To: bbtcmembers@yahoogroups.com

From: "mtnwuff" <mtnwuff@yahoo.com>

Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 15:49:09 -0000

Subject: Show Low trails

Morning ... don't know what its like up there but down here in the

Sonoran desert its raining cats and dogs from the remnants of the

Pacific tropical storm. I swear, its greener down here than it is in

western WA! :)

Anyway, while I was in Show Low doing the Tour of the White Mountains

this past weekend I got the chance to ride some other "secret" trails

in the area. The White Mountain trail system is schweet stuff but

this userbuilt system is possibly even better. It was built by a

local who used to own the town's only cycle shop (Cyclemania). He

was located outside the town but right across the road from the

entrance into the "secret" [I.e., illegal. Mike] trail system that he built. His name is

Tom (don't know is last name) but apparently he picked up the moniker

of Bombadil so the trail system is referred to as Tom Bombadil's

Secret Trail.

Pretty darn cool riding! Tom is a singlespeeder and also likes to

ride trials so he built the trails to flow really well and also

incorporated rock ledges, tight corners and squeezing between trees.

Great fun and there was even a couple log rides. I made the one I

tried (the log spanned a wash) and got a little respect from the

group I was riding with. They asked if I was a freerider. I know

you're all rolling on the floor holding onto your aching sides from

laughter after reading that last sentence.

The trails are marked with elk bones hung from the brances with the

trail name marked on them. The bones are still there but most of the

names have faded off. We rode trails named Petrified (you can see

petrified rock along the trail) and Axle (an old rear axle is propped

alonside the trail). I can't remember some of the others.

The funny thing is that just before I was told the name of the trail

system (we were riding at the time) I had been thinking to myself

about hobbits. I'm hoping that I'll be able to get my hands on a

trail map. So ... if you get down to the Show Low, AZ area be sure

to hook up with some locals (Cyclemania is still in business but in a

different location) and get the skinny on Tom Bombadil's Secret

Trails. I bet that you'll be smiling ear to ear while riding them.

Kevin Axt

(temporarily)Tucson, AZ

To: romp@topica.com

From: "Jason L. Buberel" <jason@buberel.org>

Subject: Re: [ROMP] Big Basin State Park General Plan

Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 14:59:58 -0700

List-Help: <http://topica.com/lists/romp@topica.com/>

Eric (and others who have experience in the advocacy department):

Could you help out some newbies on the list and perhaps give us a quick

summary of some of the proposed changes that we sould be objecting to...with

perhaps a few short talking points that we can use in an email to Robin

Ettinger (TEL 916-445-8905, mailto:retti@parks.ca.gov)?

Or should we print out each of the 3 'Possibilities' PDF documents, check the

items that we support, and mail our completed forms ASAP? In doing so, are

there some specific line items that we ought to be strongly for or strongly

against? Because these line items are simplistic summaries of the detailed

plans, my only fear is that I will check my support for some item without

having full disclosure.

What is the best approach?

Thanks for your dilligence in following up on this topic. Here is a funny

observation: Had I not become involved in ROMP, and sat in on last evening's

meeting, I would have never known that designating space as 'Wilderness'

meant removing bike access to that area. On face value, expanding wilderness

area sounds like such a great thing! Why would anyone ever oppose it? :) [Why, indeed?! Mike]

-jason

To: bbtcmembers@yahoogroups.com

From: Mire Levy <mire1113@yahoo.com>

Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 14:20:09 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Why not mountain biking?

So, I just read in today's WSJ a blurb about how hiking is one of the fastest-growing activities in this country right now, and that hiking population increased by whooping 17% in last year alone. The article was really more about how expensive the hiking gears are becoming, but they are still talking about $400 GPS unit and $70 radio and $100 walking stick. I thought to myself, "Shucks, that's a pittance compared to some of the stuff MTBers spend money on", but then, it got me thinking.

