|
Post by ecocentric on Jun 3, 2019 15:11:47 GMT -8
Competition for a limited resource; nature, economics...
|
|
jazzmom
Trail Wise!
a.k.a. TigerFan
Posts: 3,059
|
Post by jazzmom on Jun 3, 2019 15:28:31 GMT -8
This thread has actually had the opposite effect that i thought it would. For what it's worth, I think there are some bikers and runners who are practicing their sport in a non-competitive way, which is what I think you need for all of us to co-exist peacefully on backcountry trails, at least in the way hikers want to experience it. Once anything becomes a "race", all that seems to go out the window. I have a friend who just took off on a 800-mile bikepacking trip on the Continental Divide Trail, from Jackson, Wyoming to Parshall, Colorado. It's just the two of them and their approach to the trip has been just like thru hikers, and I suspect they'll act accordingly on the trail.
|
|
|
Post by absarokanaut on Jun 3, 2019 16:46:37 GMT -8
Wow, that's gonna be some major snowpack in the Wind Rivers Jazzmom. I'm really surprised someone would try that this early here. The CDT is an hour NW of Jackson at Togwotee Pass or between there and Union Pass which I'd access form the Dubois side personally. South of Union there's gonna be some deep snow and also deep still in the trees around Togwotee. We are not much if at all above normal in most drainages for the snow-water equivalent but I crossed an 8-12' deep slide at very low elevation, maybe right at 7k, in the Tetons just above String Lake yesterday. Good news is water should be good in the Red desert, etc.
I have a soft spot for horses having worked pack trips in the area here but know high use trails like Jack was talking about can be problematic. I however know Mt. Bikes have been the most destructive thing I've ever seen on trails. Some places in Colorado blew my mind with their deterioration, new side trails, etc. over relatively short time spans. The sheer numbers of them have been catastrophic in lots of places around Crested Butte, etc. From what I recall The Colorado Gems Project would have added over 2,000,000 acres of wilderness some time ago but Mt. Bikers of course fought it hard; I think mostly over 30 or so miles of trail in the Crested Butte area they feel they shouldn't have to give up. As you saw in the article I posted I don't think it's a good idea in Greater Yellowstone or the northern Rockies. Running into a grizzly at 25-30 MPH was IMO unacceptable speed in tight terrain.
As to trail runners big events aside I think it's OK in a lot of places but I sure would be worried about folks doing it in areas with apex predators like grizzlies and lions. After reading about his bragging I think there's a good chance that forest inventorier that was also a trail runner that they dug out of 3 different holes after being fed on by more than a half dozen grizzly and black bears in the Teton Wilderness 5 years ago was running.
In terms of "coming together" I am with Rangewalker when it comes to Mt. Bikers. Unless they give up their quest to ride in designated wilderness and certain special management areas I am not empathetic at all. This is tough, I have lost friends in the Mt. Biking Industry because they think they're entitled to more than many millions of acres of riding they already have. I also don't want to see hordes of trail runners and think their activities should be banned in certain mammalian habitats like Greater Yellowstone.
|
|
RumiDude
Trail Wise!
Marmota olympus
Posts: 2,361
|
Post by RumiDude on Jun 3, 2019 20:41:34 GMT -8
I'm totally fine with trails built and maintained for horse and MTB travel in places where the environment can sustain it. Just make sure that there are also trails NOT built to those standards, so that hikers who would rather climb over some deadfall without the horses and bikes can do so. Uh yea, there are different standards for stock trails vs hikers only trails. And that is one reason why there are some trails you don't see stock on. But trails that aren't maintained can quickly become almost impassible. And then makeshift social trails start to form which are bad all around. Additionally, almost any trail that can be navigated by a hiker can be navigated by a rider on a mtn bike. Also, my beef with horse campers is not so much with what they do to the trails, but with what they do to camps. And I don't even mean the manure, although that can be unpleasant. It seems that horse campers are the worst stewards in terms of LNT and leaving their garbage around camps. And it's extra infuriating that it's not even the people who would have to carry it out--it's the horses! My experience in ONP as a volunteer backcountry ranger is that hikers are as bad as people using stock. The user groups are equal opportunity transgressors. Rumi
|
|
FamilySherpa
Trail Wise!
Tangled up in Rhododendron
Posts: 1,791
|
Post by FamilySherpa on Jun 4, 2019 6:09:53 GMT -8
I had hoped this thread wouldn't turn into an "x-user group is worse on the trails than any other user group" conversation, but I guess that was inevitable. I try my best not to characterize an entire group of people based on a few bad experiences with a small % of them. There are bad stewards in every group, even Hikers and backpackers.
Regardless, its worrying (to me) that people are willing to devote more energy to keeping other outdoor enthusiasts of their trails, than they are to speak out against people who would have our lands privatized for harvest of natural resources and development. If your ultimate goal is to have single use public lands, do we really expect all the former users of those lands to rally back together if those parcels are being threatened by special interest?
|
|
|
Post by cweston on Jun 4, 2019 6:49:42 GMT -8
If your ultimate goal is to have single use public lands, do we really expect all the former users of those lands to rally back together if those parcels are being threatened by special interest? Honestly, I can't quite tell what you are advocating for or looking for here. My guess is that hikers almost universally want there to be some (not all, but some) trails not open to MTBs, for example. Are you saying that that is a bad thing? I do understand the part about not characterizing an entire group of people based on a few bad experiences with a small % of them (which I admit, I did in my earlier response). But beyond that, I'm not really sure what your expectation is here.
|
|
FamilySherpa
Trail Wise!
