4 ms·

That Badlands place would certainly not the best riding around (it'd maybe be good in the winter), but it's really not 'wild' feeling at all and is a good examp

by davidw 9y ago

That Badlands place would certainly not the best riding around (it'd maybe be good in the winter), but it's really not 'wild' feeling at all and is a good example of Wilderness != wilderness. > maybe we should just leave the wilderness areas alone. Except that brings into conflict mountain bikers with the idea of expanding wilderness areas. Wouldn't we rather have more areas protected like that? As it stands, mountain bikers who are environmentalists face an agonizing choice between protecting the land in that way, and their access to trails. That's not hypothetical, either: https://www.singletracks.com/blog/mtb-news/oregon-crater-lake-wilderness-proposal-would-eliminate-treasured-mountain-bike-access/ https://www.singletracks.com/blog/mtb-news/oregon-crater-lak... See also the Boulder-White Clouds wilderness in Idaho that closed a bunch of trails that mountain bikers were already riding.

24gttghh 9y ago
What doesn't feel wild about it? 29,000 acres seem like a big enough place to get lost in and feel wild. For example, I've camped in the Presidential-Dry River Wilderness (also 29,000 acres) in the WMNF, and I have to say, even camping a half mile inside the area I felt like I could have been hundreds of miles from the nearest person. Being up over 4000 feet probably helps too... I've never considered that wilderness areas were even being expanded on such a scale, let alone that it would be an issue. I will have to think about it now...I feel like if I could triple the amount of area that would be let to go wild, but lose mountain biking access in the process, that I'd be willing to accept the gain in wilderness with a loss in biking. I've done very little biking on any federal land to begin with. Most has either been on private land or town-organized easements. To be fair, anywhere I've mountain-biked is nowhere close to being as remote as places out West. Maybe there is enough wilderness area in the West, but not enough here in the Northeast. That may be my perspective.
- davidw 9y ago
  Yeah, this is an actual wild Wilderness with lots of high, remote places, and 10X the area of the other one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Sisters_Wilderness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Sisters_Wilderness Plenty of trails are also not suitable, nor maybe even really feasible for bikes.

by davidw 9y ago

24gttghh 9y ago

What doesn't feel wild about it? 29,000 acres seem like a big enough place to get lost in and feel wild. For example, I've camped in the Presidential-Dry River Wilderness (also 29,000 acres) in the WMNF, and I have to say, even camping a half mile inside the area I felt like I could have been hundreds of miles from the nearest person. Being up over 4000 feet probably helps too... I've never considered that wilderness areas were even being expanded on such a scale, let alone that it would be an issue. I will have to think about it now...I feel like if I could triple the amount of area that would be let to go wild, but lose mountain biking access in the process, that I'd be willing to accept the gain in wilderness with a loss in biking. I've done very little biking on any federal land to begin with. Most has either been on private land or town-organized easements. To be fair, anywhere I've mountain-biked is nowhere close to being as remote as places out West. Maybe there is enough wilderness area in the West, but not enough here in the Northeast. That may be my perspective.

davidw 9y ago
Yeah, this is an actual wild Wilderness with lots of high, remote places, and 10X the area of the other one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Sisters_Wilderness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Sisters_Wilderness Plenty of trails are also not suitable, nor maybe even really feasible for bikes.