Someone in the industry told me just recently that year-over-year mountain bike sales is down by some 30% and that over 250 indy dealers already went belly-up so far this year nation-wide. This guy was not very optimistic about the future growth of the sport in this country. Why is this? Is barrier to entry becoming too high for mountain biking as bikes themselves become fancier and more expensive? Why do people go into mountain biking to begin with? Is it a futile effort to try expanding the base population of the sport by luring more casual cyclists? I'm curious because I need to decide real soon whether or not to bet my money on BBTC being able to achieve 1,000 membership by year end. Any thoughts?

To: romp@topica.com

From: john hurwitz <johnhurwitz@hotmail.com>

Subject: [ROMP] night riding

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 23:00:04 -0700

List-Help: <http://topica.com/lists/romp@topica.com/>

Does anyone have experience with night riding. Is it actually legal in any of the parks? If not, if somenoe wanted to (not me of course) ride locally at night. Where might they best be able to get away with it?

thanks.

John

[I would have thought it obvious that :

1. Nature is unpredictable

2. Speed kills

3. Bicycles, like ALL vehicles, must not be ridden faster than their limited stopping distance allows. Bicycles have very little ability to stop under off-road conditions.

4. Endangering oneself is bad enough, but the laws of physics imply that the same danger the rider faces is wreaked on anyone or anything in his/her path.

Mike]

To: nwmountainmudguies@yahoogroups.com, bbtc <bbtcmembers@yahoogroups.com>

From: Joel Green <joel@mountainmojo.com>

List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:bbtcmembers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 11:27:46 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Sad news from Bellingham...

The following was reprinted from the Bellingham Herald website.

Mountain biker in coma after fall on Galbraith

Daniel Graham of Bellingham is in serious condition at Harborview after Sunday mishap

The Bellingham Herald

A Bellingham man is in a coma at Harborview Medical Center after he broke his neck in a fall from his mountain bike on Galbraith Mountain.

Daniel Graham has some brain damage and is not expected to live, said Bryant Davis, a friend and neighbor of the Graham family.

Friends are starting a fund at Washington Mutual to raise money for his wife Scarlet, and son Quinn, who turned 10 on Saturday.

Graham, a manager at Federal Express in Burlington, was listed in serious condition Tuesday at Harborview.

Graham was riding with two friends downhill on Bob's trail, a winding chute on the west side of the mountain biking area Sunday.

He fell after completing a jump. He was wearing a helmet.

One friend administered CPR, while another ran down the hill to a nearby house to call 911, Davis said.

Galbraith Mountain, located just east of Bellingham, is perhaps the most popular mountain biking spot in Whatcom County, used by hundreds of mountain bikers every year.

Mountain bikers have been active on the mountain since the sport hit Bellingham in the 1980s.

Joel Green

Web Site: http://www.mountainmojo.com

Wed, 27 Aug 2003:

To: romp@topica.com

From: Jim Preston <jpreston@almadentrails.org>

Subject: FW: [ROMP] New Saratoga Summit Trail

List-Help: <http://topica.com/lists/romp@topica.com/>

Shane,

I appreciate the feedback. I do believe it is far easier for hikers to pass

on single track than the inclusion of far less maneuverable bikes in the

mix. I see no room for horses. Social rides are definitely high-impact on

other trail user's experiences, including mine as a lone bike - hiker. (I

generally hike and bike in the same trip. Walking the bike sometimes

provides a better nature experience for me.)

I was on the South Yuba Trail earlier this summer when 35 mtb'ers blasted

through on a charity race. OK, they were earning money for a good cause,

but I was constantly being run over, as were the backpackers and hikers.

Instead of a leisurely pedal along the canyon wall I was tense from being in

the way of their race. Like me, the hikers and backpackers were trying to

tolerate the depreciated experience.

Large groups have been banned in some wilderness areas, if not all, because

they substantially depreciate the experience for other users. Large groups

of mountain bikers do the same for me and other users, especially on narrow

trails. I'm not against social mountain biking. Location is the issue.