Tangled up in Rhododendron
Posts: 1,791
|
Post by FamilySherpa on Jun 4, 2019 7:36:05 GMT -8
If your ultimate goal is to have single use public lands, do we really expect all the former users of those lands to rally back together if those parcels are being threatened by special interest? Honestly, I can't quite tell what you are advocating for or looking for here. My guess is that hikers almost universally want there to be some (not all, but some) trails not open to MTBs, for example. Are you saying that that is a bad thing? I do understand the part about not characterizing an entire group of people based on a few bad experiences with a small % of them (which I admit, I did in my earlier response). But beyond that, I'm not really sure what your expectation is here. In no way shape or form do I want all trails opened to Mountain bikes. Wilderness areas should remain closed to bikes. The multi use trails are what we need to learn to share, not point fingers, alienate, or work (directly or indirectly) to exclude a user group... I'm mostly just stressing the importance of power in numbers. Small groups of single interest users can't defend our public lands against those who wish to exploit them for natural resource harvest or development.
|
|
|
Post by absarokanaut on Jun 4, 2019 16:02:57 GMT -8
Mt. Bikers are looking to exploit lands they are currently banned from riding in. How could you expect many if not most of us to have a hierarchy of respect for different users since some are considerably more detrimental to trails and trail systems and some [Mountain bikers] are insisting on things like the wilderness access you don't want them to have either? On that there will be no compromise from many of us. We either embrace and respect the Wilderness Act or we [Mt. Bikers] don't
|
|
FamilySherpa
Trail Wise!
Tangled up in Rhododendron
Posts: 1,791
|
Post by FamilySherpa on Jun 5, 2019 4:29:11 GMT -8
i've obviously done a really poor job putting my thoughts into words here
|
|
RumiDude
Trail Wise!
Marmota olympus
Posts: 2,361
|
Post by RumiDude on Jun 5, 2019 11:51:44 GMT -8
I think a venn diagram of outdoor user groups would probably show that our common interests are actually small. Access is the most obvious commonality among all the user groups. If you can't get to it, then you can't use it. Stock users and hikers probably overlap the most. Hunters and fishers overlap quite a bit. Runners and mtn bikers overlap also. And the reason for the overlap is the degree of similarity of how the resource is used, in particular how the trails are used. And this is where the conflicts between user groups arise. And the conflicts are hard to overcome despite others similarities.
So for example, as a hiker I don't mind most stock users. The difference between how we use the trail, camp, etc are similar and "feel" alike; whereas mtn bikers seem to whiz by us, often ordering us out of the way, and are rarely found camping as they mostly use it as their outdoor gym so to speak. Runners can be the same, though not always.
Anyway, the real take-away is that we all seem to focus on differences rather than commonality. And much of that is developed through our experiences with these other groups.
Rumi
|
|
FamilySherpa
Trail Wise!
Tangled up in Rhododendron
Posts: 1,791
|
Post by FamilySherpa on Jun 5, 2019 12:59:56 GMT -8
I think a venn diagram of outdoor user groups would probably show that our common interests are actually small. Access is the most obvious commonality among all the user groups. If you can't get to it, then you can't use it. Stock users and hikers probably overlap the most. Hunters and fishers overlap quite a bit. Runners and mtn bikers overlap also. And the reason for the overlap is the degree of similarity of how the resource is used, in particular how the trails are used. And this is where the conflicts between user groups arise. And the conflicts are hard to overcome despite others similarities. So for example, as a hiker I don't mind most stock users. The difference between how we use the trail, camp, etc are similar and "feel" alike; whereas mtn bikers seem to whiz by us, often ordering us out of the way, and are rarely found camping as they mostly use it as their outdoor gym so to speak. Runners can be the same, though not always. Anyway, the real take-away is that we all seem to focus on differences rather than commonality. And much of that is developed through our experiences with these other groups. Rumi That's probably a fair assessment. Well said Rumi. I guess I probably find it easier to identify with other groups since i've tried, or currently do, most of the other activities you name above.
|
|
|
Post by trinity on Jun 5, 2019 13:17:08 GMT -8
I guess I probably find it easier to identify with other groups since i've tried, or currently do, most of the other activities you name above. I think that's a great point. I mostly hike, but also do a fair amount of trail running and fishing, and used to hunt, back when I had the time. I tend to be a lot more generous in my attitude towards these groups than mountain bikers and horsepackers. I do agree that it would be a good thing if we could learn to set our differences aside and speak with one voice when it comes to the importance of public lands.
|
|
|
Post by bradmacmt on Jun 5, 2019 14:27:36 GMT -8
I do agree that it would be a good thing if we could learn to set our differences aside and speak with one voice when it comes to the importance of public lands. The problem is, we are NOT one voice... bikers want something (ultimately and entirely) different than what most backpackers want. I'm not interested in making a "deal with the devil." As I said earlier about bikers: theirs is a Pandora's box leading to more and more compromise.
|
|