HikeArizona.COM

This June, the Sustainable Trails Coalition, a mountain biking organization, cheered as Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee introduced a bill (S. 4561) to amend the Wilderness Act and allow mountain bikes, strollers and game carts on every piece of land protected by the National Wilderness Preservation System. Stopping these intrusions would take each local wilderness manager undertaking a cumbersome process to say “no.”
https://www.vaildaily.com/opinion/write ... ilderness/

I cannot wait to see a stroller on battleship.
Any idea of what a "game cart" is in this context? Are we talking like... a wagon pulled by a horse or something?

I hope someone with some common sense stops this before it even gets a chance to gain any steam. I despise mountain bikes and now almost half of the "mountain bikes" you see are electric. Hiking is quickly losing out to the bikers. It's everywhere. I guess it was only a matter of time. Look at what they built on Peralta road.

My hunch is the reference to game carts is carts built to haul big game animals via human power or potential hooked up to a mountain bike. I doubt they're asking for anything bigger than that. Then again, once you start down the rabbit hole..... bikes lead to electric bikes lead to off-road dirt bikes.....and so on. We already see it and a lot of it out in the goldfields. No bikes, let alone dirt bikes but almost daily there's guys out there on motocross bikes. Pretty much zero enforcement.

The act was a nice idea in spirit, but bad in practice. If you know me, you know I have many issues with the act and how it has made managing fragmented ecosystems impossible. Wilderness areas are what is found in the parts of the GiIa where fires are able to occur, at least somewhat like they used to before 1880. It is not the moonscape of the Kendrick Mountain Wilderness, or the fern forest and brushlands we created in the upper Pusch Ridge, nor is it the gradual extermination of and extinction of Bristlecone Pine in Arizona.

However, motorize bikes and really bikes in general, are not what I had in mind when I wanted to amend the act.

xsproutx wrote: ↑Jul 23 2024 10:47 am I cannot wait to see a stroller on battleship.
Any idea of what a "game cart" is in this context? Are we talking like... a wagon pulled by a horse or something?

I believe this is referring to a (small) wheeled trailer you could put a shot deer onto, or elk, etc. I'm guessing you'd hook that trailer to a mountain bike rather than an ATV in a wilderness area?

nonot wrote:I believe this is referring to a (small) wheeled trailer you could put a shot deer onto, or elk, etc. I'm guessing you'd hook that trailer to a mountain bike rather than an ATV in a wilderness area?

Apparently you're not a golfer, Lebowski. A 'game cart' is generally a wheeled cart pulled by hand, kind of like a wheelbarrow, used to retrieve game.
I hiked the West Fork of the Little Colorado last year, and was met by a group of e-bikes returning to the trailhead. Signs at the trailhead clearly state e-bikes were not allowed there. Wish I had cell service to report the idiots.

So far, not even a single cosponsor, most notably excluding the other senator from Utah, also on the same committee it will have to get through before any of this is even worth discussing.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-con ... committees

https://www.energy.senate.gov/
Interesting makeup of the committee. 10-9 democrat, though chaired by Manchin, Independent. Plenty of western state representatives that have constituencies that might strongly represent both for/against.

Moovyoaz wrote:' is generally a wheeled cart pulled by hand

I kind of figured it was something like that, for hunters to retrieve game, I've just never seen those and grew up hunting. We just used backpacks and that's all I ever saw. Most my hunting was done in the appalachians, though, which I can't imagine some sort of cart working better, so maybe that's why.

I'm just pointing out that a true wilderness functions with large predators, but in their absence problems with the prey species develop. At least with a hand drawn cart, there is utility to it when hunting is being used to manage prey species that can over populate when no predators or not enough are present. Elk in the Grand Canyon and the White Mountains, for example.

wilderness=no wheels. PERIOD!!

I elk hunted numerous wilderness areas for more than a dozen years. You know going in that you're carrying it out. The animals and predators will manage just fine.

@herdbull

wilderness=no wheels. PERIOD!!

Actually, that does not seem to be true.

It just seems that it should be a non-motorized wheelchair. Seems the ADA and Wilderness Act conflict. Not that I see lots of people in wheelchairs rolling around the High Sierra.

https://outdoors.stackexchange.com/ques ... ness-areas

You can look if interested. I have no strong feelings about it, I just wondered where that sentiment came from and that was a search result. Keep in mind I don't really care for them, and was not advocating for their use, merely pointing out that they could be a tool with some merit, at least. Not purely a motorized bike for pleasure's sake.

The animals and predators will manage just fine.

