The inevitable bike legalization of the JMT

""quintuagenarian hagiographic contemplative fantasy" this is the best phrase I've read in a long time"

yea… great example of an arrogant person trying to support his argument with a pseudo intellectual phrase in the face of overwhelming logic against his position.

Billy

""quintuagenarian hagiographic contemplative fantasy" this is the best phrase I've read in a long time"

yea… great example of an arrogant person trying to support his argument with a pseudo intellectual phrase in the face of overwhelming logic against his position.

As you wish, but now picture that phrase as a musical genre, and it's solid gold.

In seriousness though, so much of this discussion sinks into us vs. them which is basically a way to guarantee that nobody really gets what they want. As Mike alluded to earlier, even if you're into both hiking and biking, neither side finds shared trails ideal, and of course neither group likes horses, and I'll venture to guess that horse riders equestrians don't love mountain bikers either.

But no group of people is inherently superior to any other, as ultimately each is just arguing in favor of their own preference. Figuring out how to make those preferences work together rather than against each other means you have a lot more people working towards the same objective, and it means things actually get done without so much frustration.

Hmmmmph, I normally don't let myself get sucked into this kind of vortex. I've been overworked lately maybe that can explain this moment of weakness. But since I'm here ….

That certainly is untrammeled. Animals are free to roam. The small path is no impediment.

People I've spoken with who've been to Detroit have described a scene that would meet your definition.

Another definition:
From Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
A (1) : a tract or region uncultivated and uninhabited by human beings (2) : an area essentially undisturbed by human activity together with its naturally developed life community

B : an empty or pathless area or region

Sierra Nevada hikers I've trekked with elsewhere tell me stories of California black bears lurking in the trees around Thousand Island Lake waiting to dash out to nail the first bear canister that is left open while a camper turns his/her back. Those bears may be free to go where they please but their behavior is clearly influenced (altered … disturbed) by my presence if I'm there.

"Of what avail are forty freedoms without a blank spot on the map?" – Aldo Leopold

Maps, Smaps … why not a large area with no human disturbances?

> Skis are machines invented to make human travel easier and faster.

I am going to be pedantic here, and refute that claim. Skis are no more machines than are shoes or snowshoes. They are, in the snow, part of your footwear.

Machines have things that go round, especially transport machines. (Can you think of a machine which does not?) Most Acts or Laws on the subject mention wheels. And I suggest that the general public (called voters) would have zero trouble in seeing the difference.

On a more practical note: once you permit wheels of one class in, there is then huge commecrial pressure for the next class of wheels, then the next class, and so on. One can try to be idealistic, but that doesn't work in practice. NO machinery.

Cheers

Hi Nick

> So this what this thread looks like on my iPhone.
Next time you post something like that, could you make sure the clickable bits do work please, so the moderator can check them out?

Cheers

Hmmmmph, I normally don't let myself get sucked into this kind of vortex. I've been overworked lately maybe that can explain this moment of weakness. But since I'm here ….

I'm not trying to be a pedant, I'm actually trying to figure out what the word originally meant, in 1964, in the context of the quote from the Wilderness Act. My Google-fu is apparently weak today, because I can't find your definition of undisturbed/pathless anywhere online. Did you type it in from a paper copy of Merriam-Webster?

Everyone seems to assume, from the context of the quote, that it means "completely undisturbed," but if that's not what it meant in 1964, the authors could well have meant, much more literally, unfenced, with no buildings. Like in all of these listings, none of which mention, even as a secondary definition, words like "pathless" or "undisturbed":

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/untrammeled

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/untrammeled

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/untrammeled

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/untrammeled

http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/untrammelled

Is it possible that the meaning you are assigning to it began with a renewed popularity of the word due to its somewhat poetic appearance in the Wilderness Act of 1964, with people assuming the new meaning because it sort of looks like "untrampled?"

Edit: A linguist agrees with me.

