Hikers, Horsepackers, Bikers, and ATVs

[mungeclimber]

Quote from: mynameismud on Today at 08:22:07 AM

I agree and it really pisses me off that they allow corporate grazing, but not bicycles.  And, horses and pack animals.  There is no difference between horses and bikes.  Well it can be argued that bikes are easier on the trails (plus we poop less).


You know, at the risk of pissing you off Mud, I gotta say that I agree, I disagree, and I disagree.

1. I agree about cows. There is no justification that works for grazing cows in federal wilderness. Grazing was shoehorned into the law in 1964, but it's long outlived any usefulness it had. Plus the corporate welfare types who do it pay anywhere from 1/4 to 1/10 of what they'd have to pay for similar grazing on private land. It's a giveaway and it's wrong.

2. Although I used to agree with your comments about horses, I've changed my mind over the last decade. Here's why:

Over the last 40 years, it seems to me, we've gotten to a state in which fewer and fewer young people use the wilderness. Now, maybe I'm wrong, maybe I just see fewer young people using it. But I don't think I'm wrong, and it scares me.

It scares me because the less people know the wilderness, the less they will stand up for it. Ed Abbey said this succinctly: "The concept of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs more defenders."

Unfortunately citizens of this country all get to vote, whether they value the environment or not. They even let people vote who might want to put new tungsten mines (or some such) in wild and protected country.

Horses actually help with this issue, they help "create defenders." Many people are being brought into (and shown the value of) wilderness by horses. That is, horses are to some extent making wilderness defenders out of people who might not otherwise care. There is value in getting people out there (even fat, budweiser swilling horse-packer clients - who are not the majority mind you as far as I can see - can be shown the value of wilderness). This way of looking at this issue led to me becoming more understanding of horses and horse packers (and more willing to put up with their crap, and all of their negatives).

3. And I strongly disagree with you about bikes in the wilderness. The vast majority of hikers find that bikes seriously degrade their wilderness experience (the Wilderness Act itself talks about primitive, non-mechanized recreation; there's a lot of value in this type of experience).

Although most bikers don't see this, the degradation of a hiker's primitive, non mechanized recreation by bikes in the wilderness is very, very much like what bikers themselves would experience if they were "forced" to share their trails with motorcycles and ATVs (open Henry Coe to motorcycles!!). Would any sane mountain biker enjoy sharing a trail with motorized, off road vehicles? Hell no, it flat ruins the experience. It's no different for hikers, no different at all.

Would you as a biker want non-motorized bike trails opened up for motorized use? Should all trails everywhere be opened for any type of travel? Should the lowest common denominator prevail? Or should different values be accorded respect and protection in different areas?

And if you don't believe my comment that bikes seriously degrade hikers' wilderness experience, check into it for yourself. Try some of the PCT Association blogs and/or just backpacking web forum discussions. Bikers frequently flaunt the law in Southern California in particular; they ride wherever and whenever they please. It's a big problem in the eyes of foot travelers and you'll see it in these blogs and forums.

Oh, and I absolutely do agree with your comment about the relative trail impact of horse versus bicycle use: horses clearly have more impact than bikes. But that's not at all the issue, that's not what's led to mechanized travel restrictions in wilderness.

even fat, budweiser swilling horse-packer clients

First, I don't appreciate you calling me out like that. I haven't even riden a horse in the backcountry.     

Second, and slightly more seriously, how is a hiker with bear bells on, any different from a mtn biker with a bouncing chain? none. Both are annoying.
As mtnyoung calls out, the issue of hiker vs. biker in the backcountry is one of right-of-way. Bikers want to pedal without being impeded. Or they want to flow without being impeded. However, one of the main principles of right of way, in this state at least, is that pedestrians have the right of way.  Could this be mitigated thru trail management? Maybe. mtnyoung's example suggests no.  But its the idea of it being mechanized (and even more so motorized) that most folks cling to, and that the interpretation of the wilderness act refers.  But as you call out, it's the right of way that really drives that discussion. Why do horses get better treatment? If anything horses are more skittish around people than a mtn biker would be?  But bikes versus horses, that would only make that worse. Again, right of way issue, not mechanized/motorize categories. Horses trump the bikes, I think, by sheer force of historical use (and lobbying).