I think the Saratoga Summit Trail is the tip of the iceberg and there should

be a healthy discussion in ROMP about solving this problem long-term.

Running off the other user groups and forcing them to go through the process

of building another trail is not good for us. Marin is a different culture

than around here but we do not need to drift in that direction. I'm very

concerned that this will come back to haunt us at public meetings. It is

easy to blow it off if you don't get involved in the public planning

process. However, for those who make the very real time and emotional

sacrifice to attend those endless meetings and properly prepare their

positions, this issue would be un-welcome. Maybe because I've been through

this many times the red lights started flashing when I saw this

announcement.

It's a big deal and ROMP better get in the middle of this with shovels and

picks.

- jim

Tue, 26 Aug 2003:

To: jpreston@almadentrails.org, romp@topica.com

From: Crashcall@aol.com

Subject: Re: [ROMP] New Saratoga Summit Trail

List-Help: <http://topica.com/lists/romp@topica.com/>

Hello Jim,

Dave and I have been leading a ride at Saratoga Gap, on the first Sunday of every month for about 3 years. I have noticed that when we meet hikers they often have to get out of the way since the trails are too narrow in places to take both a mountain biker and a hiker comfortably (especially in the more technical spots). If there are 20 riders in our group the hikers wait patiently until we have all passed. Often there are many more groups of mountain bikers on the trail (typically in groups of 3-6 people). So, our hiking friends have to frequently stop and wait for mountain bikers on the trail. [This is the first and only time I have ever seen a mountain biker admit that narrow trails CANNOT BE SHARED! mjv]

The Saratoga Gap Trail is fun to ride. If the current trail would have to be modified so that all groups could use it comfortably, I would rather keep the trail as it is (with some technically challenging places) and let the hikers use a separate trail.

Claire

Tue, 19 Aug 2003:

From: "mtnwuff" <mtnwuff@yahoo.com>

Subject: Weekday Singletrack Fix?

Hello ... my name is Tews and I'm a singletrack addict.

Its been two days since I last rode singletrack. Yes, I'm weak and

need to get my fix more often than just the weekends. Lately, with

all the trail closures due to increased risk of fire, I've been

finding it harder and harder to get what I need to survive during the

week. Once a week, I go out in the Redmond area and get "stoned".

I even have my supply lined up so that I can get some "mud" --

\shudder\ its soooooooo nice \shudder\ -- but I need more. Help a

brother out ... share your stash.

Don't worry about recriminations from others. I've sunk so low that

I even wear my "mud" in public. Admitting your addiction is the

first step ... not to recovery, oh no, but to finding a constant

supply.

-- TSiS (Tews Peed in Seattle)

Sat, 19 Jul 2003:

To: romp@topica.com

From: J Savic <bewaremyethnicheart@yahoo.com>

Subject: RE: [ROMP] Digest for romp@topica.com, issue 961

>Jim,

>This is the first I've heard that there is a policy to have all trails

>open to bikes at Arastradero Preserve. It was my understanding that the

>loop around the lake and the perimeter trail would not be multi-use. On

>my way by the preserve yesterday I stopped to look for signage on the

>perimeter trail where it crosses the gravel road on the corner of

>Arastradero Road and found the trail completely unsigned. No name, no

tags >to indicate who is permitted on the trail, nothing. I wonder about

the

>loop around the lake now. I also looked up the map on Palo Alto's website

>and find both trails aren't even on the map. The map also doesn't

>indicate whether any trails are closed to bikes (it only says 13 miles of

>multi-use trail), and their rules and regs document says all dirt trails

>are closed to bikes unless signed open. Are they simply not

>acknowledging the existence of no-biking trails? I find this all very

>curious.

