text:
Mountain bikes and wilderness don't mix
To loosen wildland restrictions now starts us down a slippery slope.
My first wolverine sighting in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem happened on a warm July afternoon in 2012. On a pass above northwest Wyoming's West DuNoir Creek, I watched as the elusive animal scaled a rock face and then ambled away. Under prehistoric conditions, wolverine populations were thinly spread across big landscapes; in 21st century America, wolverines veer toward the endangered species list.
Wolverines need wilderness to survive. That's one reason that conservationists for four decades have promoted wilderness designation for the DuNoir, which is contiguous with the designated Teton and Washakie wilderness areas.
The roadless DuNoir landscape is stunning; its wooded basins and sprawling tundra provide rich wildlife habitat for many species native to Greater Yellowstone. Unfortunately, it also appeals to a growing cadre of mountain bikers, who sometimes speak louder than wildland defenders. The Shoshone National Forest is on record as opposing wilderness designation for the DuNoir, as the Forest Service plans a bike route through the heart of the area.
Turn back the clock 50 years to when Congress passed the Wilderness Act, our foremost land protection law. Its authors had the foresight to forbid "mechanized" and not just "motorized" travel in wilderness. Under this carefully worded law, wilderness areas must remain "untrammeled" and their "wilderness character" maintained. Designated wilderness is primeval nature, a landscape of human restraint, where natural conditions and self-sufficiency prevail. Sure, there are other land protection options such as national monuments or recreation areas, but nothing equals wilderness for protecting a vestige of America as it was for eons before the spread of civilization.
When mechanized mountain bikers demand access to proposed and designated wilderness, they fail to understand that if they succeed, owners of unimagined future contraptions will certainly demand equal treatment. So will modern-day snow machine and all-terrain vehicle owners. To loosen wildland restrictions now starts us down that slippery slope.
In addition, mountain bikers are not traditional users, such as hikers or horse-packers. Mountain bikes were not commercially produced for off-road use until the early 1980s. By allowing them to proliferate in roadless areas, the Forest Service nourishes yet another anti-wilderness constituency. A cynic might suggest that's no accident.
Let's be frank: Backcountry biking damages the land. Bikers often veer off trail just to keep from crashing. Last year, I sent the district ranger photos of mountain-bike damage to vegetation at Kissinger Lakes in the DuNoir, but the problem persists. Because mountain bikers ride fast, they startle wildlife more than hikers or horseback-riders do. They also make formerly remote areas more accessible, thereby reducing solitude and increasing the disturbance of wilderness-dependent species such as lynx and wolverine. Like trail runners with ear pods, mountain bikers inadvertently "troll for grizzlies," as demonstrated by the 2004 mauling of a DuNoir mountain biker. Speeding mountain bikers also endanger horse-packers and hikers on steep trails. Let's face it: Mountain bikers need all that protective gear because they're not always in control.
Generally speaking, the place for mountain bikes is on roads, not in relatively pristine backcountry. At this point in our history, I believe that public land management should be about preserving wildness and doing what's best for the land and wildlife. Recreation can adapt. Though some -- certainly not all -- mountain bikers apparently view our public lands as outdoor gyms, that is not their function. Nor is a wild place a metaphorical pie to be divvied up among "user groups" or local "stakeholders," to use federal bureaucratese. The authors of the Wilderness Act would be appalled at the Forest Service's eagerness to mollify every recreation group that decides its particular form of recreation trumps all else.
As a backpack trip outfitter, I've guided hikers throughout the West, including the DuNoir, since the 1970s. When these Lycra-clad speedsters zip past our groups, ripping up vegetation and spooking critters, it diminishes our clients' hard-earned wilderness experience.
But that's not why I believe that the DuNoir -- and other qualifying wildlands -- should be designated wilderness. It's because wilderness designation is best for the land. Wilderness is about humility, the acceptance that we humans don't know it all and never will. More than any other landscape, wilderness takes us beyond "self"; in it, we are part of something greater. It is a shame that the Forest Service, many politicians and some recreationists are so wrongheaded -- stuck in a self-indulgent and myopic worldview regarding the DuNoir and so many other fragile endangered wildlands. Wilderness is timeless, transcending short-term concerns. Above all, wilderness celebrates the intrinsic value of wild nature. We need to let it be.
Howie Wolke is a contributor to Writers on the Range, a service of High Country News. He co-owns Big Wild Adventures in Montana with his wife, Marilyn Olsen, and has been guiding and outfitting backpack trips in the Greater Yellowstone and elsewhere in the West since the 1970's.
Note: the opinions expressed in this column are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of High Country News, its board or staff. If you'd like to share an opinion piece of your own, please write Betsy Marston at firstname.lastname@example.com.
When the wilderness act was written they just could not envision that the backpacking gear of the 60s that weighted 50 to 60lbs is now only weighting in at around 20lbs. This dramatic decrease in pack weight has allowed hikers to visit places previously inaccessible to them just 10 years ago. Let's face it: Hikers and horse packers are now voyaging further and into more remote areas because they have there GPS smart phone and spot device to bail them out. Modern gear should just be banned!
Generally speaking, the place for hikers and horsepackers bikes is on roads, not in relatively pristine backcountry. Recreation can adapt.
Finally the best thing you could do is to shut down Big Wild Adventures and stop bringing people into these pristine areas! What is more important? Every one of your trips has an impact on wildlife and vegetation.
Bottom line is that the author makes his living selling trips into wilderness areas. While I agree that mtn bikes simply don't belong in many of those places, Mr. Wolke would do better to make a clearer-headed case and leave the histrionics at home.
While we don't want to love out outdoors to death, the mere fact that people are getting out to enjoy their wilderness experience in itself is a means of inspiring people to preserve what is there. I have trouble thinking that mountain bikers are only athletes out to prove their abilities and may appreciate their outdoor experience as much as I do hiking or another might with a horse outfitter.
Still, when it comes to bikes in Wilderness, it's less the trail damage and more the easy access that disturbs me. Wildernesses are set aside for preservation and protection in their natural condition. Mountain bikes, with their speed, would allow and encourage more people to penetrate more deeply into the Wilderness we're trying to preserve. Human disturbance would be brought to a much greater area. I'm not saying hikers don't cause disturbance, but the slower pace and the greater effort required, is a natural limitation on the extent of human impact on the natural environment. This limitation also preserves opportunities for those going to the Wilderness seeking solitude. I may have to haul a bunch of junk on my back to reach a point a mountain biker could zip in and out of in a day, but the effort of the journey and seeing few others are my rewards.
It is so difficult to protect and preserve Wilderness, particularly near large population centers, that any compromises of the restrictions on use provided by the Wilderness Act will inevitably bring an increased human presence and subsequent degradation of the natural qualities of those areas.
Not far from me, there is an area primarily for motorized recreation. I don't go there, but I'm glad those folks have their place to go. Another area, for non-motorized use, sees heavy use by mountain bikers and many of the trails have been designed for bikes. I hike there fairly often and I've had good experiences with all I've met on the trails. I'm glad there's a good place for the mountain bikers to ride.
With Wilderness, I'm glad there's a place where nature is relatively undisturbed and I have a place to go where, though I have to work for it, I can find the solitude I'm looking for.
I actually don't know if bikes should be in wilderness or not, but I do know it should be a rational discussion, a little bit of science wouldn't hurt, and we need to respect all people who love the outdoors, no matter what form they prefer, because we need all the help we can get.
