Poaching Wilderness- Ever done it??

First off: I've never poached wilderness on a mountain bike, nor have I ever violated the Wilderness Act in any way.

Whenever I hike in the Pecos Wilderness in Northern NM, I can't help but fantasize an early morning thru ride of the Sangres from west to east. I don't think I'd ever have the cojones to actually do it, but it had me thinking, does anyone ever do it? What is the fine? Today at work we were talking about doing it on a moonless night with night-vision goggles. and psychedlics.

What's your experience? Anyone ever fallen to temptation, and ridden the Federal Wilderness?

I've ridden trails(many years ago) that weave in and out from NF to Wilderness but were there long before the area was designated as such. I figured being 30 miles out from any real town and the fact that the trail was at least 90 years old it was fine and certainly never felt any guilt.

Almost weekly.

We've got three wilderness areas very close to one another and I seem to be literally the only one using some of these trails.

Considering the AT bindings I use are arguably as mechanized as my bike, the provision added AFTER the original draft to specifically prohibit bikes can suck it. So can the armchair whiners in marin county who lobbied for it.

I'm as anti development as anyone but allowing horses at the exclusion of bikes is absurd. Non-motorized yup. Non-mechanized? Get real.

I say go for it at every opportunity.

While we should always try to avoid poaching wilderness because it only hurts the cause of mountain bikers, I do agree with kidwoo that allowing horses at the expense of bikes is absurd.

speaking about horses
why the fuck dont people put on those poop bags that they use in the city when theyre riding on trails.
seems like it would be pretty nice
kinda like people picking up the poop from their dog.

kidwoo-

any run-ins with rangers? angry backpackers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ANON-505

kidwoo-

any run-ins with rangers? angry backpackers?

---

Actually every single backpacker I've ever run into (like four), we both stopped and chatted in a very civil manner. We/They are out doing the same thing essentially. I don't try to run over them or anything especially since I'm the one breaking the law.

Only ran into a ranger once. But I was on the PCT crossing a road where she had stopped on her quad. But that wasn't wilderness. I just smiled and kept pedalling. There's no way she would have been able to follow me so who knows what her reaction would have been.

The two loops I dig the most literally see zero traffic, horse, foot or whatever except for within a few miles of exits. So run ins are few and far between. The total lack of maintenance and downed trees make it pretty obvious......even though they remain mapped on USFS literature.

Do some research on the wilderness act and the amendment almost two decades later that came to specifically mention mountain bikes. The whining of a small minority in a very centralized location has produced some pretty asinine, nationwide policy that has very little to do with the original intent of the bill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kidwoo

Do some research on the wilderness act and the amendment almost two decades later that came to specifically mention mountain bikes. The whining of a small minority in a very centralized location has produced some pretty asinine, nationwide policy that has very little to do with the original intent of the bill.

---

Irregardless of what you percieve to be the original intent of the Wilderness Act, violating areas closed to mountain bikers harms all mountain biker's chances of getting new areas open or new legal trails.

It probably also doesn't do anything to convince local authorities to pay attention to the desires of mountain bikers when they tackle issues (trail erosion) that they are mandated to fix.

Sticky subject. While I understand what kidwoo is doing, I'd have to agree with telenater.....

While I won't condone the action, I won't spit fire either. It seems like in a lot of areas, it's not an if but when senario, however in KW defense, it does seem like and if.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Telenater

Irregardless of what you percieve to be the original intent of the Wilderness Act, violating areas closed to mountain bikers harms all mountain biker's chances of getting new areas open or new legal trails. .

It probably also doesn't do anything to convince local authorities to pay attention to the desires of mountain bikers when they tackle issues (trail erosion) that they are mandated to fix.

---

Despite what you may think from my few posts in this thread, I work very hard at building both legal and illegal trails around here in the hope of legitimization. Why the illegal part? Because at least three trails that I know of have been adopted since I've lived here and become part of the USFS and Tahoe basin management maintained network.

Please come with me sometime. You tell me whether or not what I'm doing out in BFE has any bearing on erosion (I'm a hyrdologist btw), or trail access. I know how to use my front brake and I wasn't kidding about the traffic on these trails.......there's no one out there.

Check this place out. Not a trail but still relevant.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y26...s/IMG_5291.jpg

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y26...s/IMG_5298.jpg

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y26...pover_john.jpg

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y26.../woohander.jpg

Built entirely illegally on BLM land starting about 4 years ago. Last year the area was taken over as open space municipal park land and we were GIVEN the legal right to begin using heavy equipment there provided we maintain the place and keep some kiddie lines open. There's a list of 4 names (mine is one of them) who may and are expected now to maintain the place. Going by the book would have produced nothing.

Look up "missing link" on recent tahoe trail maps. I know it exists on at least one publication now. It was built by two hardworking people with a clue who did it right and now it's maintained by the powers that be.