>Patty

Sometimes "don't ask/don't tell" is appropriate with respect to trail

access. If you ask, they may put up signs forbidding bikes ;)

Fri, 20 Jun 2003:

To: imba@topica.com

From: Tom Hays <thays@charter.net>

Subject: Re: IMBA: Fw: Mountain Bikes and Wilderness Forum

Pardon me if I missed a few steps -- what's the deal here? Is this a

misrepresentation of an action taken by IMBA leadership?

By the way, I find it hard to dispute the notion that there are sensitive

areas that should see no bikes, dogs or horses. Some that should see no

humans, especially since we tend to show up in huge Vibram-soled swarms.

Tom Hays

Mon, 16 Jun 2003:

Subject: Re: "mountain biking is an inherently dangerous sport"

From: VP <vp@gta.igs.net>

Newsgroups: alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,sci.environment,ca.environment

If there's anybody that reaches the depths of trails and such, it's mountain

bikers. Trekking by foot is so bloody boring.

To: <bbtcmembers@yahoogroups.com>

Jun 2003 00:53:45 -0500

From: "Bob Bournique" <bbtcrides@verizon.net>

List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:bbtcmembers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>

Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 22:53:44 -0700

Subject: Dumb and Dumber: Country cousin

Yeehaw! We rode 86.1dirt miles today. [Still think hikers and mountain bikers have the same impact? Try to HIKE 86.1 miles in a day!] Boy, is my butt tired!

We started late, we took wrong turns, Bob got lost. It was a wild and crazy one.

Thanks to all that came out and I hope you all enjoyed it.

Funny thing, I posted this ride 2 months ago and it filled up within 10 hours at the 15 person max. Then, I had people practially begging(well, some actually did) to up it and take them too. But, today, under beautiful weather conditions, we only had 6.

The up side of it was that we were able to keep moving and had 33 miles in by the time we got to Remlinger Farms.

No mechanicals we were not able to fix and not major injuries. ONe close up black bear siting and one scary, no food deja vu visit back to the MS rest stop in the back of Griffin Creek Road. (Don't ask.)

All in all, damn country fun and I'm already looking forward to the dirt century next year.

Thanks again!

Bob

From: Matt Dambrov <mdambrov@rpa-llp.com>

Subject: RE: Walking in the rain, and other SF biking issues

Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 12:48:26 -0700

List-Help: <http://topica.com/lists/sfmtb@topica.com/>

First, thanks to Aaron for all the effort he's been putting into this, especially since most of us have been far less active. I'm sure we all have our reasons (I know I do) but wanted to let you know that I really appreciate it.

Second, I think we need to get involved with GG Park, even if it means risking designation of boring trails only. The status quo is changing. The process is moving forward with or without our input. If we do nothing, there is no guarantee that we can just keep riding the same trails the way we do now.

I prefer the most challenging trails I can find - beyond anything in the park. Personally I don't think of the park as a destination for serious mountain biking - it's not big enough, the trails (even the illegal ones) are not very technical, and there are no real mountains to climb or descend. I head out of town for challenging rides. But I also ride in the park because it's convenient and perfect for an hour or so after work or for chillin' on a sunny weekend.

I guess what I'm saying is that even the most technical trails in the park are not that exciting for me, and therefore the risk that we might only be allowed on "boring" trails doesn't bother me that much.

And I don't necessarily think we should promote or argue in favor of a mountain biker's right to rip narrow singletrack with blind corners in a public park. Responsible riding can reduce problems, but with runners, hikers, baby joggers, horses, etc., even the most considerate rider is bound to have an accident on some of the tight, overgrown stuff out there. The reality is that mountain biking is dangerous when mixed with other user groups in a dense, popular setting, particularly with unskilled, uneducated riders. Not as dangerous as some might argue, but still.

If our mission is to promote mountain biking in the city, it seems better to have at least some trails designated as legal for bikes than to have biking be illegal altogether. I think more people will get out and ride if there are legal trails and biking is promoted as one of many legitimate park activities. We should be taking steps to make mountain biking in the city better and more accessible for everyone, not just skilled riders who are not challenged by fire roads.