All that to say, I agree with mtnyoung and horse packers as additional defenders, but I also like having other defenders like mtnbikers. However, I don't think the bikes themselves degrade the wilderness experience. Bikes could be made to be ultra quiet. Then it truly would be just a right of way issue.



 

[Brad Young]

Not a bad idea to start a new thread on this subject, which has strayed from the original PCT topic (my fault there). Thanks.

First, I don't appreciate you calling me out like that. I haven't even riden a horse in the backcountry.    

Shit, I hadn't even thought of the Budweiser connection (and if I had, I can't picture you riding a horse into the back country anyway). But on the other hand, as they say, if the shoe fits…  

...However, I don't think the bikes themselves degrade the wilderness experience.

I completely disagree, and I think most backpackers/through-hikers/and wilderness users disagree (however, no scientific polling methods at work here at all).

It's not an issue of right of way at all; it's about ruining the wilderness experience. And I stand by the comparison to letting bike trails be used by motorcycles and ATVs - that would result in a similar degradation of experience for the bikers.

[mungeclimber]

can you be more specific how it is ruining the experience? I thought for sure we similarly aligned on the right of way. Your example was one of conflicting user groups on the trails at the same time, no?

1. mere presence?
2. sounds of metal on metal?
3. rutting of trails?
4. the silly helmets they wear?
5. harder breathing than the average hiker?

even more curious now

[Brad Young]

can you be more specific how it is ruining the experience? I thought for sure we similarly aligned on the right of way. Your example was one of conflicting user groups on the trails at the same time, no?

1. mere presence?
2. sounds of metal on metal?
3. rutting of trails?
4. the silly helmets they wear?
5. harder breathing than the average hiker?

even more curious now

Yes, conflicting, but not in a "collision on the trail" kind of way.

The conflict is in values, in the negation of the basic experience itself. One goes to the wilderness to (in an artificial way) get away from the hubbub, the clutter, the mechanization. The Wilderness Act recognizes this value in part of an explanatory paragraph:

"In order to assure that an increasing population, accompanied by expanding settlement and growing mechanization…"

So yes, the mere presence of bikes alters the wilderness experience (which is admittedly already artificial) in a very fundamental way. It alters the emotion, the feel and the whole journey.

I've already used the example of bikes and motorcycles sharing a trail. Forcing that kind of sharing would do the same thing as forcing backpackers and bikes together. In both cases the "lesser" form of transportation (hikers in one instance and bikers in the other) would suffer a huge decline in the quality of the experience.

Maybe the asinine argument that the "bolt everything" crowd uses is another good parallel. That crowd says "well just don't clip the bolt." Well, yeah, that sounds all good and easy, but as you know, the mere presence of the bolt (next to to a crack or wherever it is where it doesn't belong) fundamentally alters the climber's experience, whether the climber is "ignoring" the bolt or not.

[mungeclimber]

good analogy to argue from on the bolt presence!

If I can push a bit more for detail... what is it about the "basic experience" and the presence of the mechanization that is offensive?

We use liquid and propane stoves in the backcountry. Those are mechanisms of the industrialized world. Assume for the moment we allow stoves because there is a good counter veiling reason, namely preventing forest fires and preventing hypothermia in bc travel when campfires aren't permitted for cooking on.

It stands to reason that there could also be good countervailing reasons to allow for different types of recreation in the backcountry as long as it didn't involve a motor.  Canoes are a permitted conveyance in the wilderness, for example, in the Boundary Waters of Minnesota.

For some reason I think there is something else bolstering the notion of 'mere presence being offensive' as a symbol of an otherwise mechanized world. Something particular about the bike and its parts maybe. Not sure. I thought it would be sound, like metal on metal.



Oddly, I don't think it will ever happen that bikes will be permitted in wilderness, and I'm quite comfortable enjoying those regions without bikes. But I never understood the ruling on preventing mountain bikes, so I fall back to an understanding that this debate around mtn bikers is political and reflects a sub-cultural bias.


Now, about those bolts... those got to go! 

[mynameismud]

First I do not think the Wilderness act was speaking of the bicycle when it mentioned increased mechanization.  I think that speaks to vehicles ( cars and motorcycles ).  I know bicycles are lumped in as vehicles but any person that rides a bicycle and has been hit or ran off the road by a car does not feel like or really think they are a vehicle.

