[BuddhaRoadkill]

I think a lot of mountain bikers find themselves in an awkward position when
it comes to "Wilderness". On one hand we dig forest, but on the other we want to ride our bikes. Right now there is a push to expand the wilderness around Mt Hood - which would engulf some popular MTB trails. Seems a test of values for sure. But, something new may be in the works:
Oregonian

Anyone have an opinion on this?

 

[RhinofromWA]

It didn't link to anything.....

Wilderness persey is good. Exclusion of all from it is not.

The idea has good intentions....like protecting the forrest. The plan to protect the forest by locking MTB, motorcycles, 4x4's is rubish! That is a plan backed by the Sierra Club and other green groups.

Seems awfully nice that they can claim the forrests for themselves.....

 

[LordOpie]

only non-motorized transports should be allowed in the forest.



trolling.Rhino++; :devil:

 

[ummbikes]

I pay a $10 fee to play in Oregon ORV areas. Would you folks who only ride volunteer to pay the same fees if it meant more access?

 

[oly]

..... im just glad we are doing the hood ride this weekend.......

Anyone read that article? It doesnt sound so bad...looks like mTB's are not being excluded.

 

[Tenchiro]

I pay a $10 fee to play in Oregon ORV areas. Would you folks who only ride volunteer to pay the same fees if it meant more access?

I already pay a fee for access, my freaking taxes...

 

[ummbikes]

I already pay a fee for access, my freaking taxes...

I'm not talking about riding what you ride now except paying for it. I'm saying getting new access, and paying for it.

Or, I can drive my gas guzzling SUV for free at Tayhua, or Elbe. In order to have new trails to drive I can pay $10, gladly, for two years of access to the entire Oregon ORV system.

 

[Get_Some]

being from Oregon I feel I should chime in... the Mt. Hood Wilderness area is pretty large, and it has NEVER stoped us from building jumps and trails in the area...Legislation will do very little...

As for the fee/usage issue... KISS MY ASS...I'll pay to take the Jeep out and play, but I never pay to Hike or bike in ANY woods in Oregon, there are nearly 0 facilities, and that's the way it should be, trail maintenanceis taken care of by the Forest service crews and bored wildland firefighters like myself...I pay taxes, and that more than covers all the land use issues, it's bureaucracy that causes money issues...

 

[kidwoo]

being from Oregon
..I pay taxes...

Oh come on, you know those two are mutually exclusive.


I know what you're saying though. Mt Rose wilderness is big enough. So is the sisters, mt adams (close enough to oregon), mt washington, mt mcgloughlin, basically every mountian in the state except for bachelor and broken top.

We're dealing with the same thing here in California. Right where I live there are 5 wilderness areas that are facing expansion, closing off hundreds of miles of great bike riding. Southern California is facing even more than we are. It's BS. If you go back and read the ORIGINAL draft of the wilderness act that passed, it's intentions were to preserve watersheds, reclaim logged areas as well as prevent new logging and development, and to keep biological integrity in tact specific to regions named. Then along comes the Sierra Club (f#$$@!n A#$%#@ armchair dictators!!), who in the 80's decided they didn't like mountain bikes on thier trails in Muir woods and Marin county and lobbied to have them specifically excluded.

After seeing the condition of the Rubicon Jeep trail which bisects two wilderness areas here (trash everywhere, jeep parts, oil etc), I agree with the non-motorized delineation but excluding bicycles is asinine. Sounds like some folks in Oregon are listening to this argument more so than California.

 

[ummbikes]

Oh come on, you know those two are mutually exclusive.
After seeing the condition of the Rubicon Jeep trail which bisects two wilderness areas here (trash everywhere, jeep parts, oil etc), I agree with the non-motorized delineation but excluding bicycles is asinine. Sounds like some folks in Oregon are listening to this argument more so than California.

I agree that the outward appearance looks bad in high use areas, like the Rubicon, but IIRC most of that land is privately owned.

Also, I have dabbled a bit in trail work with both mountain bike groups, and 4X4 clubs and far and away there is more real work done by the 4x4 and moto groups than the hiker/biker/horsey crowd.

That isn't to say that mountain bikers shouldn't be allowed EVERY WHERE hikers go. Because c'mon, the impact bikes have is minimum, especially back country epic XC riding impact.

So uhh, ya it would be dumb to exclude mountain bikes in these areas, but it would be just as dumb to limit motorized ORV use in appropriate areas.

 

[RhinofromWA]

Also, I have dabbled a bit in trail work with both mountain bike groups, and 4X4 clubs and far and away there is more real work done by the 4x4 and moto groups than the hiker/biker/horsey crowd.
<snip'n stuff>
So uhh, ya it would be dumb to exclude mountain bikes in these areas, but it would be just as dumb to limit motorized ORV use in appropriate areas.

A man after my own :heart:

I do have to say I wasn't expecting much of any sort of possitive word at all for motorized use. I guess if someone had recreated in a motorized vehicle (which ever) than they might offer a few positive words.

Do you offroad (4x4?) or did you?

 

[ummbikes]

I do, actually, the last few years I have done much more 4x4 stuff than bikey stuff.