Regardless of what happens, we will each make our own decisions on what trails to ride in the park. [In other words, we will ride illegally, if we don't get our way!]

-----Original Message-----

From: Aaron Thies [mailto:aaron@sfmtb.com]

Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 3:26 PM

To: sfmtb@topica.com

Subject: RE: [sfmtb] Walking in the rain, and other SF biking issues

Bill - Glad you were there... I didn't even see you.

Bill wrote: "2. The meeting got me to thinking that I'm a little concerned about any official pathway they make for off-road uses. I don't want to ride some boring multi-use loop around Golden Gate Park which is what it would probably be. I'd ride it at most once, and then only with the GF. The only type of trail that would interest me would be a reasonably contiguous singletrack loop through the wilder, hillier sections of the park, which I don't think is going to happen. Yet the singletrack is already there. If there were a specific mountain bike pathway then perhaps hikers would be less tolerant to our presence on the other trails, and cops might start enforcing the law rather than giving us warnings. I'm not really convinced we should change the status quo."

This concern you have is something that I wrestle with in my mind every day. I think that if we just show up at meetings and say "we want mountain bike trails" and then we go home and just leave it at that, we may get just what you describe: a 6-8 foot wide multi-use path. I agree, I'd rather have well thought out narrow width dirt trails, i.e. an interesting and challenging trail system that actually reflects what mountain bikers want. As you already mentioned, these singletrack trails already exist throughout the park (many of us have been riding them several times a week for many years, from Stanyan all the way to the Ocean, virtually uninterrupted). If we just do nothing, I think that it may have some short-term advantages but in the long-term we will just watch mountain biking get worse and worse and we will have no say in it. but I think that if we get overwhelmingly involved, there could be a different outcome.

If we want to continue to pursue mountain biking in GG Park, this is what I think we have to do:

a) Create a clear plan showing what an ideal multi-use narrow-width off-road loop trail would look like and what it would consist of. This plan would have to show how the existing trails in the park could be linked together to form one continuous trail and WHY this configuration is most desirable and why it could be successful. It would also have to present the concept of sustainable trail building & maintenance, the ideas of trail safety and user education, the opportunity for volunteer trail stewards and trail patrols, the concept of environmental restoration to offset potential impacts, etc. There would be many, many other benefits like tourism, health, etc.....

b) Get to know the individuals who are directly involved in shaping the plan. I already know everyone of influence in the SFBC, I have made contact with the executive director of the Concourse Authority and some of the Board, and I know one of the consultants within the Duffey Group whom I can talk to. I know no one in Parks & Rec... but I am quickly getting some info on this. Getting involved in Park & Rec activities and meetings would be useful, I think.

c) Present our plan in person to individuals within the SFBC, the Concourse Authority, the Duffey Consulting group, and the Parks & Rec Department.

d) Try to secure funding for a trails project. I have seen how the Concourse Authority works: if you can get money, many of the objections will go away. I personally have already begun looking for sources of funding.

Do you folks think that the strategy above is the right thing to do?

Would it be better to just keep the status quo and not try to get legal recreation status?

Do you think that our efforts thus far have been worth it?

As far as I'm concerned, Golden Gate Park mountain biking, if done right, could be a model for the rest of the world. If you support me I will work my ass off to make this happen.

Aaron

-----Original Message-----

From: William Mains [mailto:5htpete@concentric.net]

Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 11:06 PM

Subject: Walking in the rain, and other SF biking issues

Very cool meeting, thanks for alerting me to it. What nice architecture on the inside of City Hall. First, three cheers for Aaron and John for getting up there and supporting mountain bike interests well with the clear and compelling points you made before the Golden Gate Concourse Committee. I had to run so I didn't get the chance to say hi in person.

