles and power if Jimmy rides in a polite manner.  Of course, should Jimmy have all or not have, Jimmy is at the mercy of an enthusiastic Junior Ranger.   Also, I am thinking that stickers only apply to our state and others that have mandated them.  I purchased my last bike in Oregon and it has no sticker.  Nor does my Rad because it was purchased in the pre sticker days.  So, that sticker bit isn't all that great. 

This thread really demonstrates all the misconceptions and stereotyping done by non e bike riders.  It shows why such people should not be making the rules and how prejudice they are.

By calling a vehicle with a motor motorized?
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11514 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostThu Dec 12, 2019 8:07 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Tom wrote:
NPS says all Jimmy needs to do is make sure his e-bike motor is 750W nominal (or less), use pedals (only) to activate motorized assist, and only ride where bikes can go (unless deemed inappropriate for e-bike use).  NPS doesn't say Jimmy can ride where bikes aren't allowed because he paid his dues.  NPS doesn't say Jimmy can ride his e-bike with throttle because he paid his dues.  NPS doesn't say Jimmy can have a 1000W motor because he paid his dues.  NPS doesn't say Jimmy can ride on bike trails the park superintendent deemed non-suitable for e-bikes because he paid his dues.  NPS doesn't say the you must pay your dues argument is bullsh##.  I do though.

up.gif

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11514 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostThu Dec 12, 2019 8:13 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
treeswarper wrote:
From what I read of actual ebike experiences, from actual ebike riders, NPS and others don't care about stickers and throttles and power if Jimmy rides in a polite manner.  Of course, should Jimmy have all or not have, Jimmy is at the mercy of an enthusiastic Junior Ranger.   Also, I am thinking that stickers only apply to our state and others that have mandated them.  I purchased my last bike in Oregon and it has no sticker.  Nor does my Rad because it was purchased in the pre sticker days.  So, that sticker bit isn't all that great. 

This thread really demonstrates all the misconceptions and stereotyping done by non e bike riders.  It shows why such people should not be making the rules and how prejudice they are.

You just haven't 'paid your dues', because somehow taxes don't count.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 6919 | TRs
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
RandyHiker
  Top

Snarky Member
PostThu Dec 12, 2019 8:23 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Brian R wrote:
The problem is that even when road washouts occur, wilderness boundaries remain static. In most national parks, a "cherry-stem" exempts 50' on either side of the road from its center. In other words, the cherry-stem is a non-wilderness corridor surrounded by designated wilderness.  Hence, when the river claims a section of road, a detour into designated wilderness becomes necessary. If you're on a bike, you are now SOL.

That's incorrect in a number of aspects.

1) The buffer zone around the road is a half mile not 50ft
2) Many of said roads were hastily built prior to the wilderness being designated in an attempt to prevent to entire valley around the road from being included in the wilderness.
3) The hasty road construction resulted in roads that were in poor shape very quickly.

Two notable examples are the upper Middle Fork Snoqualmie river road and the Taylor River road, both of which have been abandoned for vehicle access,  but converted to a trail for hikers and cyclists.

Can you provide a specific example of a 100 foot wide strip as you described?
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Pahoehoe
Member
Member


Joined: 12 Oct 2017
Posts: 533 | TRs

Pahoehoe
  Top

Member
PostThu Dec 12, 2019 9:11 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
I'm still waiting for someone to explain why motorized bikes should have an exception to non motorized rules because they perceive the impact of their motor not a big deal when bikes cannot have an exception to the no mechanized travel rule when their impact is obviously and empirically less than horse which are allowed.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11514 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostThu Dec 12, 2019 9:49 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Wilderness is about the absence of mechanized travel, not merely the absence of impacts.

If it was about the absence of impacts, entrance would be banned to everyone.

The reason for exclusion of motors in non wilderness areas was because of weight, exhaust, and noise. Those reasons do not apply to ebikes.

Not accepting an argument is not the same as not getting one. These arguments have been made for 40+ pages so far.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Tom
Admin



Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 16268 | TRs

Tom
  Top

Admin
PostThu Dec 12, 2019 10:19 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Comes down to rationale to designate non-motorized.  Lawmakers have decided to differentiate ebikes from motor vehicles and provide exceptions on roads, sidewalks, and shared use paths.  No reason similar exceptions can't be made where they don't conflict with the non-motorized rationale.  Here is a list of rationales per one FS map:

https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsbdev7_020727.pdf

Code Rationale
A Damage to soil
B Damage to watershed and/or water quality
C Damage to riparian resource
D Harassment of wildlife and significant disruption of wildlife habitats
E Damage to vegetation
F Damage to cultural resources
G Damage to other forest resource (natural or cultural)
H Public safety hazard
I Duplicate route
J Conflicts between motor vehicle use and existing or proposed recreational uses
K Conflicts among different classes of motor vehicle uses of NFS lands
L Motor vehicle use not compatible with existing conditions in populated areas, taking into account sound, emissions, and other factors.
N ROAD not needed
N TRAIL not proposed by motorized users
O Oil and gas lease access only
U Road/Trail segment on private property or dead ends on private property
X Land transfer (will be transferred)
W Trail is in, close to, or leads to wilderness
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Brian R
Member
Member


Joined: 09 Feb 2018
Posts: 254 | TRs
Location: Fircrest WA
Brian R
  Top

Member
PostThu Dec 12, 2019 10:33 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker wrote:
Brian R wrote:
The problem is that even when road washouts occur, wilderness boundaries remain static. In most national parks, a "cherry-stem" exempts 50' on either side of the road from its center. In other words, the cherry-stem is a non-wilderness corridor surrounded by designated wilderness.  Hence, when the river claims a section of road, a detour into designated wilderness becomes necessary. If you're on a bike, you are now SOL.