I a very aware of the hiker forums that are very anti bicycle.  In general the only place that you will find a pro bicycle forum is if you go directly to a bicycle forum.  Considering that the bicycle group is probably one of the largest and growing athletic users groups of the moment, I think ignoring them is a mistake.  I can personally attest that some of the biggest poachers (people that ride trails that are not designated for bicycles) are guys in their 60's and 70's.  I personally got to meet a group of these guys and was first amazed and blown away by the physically prowess then surprised at what they were riding.  These guys do rides that would kill most 20 year olds.  They poach because as they stated, they just do not have that much time left to ride good trails and access will not come in their lifetime.

Why did these guys turn to riding non designated trails?  Because trail access for bicycles over the last 40 years has been diminishing.  Some people say there are more bicycle trails now than 40  years ago and that is partly correct.  More bicycle designated trails.  However, 40 years ago almost all trails were open and yes we were riding bikes on trail 40 years ago even though there were not Mountain Bikes.  

I cannot count the number of times I have been to Open Space meetings and inevitably the outcome is the same.  All trails are closed to bikes and one or two fire roads are opened up.  I am beyond frustrated and very unhappy.  Do I poach?  Well the older I get the more I see the point of the group I met.  When caught, I follow their rules, be polite, always stay calm, always apologize, always except fault.  The only hostiles I deal with are equestrians.  Part of the problem is the younger crowd is not so polite they are just angry that they have less and less access and the access they are given is some mindless fire road.  The people granting trail access are completely disconnected from what people want to ride, which sure in the sam hill is not some flat, 4 foot wide "trail".

You want to have people for the environment try talking to some Mountain Bikers.  It is the largest excluded group of athletes out there and they are an unhappy group of people.  Try riding 80 miles over rough trails, bicycle riders are way more in tune with nature that equestrians (IMHO).  I see no correlation between a bicycle and a motorcycle when it comes to trails.  When I rode motorcycles I twisted a throttle, on a bike I peddle my ass off.

The trails we get are the left overs.  If it is passed over and forgotten and nobody wants it then we get  it (which does make for some truly beautiful and isolated experiences).  So we ride the roughest most isolated trails or build our own.  The rest are closed.  So we do what we gotta do.

I think a solution that has been proposed many times is to give bikes alternating days.

Does this make you think riding a bike is the same as a motorcycle?  Are these guys not experiencing nature?

http://bikepackersmagazine.com/highland-trail-550/
http://bikeportland.org/2013/06/25/exploring-the-oregon-outback-by-bike-89044
http://www.thebicyclestory.com/2014/04/donnie-kolb/

This is the same as a motorcycle?



Guess I will go back to dreaming of open trails.

[Brad Young]

I am not equating mountain bikes and motorcycles at all.

I am using (as an example) the way a motorcycle on a mountain biking trail would diminish a mountain biker's experience on that same trail.

How would you feel if the motorcycle/ATV crowd got it's way (they're very prejudiced against in land use issues) and had access to all trails at Henry Coe (the only place I can think of since I don't know mountain biking very well)? Would that at all diminish your biking experience there?

That type of diminishment is the exact thing that mountain bikers in wilderness do to hikers in wilderness.

It's not an issue of what means of transportation damages what. Horses and motorcycles clearly do the most damage to trails by far.

Sorry to say this, but guys who "poach" simply value their own "freedom" and their "right" to ride wherever they please over anyone else's freedom and right to enjoy a more primitive means of transportation and recreation. Other people simply don't matter in their decision making process. It's the exact same argument that the "bolt anywhere" crowd uses: their right to do as they please matters more than any other person's right of any type.

[Brad Young]

Also, I agree that the Wilderness Act was talking about a "bigger" type of mechanization. But it also repeatedly stresses primitive means of recreation and transportation.

And transportation is the big issue Rob. Yep, you hit the nail on the head - stoves are mechanized devices. We sometimes use other mechanized devices in wilderness too (avalanche transponders anyone?). The big issue is transportation, how we get around. It's admittedly a little artificial, but it's visceral, emotional and real too. The presence of mountain bikes ruins the wilderness experience for many/most back country hikers.

And "every other day" doesn't work either. Should my odd or even days on a backpack be affected?

Although maybe the kernel of a solution is there in that "alternating" concept too. I think I could live with a set but longer time period being set aside in some wilderness areas for bikes. Maybe not the heart of Yosemite and other hugely popular backpacking areas. But what if every last half of July was set aside in some areas for bikers? It'd be easy for hikers to avoid such places then and simply avoid the issue (if the issue bothers them). Could bikers live with such access?

