Should bikes be allowed in wilderness lands?

[azdesertfather]

Two Utah legislators are trying to overturn the no-bikes provision in the Wilderness Act. Should it be stopped?? I'd love to hear what you all think...I'm torn but lean to "no."

Bill would end longstanding ban on bikes in US wilderness
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/ ... SITE=AZPHG

[chumley]

@friendofThundergod
I think you might have overthought that one a bit!

[FOTG]

@chumley
Perhaps...That was after a couple of instant coffees at the campfire this morning and all I know is that I clicked on HAZ and there is Mr. Hike Arizona himself suggesting we ban people in wilderness areas! I nearly fell into the fire

under further read..I think Joe may have simply been referring to the essence of wilderness...

[nathanbrisk]

I'd be interested to know why you feel that way toward motorized vehicles.
While not knowing your answer, I'd still ask, couldn't you use similar logic why it should be any different for mountain bikes?

So far as the effect on the environment is concerned, I don't see that much difference between the rubber on my soles, a bike, or a tire. It's different in size, coverage, speed, and volume--that's all. The only reason I separate motorized vehicles out is that it's demonstrably more likely that a person who walks their pumpkin or pedals their pumpkin into the wilderness has a much higher chance of being a disciplined and responsible appreciator of the wilderness than someone on an ATV, motor bike, or 4x4. The barrier of entry is so low, trashy people will always come out and prove their name. No offense to trashy people--I'm just trying to save myself some time by not having to clean up after you. (If you're a 4x4er who doesn't treat the outdoors as your personal garbage can, I'm not talking to you )

On one hand, no one owns the wilderness. It's for everyone. I know some of y'all are looking longingly at Mother Russia, but some of us out here actually value freedom--and not just our own. But on the other hand, we have the responsibility to protect this earth. So let's find some balance. Let's not get all authoritarian over our fellow heirs in the grace of life and land (you didn't make it, did you?), but let's do what we can to keep it getting all Wall-E-fied.

[Tough_Boots]

It's different in size, coverage, speed, and volume--that's all.

I'm pretty sure you just listed all the reasons why they are more damaging...

On one hand, no one owns the wilderness. It's for everyone.

True, that's why the feds have it-- because it is for all of us and needs to be protected from those who are irresponsible and from environmentally destructive industries who trick people into believing that regulating corporations is the same thing as infringing on the rights of citizens.

[rgranillo]

I lean toward yes with restrictions. I feel that if stock can go on a trail then bikes should too. A bike leaves far less evidence of its presence than stock does. But I am concerned about "some" mountain bikers speeding up and down wilderness trails and being a hazard to hikers.