That's incorrect in a number of aspects.

1) The buffer zone around the road is a half mile not 50ft
2) Many of said roads were hastily built prior to the wilderness being designated in an attempt to prevent to entire valley around the road from being included in the wilderness.
3) The hasty road construction resulted in roads that were in poor shape very quickly.

Two notable examples are the upper Middle Fork Snoqualmie river road and the Taylor River road, both of which have been abandoned for vehicle access,  but converted to a trail for hikers and cyclists.

Can you provide a specific example of a 100 foot wide strip as you described?

You are confusing the buffer zone along the outer boundary of a designated wilderness area--where non-wilderness activities can still be partly managed--with road stems. For clarity, 97% of MRNP is designated wilderness. So, by your belief, every road in the park would have a half mile buffer. And, hence, nearly 30% or more of the park would be non-wilderness.

The CCC Road on the Middle Fork was built in the 1930s--The Wilderness Act was passed in 1964. Can you reexplain your premise? Yes, there were wilderness areas set aside before 1964--the first being Glacier Peak Wilderness in 1960.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 6919 | TRs
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
RandyHiker
  Top

Snarky Member
PostThu Dec 12, 2019 12:34 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Brian R wrote:
The CCC Road on the Middle Fork was built in the 1930s--The Wilderness Act was passed in 1964.

The CCC road only reached to near the confluence of the Taylor and the Middle fork.   The Taylor and Upper middle fork roads were built in the 1960s to access small timber sales far up those valleys.    Prior logging practice was to sell timber adjacent to prior sales -- but these sales were many many miles upstream -- it was a brazen attempt to exclude these valleys from inclusion in the Alpine Lakes wilderness.    Fortunately Congress saw through this and created "The Octopus"  -- the half mile buffers around the roads are too small for timber sales.

"Wilderness" designations in National Parks around park roads are created administratively -- they can also be revised administratively.    Wilderness area boundaries that are created by Congress can only be revised by Congress.

You didn't provide a specific example -- only a general idea.    Name a specific road or trail that has a 50 foot buffer zone that can only be adjusted by an act of Congress.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Brushwork
Food truck



Joined: 18 Aug 2018
Posts: 448 | TRs
Location: Washington
Brushwork
  Top

Food truck
PostThu Dec 12, 2019 3:42 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Actually, the upper Middle Fork Snoqualmie is not abandoned.   It is driven (regularly) by those with mining interests.

--------------
When I grow up I wanna play.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 6919 | TRs
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
RandyHiker
  Top

Snarky Member
PostThu Dec 12, 2019 3:58 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Brushwork wrote:
Actually, the upper Middle Fork Snoqualmie is not abandoned.   It is driven (regularly) by those with mining interests.

Road 56 past the Dingford gate is no longer maintained as a road by the USFS.   Property owners for lands beyond the gate have keys and perform manintenance required for vehicle usage.   I believe the most active mining claim in the Upper Middle Fork is for hot water at Goldmyer Hot Springs.  http://goldmyer.org/

I don't think fluorspar claims near the Chain Lakes have been worked for decades.   They were productive prior to 1901
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
jinx'sboy
Member
Member


Joined: 30 Jul 2008
Posts: 504 | TRs
Location: on a great circle route
jinx'sboy
  Top

Member
PostThu Dec 12, 2019 8:24 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker wrote:
"Wilderness" designations in National Parks around park roads are created administratively -- they can also be revised administratively.    Wilderness area boundaries that are created by Congress can only be revised by Congress.

You didn't provide a specific example -- only a general idea.    Name a specific road or trail that has a 50 foot buffer zone that can only be adjusted by an act of Congress.

Wilderness - DESIGNATED Wilderness - are never created or revised administratively.  Only Congress does that.

AFAIK there is no standard ‘buffer’ on any road or motorized trail in any Act - for any Agency - establishing Wilderness.  There isn’t any ‘standard’....not 100’, or 1/4 mile.  Every Law establishing a Wilderness is different.

Case in point.  The 1984 Washington Wilderness Act specified additions - then known as the ‘Pasayten Rim’ - to the Pasayten Wilderness. 
That year, while working for the USFS I sat in a room in Okanogan while other folks were on a phone call with Regional and National FS people.  I was just there to help draw a line on a map.  The call included staffers from Senators Jackson and Dan Evans offices, during the mark-up of the bill that spring.  The big-wigs in the FS, on the call, wanted the boundaries along the roads be placed 1/4 away from roads.  The Senator’s staffers were adamant that they be closer.  The FS countered with 100’; staffers held firm!  That was a VERY contentious and hard fought battle for Wilderness designation. 

Today, the proclaimed Pasayten Wilderness Boundary along the Iron Gate road from the paved Toats Coulee road to the Iron Gate Trailhead is literally at the edge of the clearing of the road.  Not 100’, not 50’....it is defined, in law, BY A LINE DRAWN on a map.  Literally, if you leave the road there, jump across the drainage ditch and touch a tree, you are in the Pasayten.

Here’s a link the language in the 1984 bill. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/98/s837/text/enr   See paragraph (16) for description.
Somewhere in the bowels of Congress or the USFS, that map exists, still.  It IS the boundary.

Notice that most of the other wilderness additions in the 1984 Act, were similarly described - by map, not by distance.  Other Wilderness boundaries are drawn, or described; by elevation, by stream courses, by metes and bounds, etc.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
  Display:     All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Forum Index > Trail Talk > Electric bikes soon to be humming along national park trails
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
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
   Use Disclaimer Powered by phpBB Privacy Policy