These two examples are FAR more intrusive than riding a trail that's already in existence but was recently closed off to bikes because someone decided they could get more peaceful hiking and horseriding in if they could attach "mechanized" to bicycles.

Think about the mckinney rubicon jeep trail. Right by the reservoirs and right by many of the drainages that these designations in theory are supposed to preserve. Not to mention the fact that many of the "trails" in these wilderness areas are old logging road grades.

My bicycle is harming nothing. And I'm not about to wait until I'm 204 years old to watch something change legally. Selfish? Sure. But of all the illegal and harmful things going on in this world right now, me riding my bike on a cleared strip of dirt isn't one of them.

Try all you want to guilt me into feeling like I'm somehow jeapordizing the future of mountainbiking but trust me...........this is not a fresh topic with me.

At least take solace in the fact that I'm not so stupid as to go trucking down the pct over 4th of july weekend. Even I have limits.:biggrin: I don't want my sport chastized any more than you. But I'm also not going to let a bunch of armchair evironmentalists who live in urban areas dictate something they know nothing about just because they and thier horses are worth more than I'll ever be. Check out the wild heritage act and all the wilderness expansion bs that's being kicked around. I've signed every petition and all the stock letters to Barbara Boxer as well as one of my own trying to fight this crap. It's not erosion, watershed protection, or wildlife habitat that keeps bikes out of wilderness areas. It's something much more pathetic.

Seriously man.......come with me sometime. I don't go in high traffic areas at all.

ANON-505,

a very interesting position that hits close to home can be found here:

http://www.surgent.net/highpoints/nm/sandoval.html

the guy poached Redondo Peak at Sandoval County. the write-up and his justification for doing it are thoughtful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kidwoo

....kicking knowledge....

---

Werd.
And to answer the oringinal question....."maybe."

the first rule of mountain biking is that you do not talk about wilderness rides

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marshalolson

the first rule of mountain biking is that you do not talk about wilderness rides

---

This is the correct answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marshalolson

the first rule of mountain biking is that you do not talk about wilderness rides

---

I want people to know how absurd it is. Bragging at your local equestrian, or sierra club gathering isn't exactly the brightest thing to do but within an audience of bikers, it's worth discussion. Especially in california where about a bizillion more miles of trails are about to be shut down to bikes.

Luckily there's kind of a self governing aspect to most wilderness areas. Most of them don't sit adjacent to a highway where any joe average with a pair of tight shorts and a shiny new bike can just hop on in. Even if it were legal, traffic would be pretty low. You kind of have to be in shape and have a clue what you're doing. So even discussing it within our own little niche isn't exactly going to cause an onslaught

i think there is a difference of users between where kidwoo rides and what we endure here in CO. If the population of riders is so small and there is a chance of getting the trails legitimate, that's great and huge props for making it a better place to ride. There are soooo many riders out here in CO front range, that if more people were to take trail building upon themselves, we would probably see some absurd things done. Granted Wilderness areas are far from most trailheads for bikers here and the damage done to high altitude eco-systems is more long term (possibly than the sierras and more lush, lower altitude areas?) Finally, bikers are getting some representation at meetings in Jeffco and other areas regarding decision making process to limit trails to equestrian or hiker only. (for a long time there was a board of people and most decisions were made without any mtn biker input whatsoever) I think it would be awesome if we could get some supervised trail building in Jeffco/boulder areas (working with someone who has the experience), but it seems that there are too many meetings and the authorities take themselves pretty seriously here.

Once.

ONCE.

I got snagged by the forest cops ten years ago and had my skewers confiscated. Humping your shit out eight miles on your back in ninety degree summer heat is not an experience I'd like to repeat.

Although I can't say I haven't been tempted at times. ;)

As long as cattle are allowed to free-graze in "wilderness" areas, I have no problem with bikes so long as the riders aren't jerks.

Ride on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viva

As long as cattle are allowed to free-graze in "wilderness" areas, I have no problem with bikes so long as the riders aren't jerks.

Ride on.

---

Yeah - but the ranchers pay for the privilege to damage delicate wilderness areas, so that makes it okay. :rolleyes:

I had a meeting last week with the USFS and the Colorado DOW for a trail project, and learned something pretty interesting. I guess the DOW monitors heartrates of winter range animals (deer, elk, etc.). During the winter, they are on a complete starvation diet, and slight increases in heartrate attributable to interaction with people can literally kill them buy burning too many calories.

Mind you, this is focused on winter recreation, but snowmobiliing was the least stressing to the deer, showshoeing was the most stressing. I guess being able to hear a sled for miles cuts down on the 'surprise' factor and keeps the heartrate low. Hikers/skiers/snowshoers stress them considerably more than sleds.