Here's a few thoughts:

1. Wow, the whole plan for JFK between Crossover and Kezar... that's really cool. For those who don't know, they are talking about splitting JFK lengthwise in two. The southern half would be two lanes for cars, and the northern half would be two lanes for bikes, rollerblades, etc., and some of the northern connecting streets might be closed to keep the bike pathway as unbroken as possible. Even if there were a mountain bike path implemented I still use that part of JFK far more than I ever would a dirt trail. I'm excited that's being seriously considered. Go SFBC.

2. The meeting got me to thinking that I'm a little concerned about any official pathway they make for off-road uses. I don't want to ride some boring multi-use loop around Golden Gate Park which is what it would probably be. I'd ride it at most once, and then only with the GF. The only type of trail that would interest me would be a reasonably contiguous singletrack loop through the wilder, hillier sections of the park, which I don't think is going to happen. Yet the singletrack is already there. If there were a specific mountain bike pathway then perhaps hikers would be less tolerant to our presence on the other trails, and cops might start enforcing the law rather than giving us warnings. I'm not really convinced we should change the status quo.

3. So, that's the rationale for why mountain bikes aren't allowed in the redwood grove. [Whimper] At least it can easily be dismissed by the plain fact of successful coexistance of mountain bikes, single track, and healthy redwoods with roots intact on many trails in the Bay Area, not to mention elsewhere.

4. It's unfortunate how the "damage to nature" (or however they phrased it) that us mountain biker cause just seems to be so taken for granted, without question, by certain misinformed policy makers. Not a surprise, but sad to witness it.

5. Somebody buy that poor old lady an umbrella!!

Bill

Wed, 7 May 2003:

To: "'bbtcmembers@yahoogroups.com'" <bbtcmembers@yahoogroups.com>

From: Bob Bournique <bbournique@damarmachine.com>

Subject: Something to ponder about trails and mountain bikers.

With the big BBTC/REI work party coming up and all the great work everyone

did on the Preston over the winter, I found a conversation I had yesterday

both frustrating and yet, understandable.

The age old dilemma(well, since the 80's arrival of the modern mountain

bike, maybe) riding closed trails just because the hikers don't use them.

I had a conversation to which they stated that the BBTC was awesome for all

the work that they had done on Tiger and that these bikers were very

appreciative of the effort.

However, these bikers will continue to poach the hiking trails up there.

"Because, the hikers are not using them...." They justify their actions

under the guise of doing limited trailwork consisting of carrying a folding

saw and clearing when necessary. Understandable, in many eyes. There are

virtually no trails out there that they won't ride and they indicated that

they know, "lots of bikers who do that."

When I indicated the political damage that their actions create, the irate

phone calls to the club president and land mangers. The response was that

they were doing hikers a favor by keeping the trails free of sticks and the

like. I'm sure there are many armchair psycologists out there as well as a

few professional ones who can explain in better detail the justification

process here. It's the same(I believe) as going 5 miles over the speed

limit. We know it's wrong, but...

The real difficulty is, I understand their dilemma. I don't condone it and I

don't poach the hiking trails either. But, I understand. Even if it makes

the BBTC's position that much more difficult. I too, "just want to ride my

bike."

Frustrating, but understandable.

Bob Bournique

2003 Rides Coordinator.

Fri, 2 May 2003:

[South Woods]

[R.I.P. 1997-2003]

5-2-03 The trails look like a parking lot! The wall ride is gone and buried and the only thing left standing are the trees and a couple jumps that the track loader couldnít get to yesterday. (Iím sure theyíre out there getting the rest of them today.) The property owners have the Shoreline Police on red alert, and are issuing warnings for first offenders and arresting for criminal trespass on the second. But theyíre not the problem, never have been, itís the shit for brains in charge of the organizations that own the property. You slimy weasels know who you are, and I know your reading this! Thanks for the notice pussies!