[mynameismud]

I still do not see the relationship between the bicycle and the motorcycle although I have been given this analogy before.  It just does not work for me, in anyway.  I guess that is because I enjoy riding bicycles.  Most of the trails that I ride, that are less than open, I rarely see anyone so seeing a hiker kinda kills the moment.  So, I do understand what you are saying.

I think two weeks out of the year is better than nothing.  If I planned for it I should be able to knock out 500 miles or more.  That would be fun.

To go back to what you were saying about equestrians riding trails is good because they will advocate for trails, I find some irony in the statement.  I have met young guys (mnt bikers) that would vote to open up Wilderness just so they could get access.  I do think in time the issue of trail access for bicycles will boil up, because more and more people are riding and there are more and more restrictions.  I do not think I will see this in my lifetime.  The interesting juxtaposition is more small mountain communities are turning to Mountain Biking industry to revive their community.  Whistler has done well and embraced it openly (yes some complain but old recalcitrant men and women always will), OakRidge, Downieville, Graegle (just starting), Moab, Ashville, Park City (many ski resorts actually).

The problem is almost all these area's cater to the gravity crowd.  Most of the mnt bikers that really bother people are the young guns hell bent for leather that never really go more than 5 miles from a trail head.  These folks go the the gravity area's then want the same thing at home and people cannot figure out what the problem is.  In the Bay Area there are a ton of trails that are only open to hikers and equestrians.  It is us vs them and people cannot figure out why there is a divide.  The two groups do not co-mingle at all because they are against each other.  So no courtesies are extended, not on either side.

If you really want to get out and get away and want to ride something other than fire roads the options are quite limited.  I find it rather amusing when people mention the cross country experience and it will be where some organization put 27 miles together that basically zigzag around in a small area.  Wow, hey here is an idea, how about a trail where I can legally ride from one side of the Sierra to another (on a trail, legally).  I will tell you when that will exist, it will be long after I am dead.  Heck, you cannot even do that in the Santa Cruz Mountains.

I do not expect hiking trails to open up to Mountain Bikers and there is a part of me that does not want to see trails like the PCT to be open to bikes even though I have uhm (let's see how do I say this... I did not inhale    Oh, yeah parts of the PCT.  But, there is an undeniable part of me that wants to ride trails and really wants to ride trails that are not next to the road and more than 5 miles from a trail head.  I guess I want the "Wilderness" experience or at least the option of at least feeling out there while on my bike.  I know that it is not likely that I will be able to experience this without travelling out of the state that I live in.  I do know there are remote trails that are open, but that is mainly because most people are not aware of their usage.

Side story:
I typically always use equestrians to denote people that ride horses.  I do occasionally refer to some old school folks that ride as Horseback Riders.  I have met a few over the years.  My Dad is a Horseback Rider.  I mentioned to him how the equestrians and mountain bikers in the bay area do not get along.  He did not get it.  I said "the mountain bikers scare the equestrians".  My Dad got this real confused look.  I guess that is the difference between someone who knows how to ride a horse and someone that rides a horse.

[F4?]

I like carrots!


I think they got it right in Europe, putting roads up to the best views.

Then you can just drive up versus arguing about Bike vs. Horse.

[mynameismud]

Just to cover the topic a bit more from my angle.  I do not see the rap bolter / poacher analogy.  Rap bolters still have the same exact access.  They can go to any crag they want and climb side by side with any trad climber they want.

[mynameismud]

Ok, so one last vent session ( well maybe anyway).

I think what angers and bother me and others the most is the hypocrisy.  There is a local area where I live that was purchased and just opened up and bicycles were excluded.  Mid Pen denied bicycle access because of sensitivity to endangered snakes and frogs.  The consultant stated the concern that bicycles could run over and kill these critters but stated in their report that there was no data anywhere to support this finding.  So Mid Pen and the County of San Mateo are concerned about these Native species and yet they spay thousands of miles of roads (in the Santa Cruz Mountains) with pesticides that kill these same critters.  Just a few Months ago both La Honda Road (hwy 84) and Alpine Road were sprayed.  It is cheaper than mowing which they did last year because locals got wind of what they were doing and complained.  People were not so diligent this year.  So, no living creatures live there even though the space in question is off of Alpine Road.   La Honda creek is supposed to be protected.  Then there is the is the MTBR (yes the Mountain Biking Forum)  that shows where a snake was ran over by a vehicle on one of the fire roads in that park.  Who has better site lines a person on a Mountain Bike or some person in a full size pickup with a dusty windshield.  