Kind of counterintuitive, but I'm sure this can be applied to motocross, mtn. biking, hiking, and equestrian. So mountain biking probably has less effect on animals than hiking or equestrian, since they are slightly more noisy and move faster. Slower, quieter forms of travel cause more stress.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by homerjay

Kind of counterintuitive, but I'm sure this can be applied to motocross, mtn. biking, hiking, and equestrian. So mountain biking probably has less effect on animals than hiking or equestrian, since they are slightly more noisy and move faster. Slower, quieter forms of travel cause more stress.

---

What if use snow tires to get back there in winter, ride with a wolf suit on and carry an air horn?


booyah!!! Venison y'all

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by homerjay

So mountain biking probably has less effect on animals than hiking or equestrian, since they are slightly more noisy and move faster. Slower, quieter forms of travel cause more stress.

---

I knew my King was good for the environment. Bzzzzzzzz :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kidwoo

Please come with me sometime. You tell me whether or not what I'm doing out in BFE has any bearing on erosion (I'm a hyrdologist btw), or trail access. I know how to use my front brake and I wasn't kidding about the traffic on these trails.......there's no one out there.

---

I'd love to meet up with you sometime (sometime after I get a replacement suspension bracket that I appear to have broken on the Rubicon trail last sunday).

I have no doubt that a single rider on a trail in a wilderness area will have a negligible impact when they ride properly. That's not the issue. I believe that the negative will created by hikers seeing mountain bike tracks where they shouldn't be will reduce the willingness of land managers to work with the mountain biking community as a whole for access and trail creation/maintenance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLOOD SWEAT STEEL

Once.

ONCE.

I got snagged by the forest cops ten years ago and had my skewers confiscated. Humping your shit out eight miles on your back in ninety degree summer heat is not an experience I'd like to repeat.

Although I can't say I haven't been tempted at times. ;)

---

Hope you learned your lesson- When poaching always bring a set of extra skewers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pechelman

speaking about horses
why the fuck dont people put on those poop bags that they use in the city when theyre riding on trails.
seems like it would be pretty nice
kinda like people picking up the poop from their dog.

---

I cant ride my bike on the trail, i cant let my dog of the leash, but all the rich people can let their horse dump all over the trail!!:the_finge

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Telenater

I'd love to meet up with you sometime (sometime after I get a replacement suspension bracket that I appear to have broken on the Rubicon trail last sunday)..

---

What kind of bike is it? Not sure what you mean by suspension bracket but maybe a swinglink? Like a rotating piece that the shock is attached to?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Telenater

I have no doubt that a single rider on a trail in a wilderness area will have a negligible impact when they ride properly. That's not the issue. I believe that the negative will created by hikers seeing mountain bike tracks where they shouldn't be will reduce the willingness of land managers to work with the mountain biking community as a whole for access and trail creation/maintenance.

---

That is a very good point. But like I said, I'm pretty sure literally no one even touches some of these trails.

It's just kind of a sore subject when sections like the TRT from baldy to mt rose were ridden for years before the bike provision. Plus the countless miles of trails on the backside of mammoth, north and south that were legal bike rides. That provision pretty much eliminated mountain biking in that area. I mean what's there now? Rock creek, mammoth rock, some blown out sand pit xc skiing trails and the exclusivity of the ski area.

It's selfish I know. But in a way it also might be seen as an expressed need for another designation within the roadless area realm that literally means, non-motorized, non-development, non-logging etc. Not "hiking, and horses only". Bikers for the most part dig nature too, but they've been ostracized over this issue.

Anyway.......I do agree with what you've said, just maybe not to the point where I believe it's a threat to legitimizing our cause. I don't ride on heavily traveled corridors like echo to aloha or anything specifically for the reasons you've stated. But when networks of trails exist that are so far off the beaten path are deemed illegal for a completely ass backwards reason, I'll choose to ignore them. I'm not roosting up corners, taking 15lb shits in the woods, churning up soil with my hooves, or puking 2 stroke exhaust around pristene reservoirs. And in my mind I'm not riding anywhere that's high profile enough to cause our sport any sort of jeapardy. That's the last thing I want. But I do want other bikers to know why they're excluded. It's bs and it's about to get worse in california. If we're ignored, then I've got no problem ignoring the designation (to a point).

just my .04 cents

EDIT: I'll also be the first to admit, my knowledge/opinions are only relevant to what I know in california and nevada.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kidwoo

What kind of bike is it? Not sure what you mean by suspension bracket but maybe a swinglink? Like a rotating piece that the shock is attached to?

---

No, it's a machined metal bracket that surrounds the body of the shock. I stripped the threads out that are used to tighten it around the shock body, and gettting to it to helicoil the area that needs it would be tough.

The bike is an old Santa Cruz Tazmon. I'm in the process of ordering a new bracket from Risse Racing up in Redding (who manufactures the shock and the bracket).