Because like rock and roll, bikes are definitely here to stay. And while I very much respect equestrians, as a hiker I'd much rather step in a bike track than a horse you-know-what.
"In order 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 be the policy of the Congress to secure for the American people of present and future generations the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness."
By limiting travel/transportation to non-mechanized means, the Wilderness Act limits human use and human effects on the natural environment. The Act says nothing about "traditional use", but does limit the permitted use of Wilderness areas "for preservation and protection in their natural condition". Reducing the use limitations set forth in the Act reduces protection of these areas.
By the way, look up the Columbine-Hondo Wilderness here in beautiful New Mexico. Things haven't gone to hell there...
a. Christopher Papouchis, Francis Singer, and William Sloan, reported in 2001 on "Responses of Desert Bighorn Sheep To Increased Human Recreation" This research noted that Sheep fled from hikers 61% of the time while they only fled from bikers 6% of the time.
b. Spahr (1990), in studying responses of eagles to human activity, noted that eagles flushed 46% of the time compared to 15% with hikers.
c. Herrero and Herrero (2000) noted that there was no difference in hiker and biker impacts on grizzlies and concluded that there was no basis for managing these activities differently.
2. The author states "When mechanized mountain bikers demand access to proposed and designated wilderness, they fail to understand that if they succeed, owners of unimagined future contraptions will certainly demand equal treatment."
This is the classic "slippery slope" fallacy and never serves as a rational argument. Any "future contraptions," like bikes (or feet or hooves), must be evaluated on their actual impact, not some user group's perceived impact. If feet and hooves are allowed, then other equally low impact modes of transport should also be allowed.
3. Speaking of impact, the author then makes yet another unsubstantiated, and demonstrably false claim: "Let's be frank: Backcountry biking damages the land." This is at least false in the sense that mountain bikes have no more impact on the land than feet and far less than hooves. Again, independent, peer-reviewed research backs this up:
a. Wilson and Seney (1994). Horses have by far the greatest impact. Trails studied with bike impact showed no difference from control trails that saw no bike traffic.
b. Marion (2006) noted the greatest difference in trail erosion due to construction (i.e. fall line vs. traversing) but not by user group type. In fact, his research showed the least erosion on trails used for biking.
c. Goeft and Alder (2001) also concluded that trail design was a significant factor in erosion while user type was not.
These are just a few--there are many more. Most interesting is the fact that horses are by far the most damaging of the three, yet the author is an outfitter employing horses in the Wilderness. Pure hypocrisy here.
d. A 2006 study by the National Park Service concluded that "Horse and ATV trails are significantly more degraded than hiking and biking trails...[T]he proportion of trails with severe erosion...is 24% for ATV trails, 9% for horse trails, 1.4% for hiking trails and 0.6% for bike trails."
4. That same hypocrisy grows further with the statement "They also make formerly remote areas more accessible, thereby reducing solitude" At best, the author is ignorant and has never ridden a mountain bike on a backcountry trail. It's hard work—it takes effort, sweat and commitment. The bike is, after all, human powered, unlike his horses, which allow any lazy, unmotivated slob with a Visa card to purchase their backcountry experience. The author says "it diminishes our clients' hard-earned wilderness experience." That doesn't even pass the giggle test.
5. The author then gives his most ridiculous statement of all, thus proving his either irrational or self-serving bias: "Generally speaking, the place for mountain bikes is on roads,"
????? The place for road bikes is on roads. The place for mountain bikes is off road. Duh!
6. The author purports to know what the original framers of the Wilderness Act would say about this. Again, he is at best ignorant or at worst, deliberately misleading in the pursuit of his self-serving agenda. First and foremost, people have been riding bicycles in the backcountry since the 1800s—the Wilderness Act was signed in 1964, and the bike ban was not added until the late '80s. He quotes the "untrammeled" word, yet ignores the fact that the bike "trammels" no more than a hiker and far less than his horses. A study of the original wilderness intent shows that the goal was to preserve (as we have already shown, bikes do not affect this any more than feet), and to get Americans out in the woods under their own power and to prevent the encroachment of the infrastructure necessary to support automobiles. A bike needs no more infrastructure than a boot. In a 1965 address to Congress on the need for conservation of our wild places, President Johnson said: "The forgotten outdoorsmen of today are those who like to walk, hike, ride horseback or bicycle. For them we must have trails as well as highways. Nor should motor vehicles be permitted to tyrannize the more leisurely human traffic." Confirming all this is the 1966 Wilderness regulations which defined "mechanical transport" as "propelled by a non-living power source." Clearly, the intent was to get people off their duffs, not to preclude adventurous, self sufficient, challenging, human-powered travel.
7. The author also asserts that "By allowing them to proliferate in roadless areas, the Forest Service nourishes yet another anti-wilderness constituency." Again, a ridiculous and deliberately misleading statement. Most cyclists who ride roadless areas are among the most conservation minded of our citizens. Mountain bikers also put far more of their own sweat equity into trail maintenance and sustainment. Our country has no shortage of hiker only trails which are degrading or disappearing through neglect while most trails popular with cyclists remain viable and often improve over time. If you're really concerned with preservation, you should be seeking allies, not alienating one of your potentially strongest partners in that goal.
"A man on foot, on horseback or on a bicycle will see more, feel more, enjoy more in one mile than the motorized tourists can in a hundred miles." — Edward Abbey
When they say we can't allow bikes because they "shrink" the Wilderness, they ignore the fact that the bike is human powered while the horse is not, allowing many people to penetrate deeper on horseback than they could on a bike. Yet they fail to apply this criteron to horses.
When they say Wilderness is a place to be preserved in its natural state, they ignore the fact that the trail, regardless of who it's open to, is itself a scar on the land. They further refuse to acknowledge that any additional impact on the land caused by bikes is similar to what they create as hikers and far less than that by horses. Again, they apply this criterion only to one user group.
When they say we've got to protect the wildlife, they ignore the research that shows hikers having at least as much, and usually more, impact on wildlife than hikers. If they honestly believed this was a valid criterion, they would ban themselves even before cyclists.
When they say the Wilderness is not a place for mechanical devices, yet ignore all the other mechanical devices which are allowed, they again selectively apply a criterion. When they say the Wilderness is not a place for technology, but have no qualms with carrying an ultralite tent with space-age fabric and aerospace grade titanium poles, a 5-oz cookstove which burns fossil fuels to boil a quart of water in under 5 minutes to rehydrate compact, lightweight, calorie-rich, freeze-dried foods, and a hand-held GPS unit that can pinpoint their location anywhere on the globe to within a couple feet by triangulating a signal from a constellation of orbital space satellites, they again invalidate their own position.
The inescapable conclusion from this, and all the other fallacious arguments is that, for many anti bike zealots, none of the above are the goal—they simply don't want to share the land with an equally low impact user group, which just happens to offend their personal aesthetic.
However, if I were the supreme decision maker I'd vote to remove both horses and prevent bikes from accessing at least some wilderness areas, limiting them to foot travel only. I would love to have less access to wilderness areas. I'm young and in good shape. I love solitude. By limiting it to foot travel only I'm betting I'll see fewer people, have more solitude, and a more genuine "wild"erness experience.
The fact that I called out commercial outfitters is that in my opinion they are the largest current contributor to the unwild-ing of the wilderness.