A couple of Months ago I did a 60 mile mtb ride from the house with only having to ride a little pavement and some questionable trails.  I saw one snake with a crushed head so I stopped on moved it into the buses.  On the way back I saw a family huddled off to the side of the trail and another couple the man with a stick.  As I rode up I had to go slightly off the trail to avoid a large gopher snake sun bathing.  I stated loudly California Gopher Snake.  I few feet behind me I heard an audible relieved “ thank goodness” from the Mom.  By this time I was pretty much dead even with the guy wielding the stick.  I looked him straight on and said “ They are harmless”.   About 50 feet further I looked back and everyone was walking away from the snake and the stick was on the ground.  Obviously it is not bikes killing critters it is ignorance.

I have heard complaints that bicycles are noisy, this is kind of true, but bikes have come a long way from those old Schwinn Varsities that most people on this forum probably ride.  I mostly startle people by riding up behind them then saying “ excuse me mam, or excuse me sir” at which point they quite often look back surprised.  I quite of clear my throat about 30 feet back to make them aware but often they do not look and do not hear the bike so they think I am a hiker and ignore me.  So mostly it is not about noise.

It is not erosion.  Every study that I have seen where they look at erosion in a controlled environment comes back inconclusive when it comes to hikers versus bicycles.  Because it really depends on the specific terrain and soil composition.  Sometime it is the bike, sometimes it is the hiker.  The bottom line is, it just depends.

I have heard people complain about bikes on bike paths.  When you stand back and look at these most of these are not bike paths they are sidewalks.  Tahoe is a perfect example.  There are no sidewalks so as soon as the bike path goes in it fills up with pedestrians going out for walks.  Which is absolutely fantastic but it puts the bicyclist right back to the road.  Where people yell at you to get on the bike path.  Really, is it possible to ride from point A to point B on one of these?  Maybe as a short cut but to get anywhere you end up on the road.  Where basically you are a pothole.  No one wants to hit you because it might damage the car and make for a bad insurance claim.  Because no one except the most egregious offenders ever goes to jail for killing a bicyclist.  You will get in more trouble for drunk driving than for killing a bicyclist with your vehicle.

The real answer is this; it is summed up by a conversation/debate that I had with an equestrian at an Mid Pen Open Space meeting when I was working hard at getting her to nail down why she did not want a specific area open to bikes.  I did not like her ideology but I did respect her honesty.  She finally looked me in the eye and with no small amount of dislike and said, “ Because, I do not want to see them”.

Here’s to sweat in your eye
Mud

[mungeclimber]

Because, I do not want to see them”.

bias without basis

[Brad Young]

Here are my last few comments (I hope):

1. To boil down the comparison between bike "poachers" and the "bolt everywhere" crowd:

- Bike "poachers" do as they damn well please without being concerned that it ruins other peoples' experiences (their desires come first/only).

- "Bolt everywheres" do as they damn well please without being concerned that it ruins other peoples' experiences (their desires come first/only).

2. I disagree about erosion, but which activity causes what erosion isn't relevant to the main impact that mountain bikers have, which I have described above. In point of fact, I've been on many trails (especially in sloped, softer soils and especially in Southern California ) that are hard to hike due to a bike-induced, noticeable "'V" in the trail.

3. It sounds like many of the issues that you feel strongly about are local to you. They seem to center around small parks and open spaces that are squeezed into and between urban areas. Such areas are vastly different from serious Wilderness (with a capital "W"). I don't have opinions about those small areas ("small" might defined in this context as anything that isn't big enough to absorb at least a two day hike).

4. You used the phrase "long after I am dead" several times. Is there anything you should tell us or that we should be worried about? Actually, I hope you're well

[mynameismud]

Actually my greatest concern is overall access.  It impacts me the most in my daily/weekly/monthly life if it is local.  The problem is much greater.  We do go to the Sierra to ride because it is easier to do long rides and it is a good experience.  The Sierra are not that much different when it comes to access.  The trail system in the Tahoe area has expanded greatly in the last 5 years but that is mostly because the area wants the tourist trade.