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=3206

"But no group of people is inherently superior to any other, as ultimately each is just arguing in favor of their own preference. Figuring out how to make those preferences work together rather than against each other means you have a lot more people working towards the same objective, and it means things actually get done without so much frustration"

Yes. In general I agree. But this thread started with the topic of biking on the JMT. Sorry, but when it comes to the bikes on the JMT we are in 'over my dead body' territory.

billy

Andrew,
The dictionary definitions are useful, but if you want to get at what it meant in 1964 I'd suggest looking at what is known as the 'legislative intent.' Speeches and committee discussions leading up to the passage of the bill can paint a picture of what the bill's authors had in mind. It may not entirely answer the question, but should shed more light on it.
Someone has probably done this already, so it might be quicker to find scholarship on it than read the federal register.

"Speeches and committee discussions leading up to the passage of the bill can paint a picture of what the bill's authors had in mind"

ahhhh… like that case the supreme court is taking about obamacare – that only state exchanges get tax refund, not federal exchange

is it a "typo" in the bill or does it matter what they intended…

"Skis are machines invented to make human travel easier and faster. The categorical side of this question seems pretty basic."

ma·chine

/məˈSHēn/
noun
1. an apparatus using or applying mechanical power and having several parts, each with a definite function and together performing a particular task.

"Tom (and anyone else whose mind might not be made on this point), I'd encourage you to think of the John Muir who climbed ponderosa pines to get closer to lightning storms, and bivvied in the steam vents on Shasta. I'd encourage you to think of the TR who rode a hundred miles a day for weeks straight hunting bison and Grizzlies while he was running Elkhorn, or who went on a poorly conceived, nearly fatal decent on an unmapped Amazon tributary after his presidency. I'd encourage you to think of the Bob Marshall who did 50+ mile dayhikes for no particular reason, and nearly died running a rain swollen stream in the Brooks Range. Or Ed Abbey (gumby hiker that he was) nearly getting himself stuck in a slot tributary of Havasu Creek."

Gee, Dave, you come across like you're the only one who has read about the exploits of these giants of the preservation movement. Puhleeeze, enough already. Note that none of those exploits involved mechanical means of transportation, and only horses left any discernible trace of their having been in a location.

"There's a pretty robust correlation between being one of the leading intellectual contributors to how we think about wilderness today and wanting to have a regular and as visceral as possible intimacy with said place."

On this I agree with you 100%. But the unexplained logic underlying your conclusion that: "In my mind it's axiomatic that adding gravity-powered locomotion to foot travel facilitates this." totally escapes me, to the point that I will state unequivocally that, IMO, you are just flat out wrong. MTB's are not gravity powered as their primary means of supplying the energy for forward motion, impose a distance between the rider and the terrain over which he/she travels by separating them from direct contact with the terrain, typically allow the rider to move at an unnatural speed at odds with the rhythm of natural life, and cause unacceptable damage to the surfaces over which they travel.

Wilderness Act text and related comments deleted. Andrew has already covered this one.

"When I go mountain biking, it's on trails built by mountain bikers meant for mountain biking. They are hard packed, well maintained by local trail builders and purpose built for it.

When I go hiking, it's on generally poorly maintained muddy, rocky, trails that are challenging and peaceful. The whole shared use concept is just a poor compromise, I'd rather stick to purpose built trails and areas. I like the wilderness wild and free of bikes and I like my local parks fun and open to well built trails."

Ahhhh, the sweet voice of reason, at last.

I think this bike would be ok and LNT

Holy smokes folks, this is turning into like a Mad Max thread (no offence meant to OUR Max, whom is not mad, but fairly reasonable). We might as well don the giant bumpy suits and just "duke it out" at this point…

Otherwise, i'm not touching this thread with a 6 inch pole.., wait, now that i see hot french speaking women are part of it, i just may be forced to. Sigh, the things we do for our values.

"slowly walks away backwards and merges quietly into the lurker shadows again…."