Thanks for you honest and straightforward post. As an avid backpacker and mountain biker (one who also loves solitude), let me offer some additional perspective.
People disturb solitude, regardless of their means of locomotion. Banning bikes does indeed increase our chance for solitude—but is it fair to provide that solitude by arbitrarily banning an equally low-impact user group? If we need to limit the number of people to preserve the wilderness experience, then we should do that—but fairly. Backcountry areas in some national parks, as well as designated routes in Wilderness areas already employ a permit system to limit use and preserve the experience. It's only fair that any who can quietly and sustainably enjoy those trails have equal opportunity to do so.
I have seen more standing water, mud bogs, crushed (l)edges, widened singletrack and trail destruction from horses than MTB tires make, perhaps even more than motorcycles. I've used many of Colorado and Utah's full mixed use trails Hike/Bike/Equestrian/(even motorcycle).
My grandfather was a blacksmith and having been stepped on by 1,000 lb horse with steel horseshoes and a 200 lb rider on top digs deeper and presses harder per square inch than a 30 lb bike with a 185 lb rider. If anyone ever says that a horse does less damage I question their integrity. I'd gladly challenge anyone to accept a 10 horses and riders stepping on your foot vs. 10 MTB and riders on my foot. We'll have a podiatrist on site to give expert opinion on which foot is more damaged. Sound fair? Now transfer that thought to trail erosion and psi!
Just look at any mixed use dirt parking lot you'll see the broken up dirt from horse hooves, whereas a hike/bike only lot remains mostly hard packed. Try riding on BLM land where cows share the trail they are pulverized into 3" deep talc!
As for snow machines and 4x4's demanding access it's easy, no fuel powered vehicles gas, electric etc...or how about a 300 lb weight limit per visitor person gear etc...? (but that might exclude equestrians).
In the end, accessing the wilderness should include mountain bikes, should include trail maintenance days.
Also I would like to see volume limiting lotteries allowing only certain numbers of users per day/week including odd/even weeks where hikers and equestrians have it one week, bikers the other.
You make a great counter point, one that I could/would easily support over the current management strategy. Restricting the number of users into an area would enhance the experience. Unfortunately, in the areas I've encountered this system the number of users allowed seems to be geared to the maximum number of users with acceptable environmental degradation. Nowhere I've been has limited the number to such a degree as to actually create the wilderness experience I've after. The closest areas I've seen were areas with less than top notch scenery that were overshadowed by far more spectacular areas nearby that drew the crowds.
One last thing, I don't understand why we manage all wilderness areas the same (or nearly the same). Why can't some allow mt bikes while others provide only walk in access, others that limit the number of people to create that true (ish) "wilderness" experience, and some that restrict overnight camping? Seems like a good compromise to me.
There is actually a good deal of variation in management of various Wilderness areas. Some restrict use via a limited number of permits, some don't. Some allow pets and some don't (I have backpacked Wilderness areas at times with my dog, other time's I've had to kennel him). Some allow off-trail travel and some don't. Some restrict overnight camping as well. Some have different maximum allowable party sizes.
The one uniform policy, though, is no bikes.
Has the Golden Age of (W)ilderness passed us by?
Not as a general concept or definition of (w)ilderness - or lines drawn on current maps of the hallowed (D)esignated places - but as a viable land protection tool of the future? Has D.C. been passing those Wilderness bills lately? Didn't think so. But I digress…
With all the religion-like fervor that a (W)ilderness designation incites, it is important to note that the democratic disciples that fought to pass the Wilderness Act DID NOT ban bicycles – the Forest Service did so in 1984 through a sneaky move that did an end-around the public process. Do doubt the framers of the ACT that are no longer with us are spinning in their graves as they bear witness to what the (W)ilderness Machine has become.
In the face of all the extractive pressures on our remaining wild lands, I would suggest that if the (W)ilderness advocates are truly interested in protecting these places (and not just their cushy employment opportunities), that they will embark on creating the next organic act that will replace (W)ilderness as the new Gold Standard of protection. And guess what? It will allow bicycles.
And what shall it be called?
Wilderness Lite?
Wilderness B?
Conservation Management Area?
Stop the manipulative grammatical subterfuge!
Why should Wilderness advocates work on creating a new Act that will replace Wilderness and that will allow bicycles? As a Wilderness advocate, I don't want bicycles or any other form of motorized or mechanical intrusions in Wilderness. I think the authors of the Wilderness Act knew what they were doing, and they got it right.
"Except as specifically provided for in this Act, and subject to existing private rights, there shall be no commercial enterprise and no permanent road within any wilderness area designated by this Act and, except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of this Act (including measures required in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the area), there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any such area."
This prohibition applies to any Wilderness, whether Forest Service, Park Service, BLM, or Fish and Wildlife Service.
Because the (W)ilderness or nothing dialog/solution is becoming less politically viable everyday? So do you want help in getting Wildlands protected, or just leave it for the extractive free-for-all while you hold out for the (W)ilderness (D)ream? Tick Tock Tick Tock...
To protect, or not to protect - the 50 year-old question.
Your analysis is superficial--a more in-depth discussion is necessary.
If you were to actually study the intent of the Wilderness Act, you would find nothing incongruous behind it and the inclusion of bicycles. The intent was two-fold:
1. To preserve. As has been proven time and time again, bikes carry impact similar to feet and far less than hooves.
2. To encourage Americans to enjoy their wild places under their own power. I bicycle fits neatly into this intent.
During the House debate on the Act, the chairperson of the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Representative Wayne N. Aspinall Colorado, made it clear that the Act was intended to bar obtrusive infrastructure. Another House member asked, "[o]n page 17 of the bill . . . the language is as follows: 'has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation.' I wonder what 'a primitive and unconfined type of recreation' might be?" Representative Aspinall responded, "it just simply means that there will not be any manmade structures about in order to embarrass and handicap the enjoyers of this particular area." A bicycle requires no such infrastructure.
Representative John P. Saylor of Pennsylvania asked to have included in the record a 1961statement by Senator Clinton P. Anderson of New Mexico, made when Senator Anderson introduced a prior version of the Act in the Senate. In a passage titled "Wilderness Recreation," Senator Anderson stated:
Yet we must recognize and emphasize more than we have the values of wilderness recreation in providing for the health and vigor of our citizens."Physical fitness is the basis of all the activities of our society," and I say this in the words of President-elect John F. Kennedy writing thus in the December 26, 1960, issue of Sports Illustrated. In an article entitled "The Soft American," this great and vigorous leader warns that this "age of leisure and abundance can destroy vigor and muscle tone as effortlessly as it can gain time." "Many of the routine physical activities which earlier Americans took for granted," he points out, "are no longer part of our daily life. A single look at the packed parking lot of the average high school will tell us what has happened to the traditional bike to school that helped to build young bodies. The television set, the movies, and the [myriad] conveniences and distractions of modern life all lure our young people away from the strenuous physical activity that is the basis of fitness in youth and in later life."
This, and all subsequent testimony at the time points to human powered transport being not only acceptable, but encouraged in accordance with the intent of the Wilderness Act.
Between the signing of the Act and the writing of the regulations which would implement the Act, President Lyndon Johnson made his intent clear as well:
"The forgotten outdoorsmen of today are those who like to walk, hike, ride horseback or bicycle. For them we must have trails as well as highways. Nor should motor vehicles be permitted to tyrannize the more leisurely human traffic."