Outside of that area bicycle access is limited to the trails that people are riding that the general population does not know or care about.  I am aware of the V erosion and the gravity comments that I mention do cover that.  Other than your hiking trails where does this crowd ride?  No one really wants to address this issue so it continues and actually gets worse.  There is a local area here that is being taken over by the County of San Mateo.  There are some known trails that the gravity crowd has been riding for well over a decade.  It is your basic V trail but hey, they like it even though they ride/push their bikes 5 miles up a huge hill to get there ( it takes 3 minutes to ride down this trail).  The locals do not care.  I guarantee the County closes these trails down.  So, where do these guys and gals go?

The trails around Tahoe show wear, it is not because they are ridden it is because of the number of people that ride them.  It is actually an over use issue that is exasperated by a lack of access.  There are areas where bikes are worse but in some places the soft tire does less damage rolling over something that your heavy boot.  I can guarantee that some of the area's that you recently posted pictures of have recently been ridden, and unless it is printed here you would not even be aware of it.

Some of the trails that I rode while off from work showed no wear at all.  They are out of the way and mostly secret for obvious reasons.  Once they are known they will probably be closed to bikes.  One trail was open and probably always will be because it is obviously unattractive to most hikers because of how rough it was.  The trail in some area's was so over grown that it was difficult to see 3 feet down the trail.  For me this was nothing short of awesome.

I do not mean to offend and I hope this does not damage but, you say that we poachers ruin your experience and do not care.  Yet you and your crowd care little for my experience and seem not to care and to completely miss the obvious bother that is, lack of access for those that want to ride.  This seems to be something that only people with hiking boots are allowed to do.  The typical hiker attitude is you cannot go there and we will complain about everywhere you try to go.  So we have a dilemma.  Where can I legally ride?  A few area's that have been developed around tourist communities, suburbs, and trails that have been developed for motorcycles.  Wow, so gracious.  The fastest growing group of athletes (covering the most ground) with the least amount of access, trails are over used and they are spilling onto non approved trails.  This is supposed to come as a surprise?

I am well and fairly fit.  Finger is getting better but will never be normal.  I say long after I am dead because I know it will require a different paradigm for me to be able to enjoy my bike in the wild.  For some of the recent less than open trails that I have ridden I would be surprised if you could really tell I that I had been there without you scrutinizing the trail.

Basically I see your point of view as, you just do not want to see them.  That is the current paradigm.  

[mudworm]

Last night, I was not getting much response from Mr. Mud when I talked to him. He was either busy typing away in front of the computer or deep in thought, which apparently also kept him awake for hours. Then I saw why. Great, everyone had their last words already, so I picked a good time to jump in.

The presence of mountain bikes ruins the wilderness experience for many/most back country hikers.

I think this sentence should instead read, "The presence of mountain bikes ruins MY wilderness experience." On second thought, following is probably more accurate, "I choose to LET the presence of mountain bikes ruin MY wilderness experience." After all, YOU are the CENTER of your universe, so that is your choice you ought to own. Over the years, I have had many encounters with hikers and equestrians. Regardless of location, I can't remember a single bad experience. What I remember most are the smiles I was greeted with and the encouragements I parted with. I believe most those folks chose not to let the presence of a mountain bike ruin their experience.

As for those "PCT Association blogs and/or just backpacking web forum discussions," the matter is many folds:
1. Just like the 90% of the cyclists I know do not frequent forums, let alone contribute, I believe the majority of the hikers do not either.
2. People who do register on forums and like to voice their opinions tend to be people who take themselves seriously (even if they don't admit it) and believe their opinions matter. (I'm typing, and my opinions matter!)
3. Those people are usually opinionated.
4. Negative opinions likely get to be written down. I do not expect to ever see a hiker's post that reads, "I ran into a bicyclist on the trail today. She gave me plenty time to find a safe place to step aside. I greeted her and she greeted me. Within a minute, she is out of sight and out of earshot. I continued my hike. Nothing bad happened and the scenary is unchanged as I here report."
So, there you have it... I do not believe opinions expressed in those forum discussions really represent the "majority" (a word used repeatedly in this thread) of the hikers or the majority of their experiences.

In point of fact, I've been on many trails (especially in sloped, softer soils and especially in Southern California ) that are hard to hike due to a bike-induced, noticeable "'V" in the trail.