My advice to everyone is to not go down there - at all. I was way better off before I went, itís so sad. :-( Especially for those of us who have spent so many thousands of hours out there for the past 5 years, building jumps, making walking paths, respecting the place by keeping it clean. And oh the memories...

So weíll let the Briarcrest Neighborhood Association worry about it now. Isnít it going to be beautiful next year after they fence it all off and the holly and blackberrys grow back! (And this is how the weasels define land use.)

I think it would be cool to hear from people who have been out there and experienced the South Woods. Iíd like to post your comments, concerns, best memories... or whatever

Please contribute by sending in an E-mail and I'll get em posted!

Read Contributions

There are still a few more South Woods videos left, so hurry - Call Rama Fire: 206-364-9819 $15.

Tue, 4 Mar 2003:

From: John Wood <jcwood@pngusa.net>

Subject: Re: IMBA: Wilderness Paradox (Dirt Rag mag) article 2/03

I have to totally agree with Mike R. on this one. I feel there are really 3

separate issues here: 1) creation of new Wilderness areas in what is

currently a multi-use area, 2) creation of new Wilderness areas in areas

that truly deserve it (ie. the Yaak in northwestern Montana), 3) allowing

more use (ie. bicycles) in existing Wilderness areas. Of these, I feel that

#1 and #3 are bad, while #2 is good. The reason I oppose opening of

existing Wilderness areas to bicycles is simply because of overuse. As it

is now, many Wilderness areas are suffering from overuse, and adding more

users will just speed the deterioration. We can argue about whether or not

the authors of the bill intended to exclude bicycles, but I think we all

have to agree that the purpose of Wilderness areas was/is to preserve unique

wild areas in their pristine state for their own sake. These are areas

where recreation is supposed to take a back seat to the intact ecosystem and

all it's inhabitants, and to preserve these areas for future generations.

As a backpacker I feel I'm doing great if I can cover 10 miles in a day. I

know that horsepackers don't do much better. But on a bike I can easily -

well OK perhaps easily isn't the right word, but I can cover 40 miles in a

day, and I'm really not that strong of a rider. I don't know of many

Wilderness areas (and we are blessed with many within a few hours drive)

that would have any areas that would be out of reach of a single days ride

on a bike. I fear the impact this would have on my favorite places. I've

also seen others claim that bikes could be restricted to certain existing

trails, but anyone familiar with either Wilderness areas or Mtn. Bikers

would immediately recognize how ludicrous that statement is. In the near 30

years that I've been using Wilderness areas regularly, I can count on one

hand the number of times I've encountered a backcountry ranger. And as a

diehard mountain biker, I know that I'm in the minority as one who never

rides unauthorized trails.

John Wood

Missoula, MT

 

Tue, 14 Jan 2003:

From: "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com>

Newsgroups: alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,sci.environment,ca.environment

Subject: Re: save Marin hills from this

[me:]

> I'm scheduled to present my paper on that [habitat off-limits to humans] to my 8th international scientific conference. Apparently it IS being taken serious, by people who know more than you do.

 

I am not impressed. You are full of shit, and shouldn't be given the time of

day. That said, I don't really care what your elitist scientific conference

has to say either. They are a bunch of Mike Clones that have the same narrow

view of the world as you have. I much prefer to believe my 30+ years of

offroad adventures to know the real truth.

 

Thu, 2 Jan 2003:

To: IMBA listserv <imba@topica.com>

From: "Sean O'Neil" <soneil@ALPSNET.com>

Subject: FW: IMBA: Wilderness & exclusion of bicycles, a broader view

>> BTW, In Fall 2003, I've been granted a sabbatical by my university

to research this very topic. Jim Hasenauer <<

Excellent, Jim. I'd be happy to help with any legal analyses provided

I've got the time. I agree that human-powered transport indeed is in a

different category from cars/trucks/etc from many perspectives.

However, it would have been awfully easy for Congress to write the

Wilderness Act to exclude "internal combustion" and they did not do so.