Backing this up is the first regulation put into place to implement the law. It states: "there shall be in National Forest Wilderness . . . no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment, motorboats, or other forms of mechanical transport" Anti bike zealots are quick to latch onto that word "mechanical," which a bicycle certainly is. Fortunately, the architects of the original Wilderness regulations were very specific in what they meant by "mechanical transport" as the regulation goes on to define clearly "(a) Mechanical transport, as herein used, shall include any contrivance which travels over ground, snow, or water on wheels, tracks, skids, or by floatation and is propelled by a nonliving power source contained or carried on or within the device."
"Propelled by a nonliving power source" says it all. Bicycles should be lumped in with those mechanical devices which are driven by life forms, not those which are propelled by artificial means.
Congress reinforced their legislative intent in the Rattlesnake Wilderness act of 1980 which led to the creation of the Rattlesnake Wilderness Area in Montana. In this legislation, they specifically called bicycling as a primitive form of recreation fitting for Wilderness.
(a) The Congress finds that—(1) certain lands on the Lolo National Forest in Montana have high value for watershed, water storage, wildlife habitat, primitive recreation, historical, scientific, ecological, and educational purposes. This national forest area has long been used as a wilderness by Montanans and by people throughout the Nation who value it as a source of solitude, wildlife, clean, free-flowing waters stored and used for municipal purposes for over a century, and primitive recreation, to include such activities as hiking, camping, backpacking, hunting, fishing, horse riding, and bicycling;"
IMPORTANT NOTE: This is the one and only place that the Congressional record specifically addresses bicycling with regard to Wilderness. While some of the original 1964 – 1966 language might be asserted as ambiguous, the intent here removes any doubt. Combine the original language which clearly stated that "primitive recreation" is a valid purpose of Wilderness with this language declaring cycling as a primitive form of recreation, and the loop is neatly closed. Intent is clear . . . . and it makes sense, unlike the anti-bike hysteria which seeks to twist the words and meaning of the purpose of Wilderness.
You should also do additional research on the full context of the Wilderness Act, the intent behind it, and the history its regulation since its inception. My post immediately above dispels the usual myths.
This year I took the family on a multi-day backpack. Miles of trail were badly eroded and rutted, exhibiting the worst trail damag I'd ever seen. Now, here's the kicker—the entire duration of this trip was spent within the confines of the Holy Cross Wilderness area on trails which have never seen a knobby tire! I have repeated this experience of navigating badly eroded trail many times on many different trails which are not used by mountain bikes.
Conversely, I make a couple trips each year to one of mountain biking's great Meccas, Fruita. These trails receive an exceptionally high volume of bike travel throughout the year. In the spring and fall, thousands of cyclists descend on these trail networks each day. Yet these trails show none of the degradation you attribute to bikes. In fact, they remain in better shape than the majority of hiker only trails I've been on.
The fact of the matter is that there are numerous factors which contribute to trail damage and hasten negative impacts. Bikes as opposed to hikers is not one of them. I don't just rely on my own personal anecdotal experience, either. I look to independent, unbiased research to help prove or disprove the conclusions I might draw from my own experience. In this case, my experience is validated by experts who are not mountain bikers:
1. Wilson and Seney (1994). Horses (which are allowed and I have yet to hear any anti-bike zealot argue against despite this fact) have by far the greatest impact. Trails studied with bike impact showed no difference from control trails that saw no bike traffic.
2. Marion (2006) noted the greatest difference in trail erosion due to construction (i.e. fall line vs. traversing) but not by user group type. In fact, his research showed the least erosion on trails used for biking.
3. Goeft and Alder (2001) also concluded that trail design was a significant factor in erosion while user type was not.
These are but a few examples. There are more and each and every one of them come to the same conclusion—that there is no significant difference in trail impact between hiking and biking, and wherever included, equestrian use has significantly more impact than either.
You also misrepresent, either intentionally or honestly by false assumption, the intent of Wilderness as it was constructed and implemented. See my post above for a more complete demonstration of this.
It's also funny that you say "For some, their speed and lack of control on descents is irresponsible." For some hikers, their cutting of switchbacks, establishment of campsites or relieving of bodily waste within 100 ft of water sources, building of illegal and land-scarring fire rings, or reckless smoking (either tobacco or marijuana) in drought stricken or other high fire danger back country areas is also quite irresponsible. If you think it appropriate to ban all because of the irresponsible actions of a few, you must apply that to all user groups, not just the ones you wish to cast out.
I ride my bicycle into pristine mountain landscapes for the beauty, the solitude, the physical challenge. My experience embraces (w)ilderness character - and does not tarnish it.
In my Region 1 backyard where 500 miles of backcountry singletrack that we'd ridden for decades was recently closed to bicycles because of an ill-defined, secret handshake Forest Service philosophy that manages Recommended Wilderness as Wilderness with no guarantee that it will ever get the official Congressional blessing, we are left to wonder where was the pubic process that approved this blanket ban that usurps the authority of Congress?
Just where exactly does the buck stop?
For those of us who place the greatest value on wilderness as the last refuge for many endangered species, removing people from wilderness areas would help tremendously. But, I wouldn't start with recreationists. I would start with the biggest problem. Unless the management of wilderness areas has changed recently, approximately half of all designated wilderness is grazed by domestic livestock. Ranchers are permitted to drive motorized vehicles in designated wilderness to facilitate their livestock business.
The wilderness-designation process is a fiasco. In a recent case, areas that the oil and gas industry wanted were cut out of consideration; grazing leases remained; and a road was "cherry-stemmed" to a non-functioning gold mine owned by a serial federal blackmailer. Because of the designation, the road was reopened and maintained at public expense. Some may be interested to know that bicycles were banned in the designation, which protected mostly high-altitude rock and ice, which probably didn't need protection. With scenic background in place, posing senators, commissioners, and land-management officials took credit for a superlative example of "conservation."
The letter of the law allows all of these abuses. That's why, for the sake of endangered species, the law must be changed. Species that belong in these places, like grizzly bears, wolves, and bison, are not being reintroduced to these possible home sites. None have made it across hundreds of miles of hostile territory to recolonize wilderness areas. Even if they did, I don't know whether they would be allowed to stay.
I thought that the author of the initial article would have made this argument. Maybe he just needs to make some money in this crazy, overpopulated dystopia.
As many others have pointed out in prior comments, factual research actually contradicts your position on several points. I mountain bike, road bike, backpack, hike, kayak, climb, ski, snowshoe, and love to be outdoors. I used to guide hiking and backpacking trips through a fairly large outdoor club in TN and was very involved in the mountain bike community. There are irresponsible users in every group - people who are loud, inconsiderate, who litter, who don't stay on designated trails, etc. Luckily, they tend to be in the minority. Most people who are involved in outdoor activities do it because they appreciate nature and it is in their best interest to "tread lightly" in order to preserve the experience for the future. Even though I ride, I think an argument can be made that there are trails that mountain bikers (and potentially hikers or equestrians) do not belong on, but I think it should be on a trail by trail basis (or park/area basis). I think another alternative that I have seen work very well in Tsali, NC is alternating designated ride days for mountain bikers and other user groups to allow shared use with minimal conflicts. I don't agree with blanket bans in Wilderness Areas and your article did nothing to convince me otherwise.