Mr. Mud and I combined have participated in many days of trail work. We've watched manicured trails deteriorate when nature takes its course. There are many trails at Coe with "V" grooves, and I can tell you that these were not induced by bikes. They do usually appear on soft soiled slopes though. Of course, I've never ridden in So Cal, so I can't prove to you that those "V" grooves were not all bike-induced just like you probably can't prove otherwise either, but I want to point out that I am sure there are way more challenging trail features, such as boulder fields, roots, and jagged rocks, out in the Wilderness. Are these trails really THAT hard to hike in comparison?

Many people are being brought into (and shown the value of) wilderness by horses... There is value in getting people out there... horses clearly have more impact than bikes.

I don't get it. Why can't those people go into wilderness under their own power? Are they in anyway physically compromised that they require another living being to carry them in? Don't get me wrong. I've met some very cool equestrians, esp. out at Coe, and are happy that they and their willing horses get to explore the beautiful remote land. But I've always wondered about those beautiful beasts -- they are not running around at will to their own hearts' content; they are just strolling at a speed that their master/owner is comfortable with, which still beats standing at a barn all day. In the end, let's be honest: a horse is a transportation tool used by their rider. When you think about that, non-motorized bike riding is a much more honest activity and guess what, it can also bring people DEEP into wilderness if allowed to. Since we all agree on the greater impact that horses have on trails than bikes, where does the argument against bikes stand?

Horses actually help with this issue, they help "create defenders."

Maybe they do, but they sometimes help create more than that. They help create human beings, when stuck on a high horse, think they are higher than the rest of the common folk. They ARE higher -- it's no secrete that owning a horse is expensive, and even just regular horse back ride training on someone else's horse is out of budget for most families. And most training takes place or start out on closed tracks. Their sense of safety is created by exclusion, and often times, they equate the two, which gets carried to outside of the tracks. Yes, we all have the right to safety, and to many equestrians, that means they are entitled to having the trails to themselves --  I don't know if the Peninsula is all that special, but in my observation, horses help reinforce self-entitlement. Over the years, we've seen many equestrians "defend" their entitlement and succeed in cutting off access to many trails to other trail users, esp. bicyclists. I doubt many of their horses have seen the Wilderness (with W), and I actually hope they don't because that just mean more gas guzzling big trucks with big trailers on the road polluting the environment. Hmmm... talk about environment...

Unfortunately citizens of this country all get to vote, whether they value the environment or not.

I'm afraid that when talking about environment, we will all sound like hypocrites. And I actually believe we all are! Let's face it. The biggest factor that impacts the environment/nature is the mere existence of mankind, whose population is still ever growing. But even most of the extreme environmentalists do not stop reproducing in order to save the environment they otherwise fight hard for. Who here lives on solar? Who drives an electric car? Who have given up cars altogether? I will not be surprised that some PCT through hikers might be appalled at the amount of driving to and from each trailhead some non-through hikers incur. Brad, I applaud you and your family's very inspiring and very beautiful tradition of piecing PCT hikes and appreciate you sharing the memories, but can you deny the accumulation of your odometer? All I'm saying is, everyone on this site I believe is doing his/her own best to be kind to the environment, but in the end, we do what we can and we do what works (conveniently) for us. That's it. Nobody is really in a position to judge how much the next person values the environment.

Would you as a biker want non-motorized bike trails opened up for motorized use?

I believe that we all agreed that motorized use has no place in the Wilderness (or even just the wilderness), but when you use the analogy that motorcycles on trails to bicyclists is like bicyclists on trails to hikers, I can also take the analogy in the other direction -- think about the peace and quiet that all the critters and mammals have out in the wilderness until some loud hikers come along. Who is to say that they are less entitled to their wilderness experience?

To boil down the comparison between bike "poachers" and the "bolt everywhere" crowd:
- Bike "poachers" do as they damn well please without being concerned that it ruins other peoples' experiences (their desires come first/only).

- "Bolt everywheres" do as they damn well please without being concerned that it ruins other peoples' experiences (their desires come first/only).