Was that directed at me? Seemed to be. Whatever you mean, that has nothing to do with my earlier point, which is that an imbalance of predators and prey does result in ecological degradation and destruction of the wilderness. Especially in those where predators are now absent, or where prey species like elk (and exotic elk) do not have predators to influence their behavior. In what way would a wheeled cart cause them harm?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In general,

This:

to assure that an increasing population, accompanied by expanding settlement and growing mechanization, does not occupy and modify all areas within the United States and its possessions, leaving no lands designated for preservation and protection in their natural condition, it is hereby declared to ...secure for the American people of present and future generations the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness....

https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DO ... 645666.pdf

Well, the act is a failure for many so called wilderness areas. Just look at the Peaks near Flagstaff and tell me that is what a Wilderness ought to look like. Where is the outrage and demands for actual ecologically managed wilderness? Why do wheels or benches cause such indignation and outrage, when they are so overall trivial, yet we have had many wilderness areas destroyed by 150 years of mismanagement, abuse, and poor policy?
[ San Francisco Peaks Fire Regimes Prior to 1880 ]

I've been waiting to trot this out:

At the highest elevations, Rocky Mountain bristlecone pine forests had a mean fire interval (MFI) of 19.7 years prior to a modern fire exclusion period beginning after 1879. Other high-elevation (> 2800 m) mixed conifer forests had MFI = 5.7 years and low-elevation (< 2,800 m) pine forests had MFI = 4.0 years. After 1879, there were no large fires through the end of the twentieth century. Before 1879, fires occurred in the early to middle growing season, and fire event years were linked to climate across all elevations, with a stronger association to drought

https://fireecology.springeropen.com/ar ... 204-4#Sec2
In other words, the Schultz and Pipeline fires, in the early 21st century followed over a century of no fire that was a result of man's intrusion, and therefore is in direct antithesis to the wilderness Act.

You can argue that the Kachina became a wilderness in 1984, and so the Act has little to do with the conditions, and that is true. However, that designation could have made after some effort to restore the ecology of the Peaks. In 2001, the Leroux Fire was suppressed. It was actually beneficial to the south face, and may have played a role in helping control the Pipeline, although probably not due to the wind direction. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Fir ... _329937404

Let's just say it didn't. All 3 fires were in conditions that tended to spread fire to the upper slopes. The last 2 did not fit in and the results are pretty obvious.

Last, I know the knee jerk reaction is to point out that all 3 fires were human caused. Let's say that man never set a fire at all, ever. Lightning would eventually happen, and well, the Pumpkin Fire was the result on the north side of Kendrick. At least the Boundary fire i 2017 was managed, but some raged over that as I recall.

@Jim_H
how do you propose they "manage" a wilderness area better than they are? You can't take chainsaws, logging trucks, bull dozers and the such into a wilderness area. It's wilderness, leave it be. Sorry, that's the way it was set up. Why do we need more government involvement? Not sure what you're referencing around Flagstaff? The wilderness area with no driveable roads? I think it's the Kachina. Looks lilke nothing but foot travel only. Just the way it should be.

I'm done here. This conversation is not worth my time or effort. Have fun trying to change the wilderness areas.

@herdbull
Dude, calm down. You have a VERY strong feeling about wheels. You're entitled to your opinions and feelings. I don't particularly care one way or the other, but I have strong feelings about pretty much every Arizona Wilderness area being on the fast track to destruction by virtue of it being roped off from reality.

The areas didn't get to their present condition overnight, it took over a century. Eventually, most of them won't be in an shape to be considered worth preserving. Maybe then ecological restoration will be on the table.

The USFS does take chainsaws into wilderness areas, as they also dump MASSIVE airtanker loads of toxic chemicals directly on the wilderness. They call it fire suppression. Most people cheer it as a good thing. You're jumping to a conclusion I never advocated for. When did I write to have logging trucks or bulldozers? Fire suppression and exclusion are a direct negative management affect on wilderness areas. If anything, fire needs to be back in them.

Moovyoaz wrote: ↑Jul 23 2024 7:53 pm

nonot wrote:I believe this is referring to a (small) wheeled trailer you could put a shot deer onto, or elk, etc. I'm guessing you'd hook that trailer to a mountain bike rather than an ATV in a wilderness area?

Apparently you're not a golfer, Lebowski. A 'game cart' is generally a wheeled cart pulled by hand, kind of like a wheelbarrow, used to retrieve game.
I hiked the West Fork of the Little Colorado last year, and was met by a group of e-bikes returning to the trailhead. Signs at the trailhead clearly state e-bikes were not allowed there. Wish I had cell service to report the idiots.

Yes, the existing wilderness laws already are wildly ignored, so it seems some people are trying to align the laws with what people are already doing in violating the current laws rather than ask that the existing laws be enforced.

Being bored, I did some googling. The majority of game carts are made for pulling by hand, as you state. However it appears there are some customized units that are self propelled (motorized) and others with towing attachment options.

(HAZ might delete these links, but they are on my first google page when I search for game carts)

https://www.packwheel.com/E-Pack-Wheel

https://www.magicyclebike.com/products/ ... d_source=1

@nonot
Here's another wheeled option.
[ youtube video ]

@The_Eagle
PETA has been notified.
joking

@Jim_H
People Eating Tasty Animals?

@The_Eagle
Yes. They'd like the address of the hunter riding the deer home, and want to know if they should bring a side.

Turns out, something tracked does exist. That could easily make it up into the Kachina, before the pipeline fire.

Now, the power element raises other issues, and while the FS has no requirement to create areas for people to go, if someone wanted to take a motorized chair like that into a wilderness area, I wonder how a court case would go. Since the ADA and Wilderness act are in conflict. Also, the act is routinely ignored for fire, likely under "public good".

Maybe one already has occurred, but I would be interested in seeing the FS argue that it is acceptable for them to dump airplane loads of toxic chemicals on wilderness area and say that is fore public good, but something like this relatively unobtrusive motorized chair should not be allowed, and could potentially be seen as an ADA violation.