I am also an avid backpacker, and agree there are places that bikes do not belong. I am not convinced, however, that the very definition of wilderness should preclude responsible mountain biking. I support wilderness preservation, but this exclusion causes me to rethink this support when a proposed wilderness area encompasses one of my favorite mountain bike trails. Arguably, the wilderness also should not be open to commercial trips, whether on foot, bicycle, or horseback. As an outfitter, you bring in groups of people who otherwise lack the knowledge, skills, and equipment to enjoy the outdoors without inflicting undue harm on either themselves or the wilderness around them.
And you are unlikely to convince me that mountain bikes cause more damage than strings of pack horses and large groups of hikers who widen trails, cause streamside erosion, and trammel large campsites.
I've participated in most of the non-motorized forms of outdoor recreation over the last several decades and I've witnessed the explosion of both mountain bikes and motorized recreation on public lands as well as more pedestrian pursuits like bouldering and climbing. For the record, I thoroughly enjoy single-track mountain biking but there are plenty of places to pursue that activity outside of Wilderness. Indeed far more area outside of Wilderness than in it.
The biggest problem I have with the idea of mountain bikes in wilderness is that their speed makes the Wilderness smaller and reduces the opportunities for solitude. They are also not 'unconfined' in that they are restricted (or should be) to existing or new (e.g. bootleg) trails. Advocating for them to be included begins to erode the definition of Wilderness which weakens the protections of the Act which in the long run will be to the detriment of all who value Wilderness.
Ed Abbey once proposed we have a range of wilderness designations from those where no humans are ever allowed to those open to more kinds of uses. It'd never work, but I like the idea.
I don't believe that I've ever read anything, in any periodical of any kind, where the author was more out of touch, more projective than this one. The aire of ignorance and arrogance, of infantile paralysis is dumfounding. "stuck in self"..... go look in the mirror. Many, like you, base their simple-minded, self-indulgent, immature projective opinions on their gross ignorance, as you have. Fact is, there are hundreds of mt. bike advocacy groups across N. America (to mention only one continent) who promote biking on dirt trails, with responsible trail-building ethics and practices, which result in responsible trail use practices. For every irresponsible, reckless mt. biker, there are that number and more hikers and equestrians who use our natural wilderness resources recklessly, irresponsibly, to the decimation of that wilderness, eroding and trashing our environment for generations to come. I've helped clean up too many of these damaged environs to count (I"m on the older side of life at 71, so have seen/experienced this often). The wrongheaded, ignorant position you confer does nothing to try and bring together the most valuable resources, outside of the land itself, in order to ensure sustainability, and that is us humans. Take your warrantless diatribe and drivel elsewhere. There is nothing useful or redeeming in it.
Arguing about the "right way" to interpret or perceive the value of a landscape seems silly. And kind of stupid because in the end it's futile. People place different values on the land and expect to enjoy the land differently. A community of people (as evidenced here!!) aren't likely to agree on those values or expected uses. But it's it ultimately most important for people to value open spaces as places to enjoy? Imagine yourself hiking in a designated Wilderness Area and you see a few mountain bikers wiz by. Can you honestly say that ruins your experience? Now imagine that designated Wilderness Area didn't exist.
I totally understand the desire to have a primeval place, and I totally understand that designating certain areas as restricted to all other uses besides non-mechanized, self-propelled ones. Personally I'd prefer to open more places for all kinds of recreation – motorized and not – if it meant more places were taken off the chopping block for industrial uses. But, then some of my least "wildernessy" experiences have occurred in areas designated as such while my most were either facilitated by motors and mechanisms or occurred in areas where such uses were allowed.
Certainly some areas should remain off limits to motors. To bikes, I don't know. Regardless, I wonder how the debate would change if there were broader support for mixed uses in more areas and single uses in fewer? Would that propel broader support for valuing land and affording more areas at least some kind of protection? Would that better spread users across a greater area of land? Would it better keep some places "feet only, forever" for the likely majority of Wilderness Area user who drive a few hours a dozen or so times a year to experience the primeval-ish ?
He then refers to the "primitive" recreation as called out by the original Wilderness Act. However, every bit of testimony and discussion leading up to the act indicates that the use of the words "primitive" and not "mechanized" was meant to exclude motorized vehicles. This was codified in the first regulations which implemented Wilderness in 1966, clearly defining "mechanized" as "powered by a non-living source" implying that mountain biking would be acceptable. While this implication may not be convincing to some, the Rattlesnake Wilderness Act of 1980 remains the only piece of legislation which directly addresses mountain bikes with regard to Wilderness. It states: (a) The Congress finds that—(1) certain lands on the Lolo National Forest in Montana have high value for watershed, water storage, wildlife habitat, primitive recreation, historical, scientific, ecological, and educational purposes. This national forest area has long been used as a wilderness by Montanans and by people throughout the Nation who value it as a source of solitude, wildlife, clean, free-flowing waters stored and used for municipal purposes for over a century, and primitive recreation, to include such activities as hiking, camping, backpacking, hunting, fishing, horse riding, and bicycling;"
Tim then says "but there are plenty of places to pursue that activity outside of Wilderness. Indeed far more area outside of Wilderness than in it." The fact is that mountain bikes are for off-road use, and the more intrepid of cyclists like to get into backcountry more than city trails just like hikers do. However, mountain bikes are excluded from 40-80% of roadless areas in each of our Western states by Wilderness designation alone. This doesn't include National Parks, other USFS or BLM closures or other local municipality restrictions. Furthermore, many trails begin and end outside Wilderness, but pass through Wilderness for some (often small) portion of their length, rendering the entire trail nonviable as a cycling route. So this assertion is greatly overstated at best. Here's the acid test as to the legitimacy of that statement: If you were to tell hikers they were excluded from up to 80% of their most desired lands, would they say, "that's okay, I have other places I can hike?"
He also repeats the "bikes make Wilderness smaller" mantra, which is absurd in the face of the fact that horses are allowed in Wilderness. At least the bike is human powered, the horse is not. As a former horseman, I could travel much faster over the long haul on a horse than on a bike. Indeed, for most slovenly Americans, the horse offers far more opportunity to penetrate deep into the wilderness than the bike. Furthermore, pack animals provide much more "unconfined" opportunity not just to penetrate Wilderness, but to also establish a presence in that Wilderness. Even the modern backpacker is greatly aided by lightweight packs, tents, sleeping bags, cookstoves, freeze-dried foods, and GPS units which allow them to more easily penetrate—and remain (something bikers very rarely do) in the Wilderness.
And then he makes yet another statement which is meaningless in the face of reality. "They are also not 'unconfined' in that they are restricted (or should be) to existing or new (e.g. bootleg) trails."
Bikes are far more restricted to trails than hikers or equestrians who go off trail with far greater frequency.
It's good of Tim to bring up Edward Abbey. After all this is the great naturalist who said: "A man on foot, on horseback or on a bicycle will see more, feel more, enjoy more in one mile than the motorized tourists can in a hundred miles." This sounds like a fine endorsement of cycling as a valid way to enjoy the outdoors.
I like to hike and camp with my canine companions. My current pup is well-behaved and I keep her on leash and under control when hiking with her. Yet the National Parks won't allow me to go on any trails with her for reasons that I don't always agree with. My response is to camp and hike in other places and avoid the National Parks. I mountain bike with the same attitude. There are a ton of spectacular places to ride single-track outside of wilderness. More places than any one rider can cover in a life time.