I'm just using basic statutory contruction principles here.

I should add that in most cases, I don't think bicycles and wilderness

are a good mix. When I visit the Wilderness areas around Missoula, I

don't want to see mechanized anything. We Missoulians (and visitors)

are able to recreate in the Rattlesnake Wilderness, which begins within

city limits and extends outward. We can ride our mtbs up the main

corridor access (gated against cars/trucks/motos) for 22 miles to the

Wilderness boundary. From there we must go on foot.

At the same time, it bothers me that horses can damage the terrain more

than bicycles, yet horses are allowed in Wilderness under the Act. But

in truth, that merely represents history. Man has been traveling

backcountry trails (and non-trails) by horse for several centuries.

Legislation isn't always fair. Nor are the regulations that implement

legislation. However, I don't think the solution is to twist words

until they don't resemble themselves. I don't think the solution is to

request new regs that allow bicycles. And, I don't think the solution

is to push for bicycle access in Wilderness Areas.

Sometimes we riders forget that even the low-impact bicycle can and

should be restricted, for many reasons. As far as I can see, there is

little justification (legally or otherwise) for pushing to open

Wilderness to mtb access. It's hard to enjoy true wild lands if your

visit is encumbered by products of the industrial revolution.

BTW, I'm not some cipher who posts on the listserv to get info against

the enemy. I'm an avid rider who prefers highly

technical/steep/challenging terrain, and I see lots of that terrain in

Wilderness Areas. However, that doesn't mean I should act like a

spoiled child and whine because I don't have that access.

Sean O'Neil

Missoula MT

To: IMBA listserv <imba@topica.com>

From: "Sean O'Neil" <soneil@ALPSNET.com>

Subject: FW: IMBA: Wilderness & exclusion of bicycles, a broader view

Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 16:54:08 -0700

List-Help: <http://topica.com/lists/imba/>

>> BTW, In Fall 2003, I've been granted a sabbatical by my university

to research this very topic. Jim Hasenauer <<

Excellent, Jim. I'd be happy to help with any legal analyses provided

I've got the time. I agree that human-powered transport indeed is in a

different category from cars/trucks/etc from many perspectives.

However, it would have been awfully easy for Congress to write the

Wilderness Act to exclude "internal combustion" and they did not do so.

I'm just using basic statutory contruction principles here.

I should add that in most cases, I don't think bicycles and wilderness

are a good mix. When I visit the Wilderness areas around Missoula, I

don't want to see mechanized anything. We Missoulians (and visitors)

are able to recreate in the Rattlesnake Wilderness, which begins within

city limits and extends outward. We can ride our mtbs up the main

corridor access (gated against cars/trucks/motos) for 22 miles to the

Wilderness boundary. From there we must go on foot.

At the same time, it bothers me that horses can damage the terrain more

than bicycles, yet horses are allowed in Wilderness under the Act. But

in truth, that merely represents history. Man has been traveling

backcountry trails (and non-trails) by horse for several centuries.

Legislation isn't always fair. Nor are the regulations that implement

legislation. However, I don't think the solution is to twist words

until they don't resemble themselves. I don't think the solution is to

request new regs that allow bicycles. And, I don't think the solution

is to push for bicycle access in Wilderness Areas.

Sometimes we riders forget that even the low-impact bicycle can and

should be restricted, for many reasons. As far as I can see, there is

little justification (legally or otherwise) for pushing to open

Wilderness to mtb access. It's hard to enjoy true wild lands if your

visit is encumbered by products of the industrial revolution.

BTW, I'm not some cipher who posts on the listserv to get info against

the enemy. I'm an avid rider who prefers highly

technical/steep/challenging terrain, and I see lots of that terrain in

Wilderness Areas. However, that doesn't mean I should act like a

spoiled child and whine because I don't have that access.

Sean O'Neil

Missoula MT

http://www.IMBA.com