Those people who "do as they damn well please without being concerned that it ruins other peoples' experiences (their desires come first/only)" are not bike poachers, they are just jerks, and they exist everywhere, and in every activity. Hikers can be jerks, drivers can be, climbers can be... The word "poacher" has a negative tone to it because it originated from people who fish or kill games illegally, but I think it was intentionally thrown onto bicyclists just to stir a negative feeling about them even when most of them do not leave trace behind, nor do they cause any damage to anyone or anything. There is some killer singletrack riding out near Lover's Leap. However, the bike legal portions are broken up with a 1 mile section of PCT connecting them. A bicyclist goes out there to experience the wilderness (okay, not the W). In order to get to the next bike legal portion, he has to take the PCT segment, so he does. Well, it is so remote that he does not see anyone all day. He does not see any tracks on the ground. He looks back, no tracks are visible from his riding either. He has the fun of life that day and goes back and knows that he will do what he can to defend that land to let to remain remote and natural. How is that experience any less romantic than a hiker's experience? How is he ruining anyone else's experience?

Now that "Bolt everywheres" analogy confuses me. I think I understand it but I don't know which group you really belong to, Brad. Did you not bolt some "climbs" that others free solo'ed up? Well, I'm sure you put in long and hard thoughts in every bolt you place and have your justification for each and everyone of them. I'm touching upon a sensitive subject here, but what I really want to say is one man's "bolt sensibly" can be next man's "bolt everywhere." And that leads to my conclusion...

Nothing is cut and dry, and rarely any opinion is truly objective. We are subject to our own opinions and subsequently, our view of the world and our own experience of the world, are influenced by them. Sometimes, the line between the actual world and our own perception is very blurry.  But when it comes down to it, opinions are also choices. For some people they are hard to change, but everyone lives with their own choices. You are a dear friend of ours, so I, as a cyclist among other things, certainly do not hope that my presence ruins your experience any day anywhere (other than this post), but in the end, it is still your choice.

Love to you all!

[F4?]

way too many words......

[Brad Young]

Alright, lemme reply to two things you said Mudworm. Then I've got to get my PCT trip report done for the just-passed trip (or I'll never get to it). Then I've got to get ready for the next trip with Dawsons coming up starting Saturday.

1. It seems a little strange to rework my description of my emotions from feelings that affect me into a "choice" that I make. I'm not sure I'd ever do that  to another person's claim about what they feel.  No, I don't "choose" to find bikes in the wilderness distasteful; they are distasteful. This feeling is no different, for example, than my dislike for the taste of mustard. I don't control that taste at all, it's not a choice - for some reason mustard gives me a gag reflex, I just don't like it.

2. And, grabbing just one sentence that isn't anywhere near the "heart" of a long series of comments, have I really bolted people's free solos? I can think of one such event - Jim Lundeen put up a free solo route up here and then specifically asked me to do the second ascent and to put bolts in it when I did. I can't think of any other time I've done anything like that. I know it's not a central part of your comments, but it struck me as an odd thing to say. Have I really done that that you can think of?

And of course we're dear friends. That goes without saying, but it's also important to say it when were disagreeing like this. And our friendship(s) won't change even though I sense that we will always have a tiny amount of disagreement on this issue.

[mudworm]

I will also be brief because I agree that you have other more important tasks to finish tonight.

1. I am quite conscious and anxious about behaviors that some jerk cyclists exhibit that have brought bad rep to the cycling community, so I feel a tremendous relief hearing the mustard example. Your gag reflex at mustard is apparently your own problem, albeit an unfortunate one, which I sympathize with, but I am confident that that the innocent mustard will never be convicted for its "wrongful" existence and will not be eliminated for a long time. BTW, you also have many co-mustard-haters if you'd like to seek support online.

2. "have I really bolted people's free solos? "
No, no, no, no... that's not at all what I meant and I know you guys are very territorial in who gets to work on/claim which route and you are at the forefront of respecting "rules."  Let me now use "you" in a more general sense (i.e. not specifically referring to you, Brad)... say, some lines you bolt are well within some others' free solo range (and I confirmed with Mr. Mud that he did free solo some bolted routes, and I will not bother checking with Alex.). Does that mean those bolts are not necessary and those route authors are in the "bolt everything" category? You probably will not agree.  But who really gets to dismiss others as the "bolt everything" "jerks"?

F4, sorry that's the shortest reply I can master.

P.S. Who is Alex? Alex Hannold! (When I first told my gym climbing partner shortly after hooking up with her that I became a vegetarian, she replied matteroffactly, "Alex is a vegetarian.")

[Brad Young]

... BTW, you also have many co-mustard-haters if you'd like to seek support online.

  

OK, thanks for the clarifications.