And I'm okay with developing a new land-use designation for some of the WSU's that preserves the non-motorized recreation but doesn't get full Wilderness designation, which is what I alluded to with the Ed Abbey reference. What I don't agree with is weakening the current standard of management for Wilderness areas that are already designated.
Even John's rationale that mountain bikes should be okay because they don't stay overnight in areas seems to me to be an argument against them -- Wilderness shouldn't be seen as a day-use recreational zone because it can't absorb that amount of use without damage. While individual bikes might not cause much more damage than a hiker, a huge increase in the number of users (bikes) would. I'm not a big fan of commercial pack trips for the same reason. Indeed in some areas of heavy hiking/pack use I'd like to see additional restrictions on them to reduce the negative impacts of recreational use.
My final point is another personal one I'll admit. Seeing bike tracks on a wilderness trail detracts from my experience in the same way hearing planes fly overhead does. They are intrusive reminders of the technology that Wilderness was intended to be a refuge from. So are cell phones and GPS for that matter and I'd be fine with both of them being banned in Wilderness too. As for the lightweight backpacking equipment, well most of that reduces the impact of a user on Wilderness (e.g. stoves instead of campfires, tents instead of constructed lean-to) so I think those are boons to the experience.
That doesn't seem to jive with the definition of Wilderness which states "untrammeled by man" (isn't the establishment of a campsite additional trammeling?) and further states " where man himself is a visitor who does not remain." Furthermore useage rates are not related to whether or not something is called Wilderness, but rather proximity to populations centers. A Wilderness area close to a metropolitan area will see heavier use than a non Wilderness area in a remote location. "Day use" takes place where the people are, regardless of land status.
"While individual bikes might not cause much more damage than a hiker, a huge increase in the number of users (bikes) would."
Which points out a fundamental issue here—it's the number of visitors which is the key, not their means of locomotion. If carrying capacity, however we define that, is exceeded, then it must be limited somehow. There is no justification, however, for simply casting out one equally impactful user group in favor of another to achieve that limitation.
The dog analogy is also a false one. I too have a dog. When I camp in a National or State Park, he can't come. There are also some individual Wilderness areas which prohibit pets. When I backpack there, I can't bring him—but I can still hike there. The only corresponding analogy would be that I can ride certain trails with a dog (I don't, but I know many who do) and some bike legal trails which exclude pets. In either case, you can still ride. Ditto with the hiking.
I'm also still convinced that that addition of a modern transportation technology, which mountain bikes certainly are, to Wilderness will degrade the wilderness ideal. I'm all for going forward with designating some of the RARE II Wilderness Study Areas as non-motorized recreation areas that do allow bikes but not for allowing bikes into existing Wilderness.
We seem to have a slightly different Wilderness aesthetic and there's no way to reconcile that.
Which is why it's so important to look to actual impact rather than what different individuals perceive. Actual impact favors allowing human powered bikes anywhere feet are allowed and even more places than hooves are allowed. So many other things which are allowed in the Wilderness employ much higher technology than a bike which, is a very simple mechanical device. Furthermore, many mechanical devices are allowed in the Wilderness and anti-bike advocates have no problem with them. Either mechanics are allowed or they are not--drawing the line just this side of a bicycle is arbitrary in any kind of practical sense.
As far as "degrading the Wilderness ideal," again that's your ideal, not everyones. For resolution there, we must look to the original testimony which led to the creation of Wilderness, the original regulations which implemented the Wilderness Act, and the only piece of Wilderness legislation which directly addressed bicycles,all of which supported the idea of bicycle use in Wilderness areas.
And just so we're clear, I'm not advocating for full bicycle access to all trails. There are trails out there which are not suitable for cycling--they should remain bike free. Even where trails are suitable for biking, I (and the vast majority of cyclists) are not opposed to allowing hikers a bike-free experience. Shared use schedules have proven highly successful wherever implemented. I was a backcountry hiker for 26 years before getting my first bike and, in all those hundreds of bike encounters, I never felt like encountering a bicycle degraded my experience. Even so, I'm sensitive to the fact that it may degrade the experience for others, however irrational that may be. In most shared use schedules, hikers are allowed every day while bikes are allowed every other day, or at some other specifically restricted interval. This still unfairly favors hikers, but bikers are willing to go that extra mile, so to speak.
(1) The folks casting aspersions on Howie's intellect may want to consider that this guy has been in the trenches on behalf of wild places for 40+ years. No one has worked harder to safeguard the Northern Rockies' wilderness. The exact dates escape me, but he spent some time in a Teton County jail owing to his principled opposition to Chevron opening up the western Gros Ventre Range to oil and gas development. You can take exception to his approach but his commitment is second to none. I'd wager that his opinions are at least worth attention.
(2) The mountain bike issue is partly a matter of physical impact, and here each of us will have his our her own observations. When it comes to trail use, like tends to beget like. Heavy use by horses and pack trains, especially in boggy areas, tend to leave trails suitable mostly for horses. ATVs churn up soils and render trails so rocky they're suitable only for ATVs. I've noted that mountain bikes tend to create a V-groove in a trail that reduces their comfort for hikers. So what used to be called a "hiking trail" now becomes "singletrack." Not a huge impact, but it's there.
(3) Of greater concern to me is the social conflict created when different user groups mix. Noise is a prime issue with ATVs, but there's also the matter of hiking all day to a lake only to find that some other party arrived in an hour's travel. That's an issue with horses and bikes, but to a lesser degree. With horses, I admit I freely step aside when they approach, yet I mind having to vacate the trail every time a mountain bike passes by. Why? For one thing, horse parties tend to be infrequent on most trails (partly because of self-segregation—see point 2) whereas bike use is quite heavy on many trails here in the Wasatch.
What I find hardest to accept is the high degree of alertness I must maintain on trails open to bikes. Many commenters make the point that most bikers are quite courteous, and they are, but the expectation is that I'll make way for them, not vice versa. Unlike with horses, their rate of travel and stealthy approach, even under normal use, means that I must devote a certain amount of mental space to listen for them and be ready to jump off the trail. This can get tricky on a steep or brushy hillside. I find can no longer walk in the kind of reverie I used to enjoy, stopping to listen to birds or get lost in my thoughts. That's a big part of why I go to the mountains. It's not that bikers are pernicious, it's just a matter of compatibility on a narrow trail.
So-called "multi-use" trails are no solution, in my opinion. What works is segregation, either spatially (by designating trails for specific uses) or temporally (e.g. odd/even days, which work quite well here). There are remedies--as long as we can be clear that there are, indeed, impacts.
..."(2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation;"
From Section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act
" . . . no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any such area"
Sorry for being so irrational as to bring the actual text of the Act into my argument for excluding mountain bikes from designated Wilderness. But then again, the use of 'primitive' recreation in the definition and the specific statement of 'no form of mechanical transport' seem pretty good reasons for my point of view. You might notice they specifically say 'mechanical transport' separately from 'motorized equipment'. Then again maybe it's just that I've been enjoying mountain biking since the mid 1980's on single track without ever once having to go into a Wilderness on a bike that makes me unable to accept the argument that bikes belong there.
Those in favor of mountain biking in wilderness simply want access for their own personal interests, just like boaters want access to every stream and river, or climbers who want access to every mountain or rock outcrop.
Yes, let's work together and respect others' desire for lands that allow and don't allow mechanized recreation, there's room for both. I'm thankful to have the option to go for a quiet cross country ski or a loud snowmobile ride, a horse trail or a hiker trail, wilderness or non-wilderness. If bikes were allowed in wilderness they would have been included in the Wilderness Act, those who disagree are trying to rewrite history.