"Given how much slower I would hypothetically be on the climbs I doubted then and doubt now that overall cycling would be much faster than hiking."

It's a helluva lost faster. I was on the CT this year when some of the the CT-Durango MTB racers came by. The fastest time was 4 days, 4 hours. Unsupported. Obviously they are the extreme, but I think the FKT unsupported on the CT is something like 10 days. The section I was on when talking to them was steep and they were mostly hike-a-biking and not going much faster than me. But going down the other side, they were gone. You can gain a lot of time and energy on long downhill stretches like that.

I had no problem withe the CT racers. They were sharing the trail and very nice. But then the Breck Epic came roaring by. I thought it was cool at first. Until I found out there would be 300 riders coming down the trail like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDmMIMt0bIs

There was no sharing the trail with this group. They were really racing. And my trip was over the next day because of it. You can read about it here.

http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/forums/thread_display.html?forum_thread_id=94247

After that, I'm sticking to Wilderness and I hope bikes are never allowed in designated Wilderness areas. I've crossed the CT off my to do list.

"…on this I agree with you 100%. But the unexplained logic underlying your conclusion that: "In my mind it's axiomatic that adding gravity-powered locomotion to foot travel facilitates this." totally escapes me, to the point that I will state unequivocally that, IMO, you are just flat out wrong. "

Now we know why we disagree, and that is no small thing.

Cheers Tom.

I'm still struggling with the concept that we need hiking trails. I vote for no trails of any kind.

"Now we know why we disagree, and that is no small thing."

Yes. Understanding the differences is a beginning of sorts.

'Til next time, then. :)

So what are everyone's thoughts on mutton busting in the wilderness?

Discuss.

-Drones and all.

http://www.liftable.com/andreadcombs/ridge/

Edit- The JMT would be a 2 day ride for elite athletes.

"I'm still struggling with the concept that we need hiking trails. I vote for no trails of any kind."

Come on a bushwack in the Whites of New Hampshire! I'll give you $20 if you can average over 1-mph and wind up staying on your predetermined route. Although your jacket and pack will probably take more than $20 worth of damage by spruce so thick you can't see your feet. Up here we have trails, bushwacks and herd paths. Only 1% or less of hikers are actually willing to go bushwacking and they look for the herd paths.

"Come on a bushwack in the Whites of New Hampshire! I'll give you $20 if you can average over 1-mph and wind up staying on your predetermined route. Although your jacket and pack will probably take more than $20 worth of damage by spruce so thick you can't see your feet. Up here we have trails, bushwacks and herd paths. Only 1% or less of hikers are actually willing to go bushwacking and they look for the herd paths."

I have done a little hiking in the Whites. I like it that you folks make trails through talus fields overgrown with shrubbery, trees, and lots of roots to trip on. One reason why I have a pack made from full dyneema is the material can handle that kind of difficult travel. I actually hope to spend more time there next year, plus time in Vermont too. Wonderful states.

I’m rather late to the discussion … haven’t had time to read BPL for a couple of months. At the risk of awaking sleeping dogs, I thought some folks might find the following book excerpt informative.

Mountain Biking in Wilderness: Some History

Excellent link Susan!

"Come on a bushwack in the Whites of New Hampshire! I'll give you $20 if you can average over 1-mph and wind up staying on your predetermined route. "

Bro, that's nothing. Try hiking off trail in the ventana wilderness. 9 hours to hike 2.5 miles up a creek canyon at a determined pace (not even exaggerating). Brush so thick and impenetrable that you can stuck and unable to move if you aren't paying attention! And don't trip and fall onto the yucca plants!
That will put some hair on your chest.

;)

"Excellent link Susan!"

+100 Thanks for posting it. Hopefully Dave C. is still following this thread. End of debate, I'd say. At least until, and if, our benighted brethren in the GOP somehow gerrymander and buy their way to a 2/3 majority in the Senate while maintaining their majority in the House.