Edit: And, yes, I agree that some of the Wilderness protections are contradictory, and have been extended to large areas of land that don't need quite that much protection.

I've talked with several members of the USFS who've said that they wish that there were an intermediate level that permitted any non-motorized recreation (ie allowing biking, hanggliding, parasailing) and who say they've run into similar sentiments in other agencies. Unfortunately, the Wilderness act doesn't allow much freedom of interpretation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Telenater

No, it's a machined metal bracket that surrounds the body of the shock. I stripped the threads out that are used to tighten it around the shock body, and gettting to it to helicoil the area that needs it would be tough.

The bike is an old Santa Cruz Tazmon. I'm in the process of ordering a new bracket from Risse Racing up in Redding (who manufactures the shock and the bracket).

---

Oh yeah.......I know what you're talking about. Risse makes good stuff, I'm sure that'll work fine.

I was always curious about those bikes as to whether or not that bracket was needed. Both ends of the shock are still mounted with bolts right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Telenater

I've talked with several members of the USFS who've said that they wish that there were an intermediate level that permitted any non-motorized recreation (ie allowing biking, hanggliding, parasailing) and who say they've run into similar sentiments in other agencies. Unfortunately, the Wilderness act doesn't allow much freedom of interpretation.

---

The Roadless Area Conservation Rule? Anyway, I agree that we need an intermediary protections (and reasonable regulations for motorized users). The number of people recreating on public lands is growing and, more importantly, their skill level and the quality of their equipment is improving dramatically. We’ve definitely encountered a legislative and regulatory lag. But, I don’t expect any relief from the current Congress, they are caught in a public lands time warp and think it’s the 19th century.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kidwoo

Oh yeah.......I know what you're talking about. Risse makes good stuff, I'm sure that'll work fine.

I was always curious about those bikes as to whether or not that bracket was needed. Both ends of the shock are still mounted with bolts right?

---

Yes, and the bolts on that mount to the center bracket are supposed to be "finger tight". So they can't be terribly important. The movement between the clamp and the shock makes a disconcerting metal on metal rubbing sound though. Enough so that I won't be riding it on anything rough until I can replace it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greydon Clark

But, I don’t expect any relief from the current Congress, they are caught in a public lands time warp and think it’s the 19th century.

---

Shit are you kidding?

After snowmobile parks and horizon to horizon condos go up in every wilderness area in the country, who's going to notice a few bike trails?;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Telenater

Yes, and the bolts on that mount to the center bracket are supposed to be "finger tight". So they can't be terribly important. The movement between the clamp and the shock makes a disconcerting metal on metal rubbing sound though. Enough so that I won't be riding it on anything rough until I can replace it.

---

Maybe it's to relieve sideloading on the shock? Other than that it seems like a hindrance to the natural swing it on the damper that gets imparted through the swingarm movement. Anyway, I'm sure risse will do a good job. I've been happy with everything I've gotten from them as far as machined bits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by f2f

ANON-505,

a very interesting position that hits close to home can be found here:

http://www.surgent.net/highpoints/nm/sandoval.html

the guy poached Redondo Peak at Sandoval County. the write-up and his justification for doing it are thoughtful.

---

Missed this post earlier.

Actually, I've been up there (legally and on official buisness of the VCNP).

Amazing area no doubt about that.

The restrictions on travel up Redondo Peak were put into place at the request of the Jemez tribe who consider it to be sacred ground.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kidwoo

Maybe it's to relieve sideloading on the shock? Other than that it seems like a hindrance to the natural swing it on the damper that gets imparted through the swingarm movement. Anyway, I'm sure risse will do a good job. I've been happy with everything I've gotten from them as far as machined bits.

---

Actually, it probably is somewhat redundant, but the frame was designed very early in the development pattern of FS bikes (prior to the computer modeling done now). And, they did a damn fine job of it.

It's not externally visible, but there is an excentric linkage that absorbs the movement of the swingarm so theoretically the shock could be fully fixed. For a substantial period of it's history, the Tazmon had one of the stiffest linkages available because of this, but then new designs passed it by.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pechelman

speaking about horses
why the fuck dont people put on those poop bags that they use in the city when theyre riding on trails.
seems like it would be pretty nice
kinda like people picking up the poop from their dog.

---

Amen. There is a commercial stable that uses some of the easier scenic hiking/mountainbiking trails around here. The fact that I have to dismount and walk past the horses to keep from spooking them I can stand. The piles of horse crap LITERALLY every 5-10 feet is beyond rediculous. It's a trail on USFS land yet it has as much horse shit as a stable, except they shovel the stables from time to time. Truly outragous. Wonder who I should complain too.

write a letter to our congressman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marshalolson

write a letter to our congressman

---

My congress person wrote the wilderness expansion bill in california.

She also puts that cunt condie rice in her place publicly so it's definitely a love/hate thing.:D