I've never though you irrational and have understood and even, to some degree, empathized with your posts up until this point. However, now I must conclude that you are either 1. Ignorant and don't know any better or are 2. Aware of the incomplete nature of the information you share and deliberately trying to mislead others in an attempt to further your agenda.
Re: motorized vs. mechanized. Every bit of testimony which led to the creation of the Wilderness Act implies that the use of the word mechanized was intended to exclude automobiles. Part of the intent of the Act was to get people out of their cars and into the wild places under their own part. The other part of the intent of the act was to prevent the type of development that goes with supporting automobiles; roads, gas stations, etc. For instance (and this is where deeper research comes handy rather than just latching onto a superficial analysis just because it supports your position), during the House debate on the Act, the chairperson of the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Representative Wayne N. Aspinall Colorado, made it clear that the Act was intended to bar obtrusive infrastructure. Another House member asked, "[o]n page 17 of the bill . . . the language is as follows: 'has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation.' I wonder what 'a primitive and unconfined type of recreation' might be?" Representative Aspinall responded, "it just simply means that there will not be any manmade structures about in order to embarrass and handicap the enjoyers of this particular area."
You cite the use of the language "primitive" and "mechanical" over and over, yet ignore the intent as well as the actual definitions of those words as they apply to the discussion at hand. You say in the Act, they "specifically say 'mechanical transport' separately from 'motorized equipment', when the fact is they used those words synonymously, again intending to eliminate motorized vehicles and the infrastructure required to support them.
The confirmation of what they meant by "mechanized" is in the original regulations which implemented the act. The framers went to great trouble to define "mechanized" so that we wouldn't have to argue about what it meant. Their definition was in black and white: In 1965, the USDA-Forest Service wrote formal regulations to implement the Wilderness Act, and defined "mechanical transport" to mean a cart, sled or other wheeled vehicle that is "powered by a non-living power source." (CFR 36 Sec. 293.6(a)) Clearly the ban on "mechanical transport" in the original language was a statement about the impact of power, noise, and emissions of motor vehicles. Thus, the 1964 Wilderness Act allowed bicycle use, but there were very few bicyclists riding in Wilderness areas.
As far as what is considered "primitive," there is only one piece of Wilderness legislation that specifies that term and whether or not it applies to bicycles; The Rattlesnake Wilderness Act of 1980. Again, the answer is clearly in black and white: (a) The Congress finds that—(1) certain lands on the Lolo National Forest in Montana have high value for watershed, water storage, wildlife habitat, primitive recreation, historical, scientific, ecological, and educational purposes. This national forest area has long been used as a wilderness by Montanans and by people throughout the Nation who value it as a source of solitude, wildlife, clean, free-flowing waters stored and used for municipal purposes for over a century, and primitive recreation, to include such activities as hiking, camping, backpacking, hunting, fishing, horse riding, and bicycling;"
BOTTOM LINE: Definition of "mechanized" as intended and used by the framers was not meant to exclude bikes. Definition of "primitive" as intended and used by the framers was meant to include bikes.
Come to think of it, I don't think you're "1. Ignorant" since I had put this information into a previous post which you responded to. However, you haven't addressed these points, but rather simply reiterated the false "mechanized" and "primitive" mantras while ignoring their real meaning as laid out by the originators of the Act and the regulations which implemented it. I must now conclude that you are "2. Aware of the incomplete nature of the information you share and deliberately trying to mislead others in an attempt to further your agenda."
While I haven't been riding mountain bikes as long as you (I started in 2000), we have one thing in common: I have enjoyed the sport immensely while never once bringing a knobby into a designated Wilderness area (or any other where bikes are not permitted for that matter). That in no way implies that this is a rational, fair, or acceptable status quo. On a related note, I became an avid hiker in 1973. When I'd see a "no bikes" sign, sometimes I'd wonder why that was. It seemed to me strange as I thought a bike could traverse the area with no more impact than me as a hiker. This was long before I got a bike and even long before I even thought I might be interested in the sport. Now that I have researched the subject thoroughly, I know my early thoughts were correct.
You say you are "unable to accept the argument that bikes belong there" because you've "been enjoying mountain biking since the mid 1980's on single track without ever once having to go into a Wilderness." How on earth is that a valid basis for such an exclusion? Why does your experience trump that of others? Even if you're okay with it, that doesn't in any way imply that it's okay overall.
I, on the other hand, make my assessment based on:
ACTUAL impact rather than perceptions or personal desires
ACTUAL intent of the purpose of Wilderness rather than my self-serving agenda
There's nothing "naive" about it; quite the opposite actually. It is based on a deeper level of research. See my post immediately above for evidence as to what the intent was. You say "The very reason the Wilderness Act was developed was to protect these areas from unforeseen future impacts like these." Of what impacts do you speak? Every independent study has shown the impact of a bike to be similar to that of a hiker and far less than that of a horse, so by your own reasoning, there's no basis for excluding bikes. The term mechanized was not just used, but also defined and it's the definition that was, as you put it "included to prevent this discussion today." That definition, in black and white, used the words "powered by a non-living power source." (CFR 36 Sec. 293.6(a)). Again, by your own reasoning, bikes should be included because the framers went to so much trouble to tell us what they meant. Only one piece of Wilderness legislation specifically mentioned bikes and that law put bikes in the "primitive recreation" class and specifically called them out for INCLUSION in the Rattlesnake Wilderness Area. By ignoring these black and white facts, you are the one who is trying to "rewrite history."
"Luckily for all of us, there are millions of non-wilderness acres in the National Forests where we can take mechanized toys." In my home state of Colorado, mountain bikes are excluded from over 80% of roadless areas by Wilderness designation alone. This isn't even counting National Park or other municipality closures. Furthermore, many trails lay largely outside Wilderness areas, yet some small portion of them passes through Wilderness, thus rendering the entire route nonviable as a cycling path. If you told hikers they were suddenly banned from over 80% of their most desired lands, not many would say "Hey, I'm still lucky I have other places to hike." I guarantee there would be an uproar far greater than anything you've heard from cyclists.
You say, "Those in favor of mountain biking in wilderness simply want access for their own personal interests," One could just as easily say that those who want to ban mountain biking in Wilderness simply do this to protect their own persona (and usually very selfish) interests. I'm turning 50 years old this year. Already, I can not put on endless miles in the backcountry on a bike like I could when I first took up the sport at age 35. If this unfair, narrow and unjustifiable ban was ever reversed, I wouldn't personally be able to take full advantage of it. I advocate what I advocate because fairness and rational thought demand it; because elitism and "I don't want to share" are crappy bases for policy making.
What I presented were the literal words of the Wilderness Act and the meaning they appear to confer. When an Act separately lists bans on motorized vehicles, motorized equipment, and other forms of mechanical transport, it clearly suggests to me that non-motorized mechanical transports were included in the intent. I honestly don't know how anyone could interpret it otherwise. My guess is the early FS regulations were promulgated before anyone gave much thought to human-powered mechanical devices because they didn't exist yet for wilderness travel. More recent interpretations seem to have taken advancing technology into account.
Fortunately the agencies that manage wilderness seem to agree with my interpretation that mountain bikes are not primitive and that they are mechanical transport. If the authors of Wilderness bills intended bikes to be included it seems they would've mentioned it a bit more frequently than once in a preamble out of 130 bills or else put it directly in the language of the Act. It is hard to put much value on testimony when you are discussing the legal standing of an activity that wasn't really invented until 20 years after the Act passed. It would be like interpreting the intent of the framers of the Constitution to mean we should all keep Abrams tanks in our garages.
Thanks for the spirited discussion but personally I feel like I've taken up more than enough of the HCN comment space for this topic.
While back country cycling wasn't popular in 1964, it had indeed been taking place since there were bicycles. Intrepid explorers of yesteryear were riding bikes in the woods as early as the 1880s.
As far as the singular mention of bikes, it was brought up when it was because that's about when back country cycling got big enough to appear on the radar. As soon as it became widely known, it was addressed, and it was addressed in a positive way. So your guess that it wasn't addressed earlier than it was due to a lack of awareness may be accurate, but the fact that as soon as it was known and addressed, it was addressed in a positive way, remains significant.
The architects of the act went to great trouble to define what they meant by "mechanized" and it is important to cover it in full context and were very deliberate in their wording. The full verbiage was that "(a) Mechanical transport, as herein used, shall include any contrivance which travels over ground, snow, or water on wheels, tracks, skids, or by floatation and is propelled by a nonliving power source contained or carried on or within the device."
They specifically mentioned "wheels," indicating that they had indeed conceived of the idea that some wheeled devices would be human powered and some wouldn't. So, while they may not have been specifically thinking about bikes at the time, they were clearly and intentionally leaving the door open for wheeled devices which are propelled by a living power source.
I am not a biker, but rather a backcountry enthusiast who, by the way, has more time in boots than on knobbies.
The IMBA has not been a source of my argument--just rational thought, logic and fairness. I have conducted research far beyond what IMBA has made available.
Just because you were selfish, doesn't mean every other biker is.
You think bikers are "self serving" for wanting some semblance of balance in access, but have no qualms with hikers who want it all to themselves? Please.
Nobody is "assailing the whole act," but rather trying to reestablish the original intent of the Act. Nobody wants to "find more ways to attack the shortcomings and Romantic ideals behind the Wilderness Act." Back country cyclists share the same ethos as back county pedestrians and simply wish to enjoy the Wilderness in an equally low-impact manner. This is simple fairness, not selfishness, unlike the "it's all ours and we will do anything possible to keep you out" anti-bike zealots.
The fact that you call the group who is excluded from the vast majority (50-80% depending on the state)of roadless areas "self serving" while ignoring the privileged, elitist groups who have unfettered access to it all, speaks volumes about the level of thought behind your rant.
Sounds like one group feels very selfishly entitled to this public land. It seems like a lawsut to establish alternate/shared day use is the best solution.
IMO the realy problem isn't the current WA's, it is the Wilderness Area Machine: These people see the solution to everything as more and more WAs. They come across as incapable to share. Take a look at a gazateer map or investigate where the Wilderness Study Areas are. These people would turn the whole of all public outdoor lands into Wilderness Areas, kicking everyone out but themelelves (of course). Time for some 21st century land management that reflects the constituents. Don't most locals oppose new WAs ?
I fully agree that Wilderness should exist for it's own sake, independent of human recreation. The latter should only exist to the extent that it doesn't have an unacceptable impact on the former. Of course, there will be widespread disagreement about what exactly crosses that threshold of unacceptable impact. That's why, when I mention bike access vis-a-vis hiker access, it's not to say we should all be free to go in and destroy that which we purport to appreciate, but rather to point out the policy is inconsistent. Both have equal impact, so one should not be favored over the other. If the correct answer is to limit access, or even to deny it altogether, I can accept that, The falsehood comes in when one says access should be limited, but then uses an arbitrary or personally motivated distinction to force the issue on who/what is excluded. All equally low impact users should have equal opportunity, whether that opportunity be limited or unlimited.
Point of fact: The Wilderness Act does not disallow mountain bikes--that came in the form of a bureaucratic, lobby-driven decision decades after the Act, and by all logic, was not in accordance with the intent of the Act, which sought to get Americans to enjoy their wild places -- under their own power rather than by means of the Automobile. It also sought to keep these wild places wild by prevention of the type of infrastructure and development required to support the automobile. The founders were very careful to define exactly what they meant by "mechanized" and in their definition, specifically disallowed wheeled contrivances "propelled by a non living power source," making it clear that human powered wheels were in, not out.
The "doesn't disallow bikers, just bikes" is one of the most self-serving of all, demonstrating a complete lack of empathy for any user group other than ones own. The key is whether or not the user is allowed to enjoy the Wilderness by his/her preferred low-impact method. To see the fallacy of this, simply reverse the roles. Tell hikers they are now excluded from 85% of their most desired public lands and see what kind of response that generates.
This video explains the radio silence: The Wilderness Machine: after 50 years, is it time for an overhaul?
"No wheels" is an appropriate designation for a lot of public land. Cyclists and OHVs have a lot in common. Let them share ground.


text:
Anthony R. Damiano
Anthony R. "Tony" Damiano, 89, of Brookside Avenue, Amsterdam, N.Y., passed away peacefully Tuesday evening at St. Mary's Hospital surrounded by his loving family.
Born May 29, 1923, in Little Falls, N.Y., he was the son of the late Anthony and Elizabeth Burrell Damiano.
Tony moved to Gloversville in his youth and was a graduate of Gloversville High School and later attended Hudson Valley Community College. He was a U.S. Navy veteran of WW II, where he served as a medic with the U.S. Marine Corps in the Battles of Okinawa, Guam and several other battles in the Pacific. He received two Purple Hearts. After the war, he served in the Occupation of Japan. Tony was a machinist for the General Electric Company for 20 years, retiring in 1985.
He was a parishioner of St. Mary's Roman Catholic Church, a member of the Southside Veteran's Club and the Port Jackson Bocce League.
Tony loved spending time with his grandchildren. He enjoyed all sports especially his Yankees, playing bocce at the Port Jackson Bocce Court and at his son, Tommy's house. He loved to read.
On April 20, 1952, he married the former Isabella Marcellino. Besides his dear wife, he is survived by his loving family: two sons, Paul A. Damiano and Thomas Damiano, both of Amsterdam; a daughter, Lisa (Christopher) Kinowski of Amsterdam; a brother, John Damiano of Jupiter, Fla.; a sister, Lucille Mazzatenta of Drexel Hill, Pa.; seven grandchildren, Nicole (Josh) Richards, Nicole (Chris) Menge, Cassandra, Michael and Lindsey Kinowski, Michelle and Angela Damiano; two great-granddaughters, Emma and Avery Menge; several nieces, nephews and cousins. He was predeceased by a grandson, Anthony Michael Damiano; four special brothers-in-law, Frank, Tony and Tom Marcellino and Jerry Mazzatenta Sr.; two special nephews, Jerry and Anthony Mazzatenta.
A Mass of Christian burial will be celebrated on Saturday, April 13, 2013, at 9:15 a.m. at St. Mary's Roman Catholic Church, East Main Street, Amsterdam, with the Fr. Victor Polito as celebrant. Burial will follow at the Mt. Carmel Cemetery in Johnstown with military honors. The family will receive relatives and friends on Friday from 4 to 7 p.m. at the Betz, Rossi & Bellinger Family Funeral Home, 171 Guy Park Avenue, Amsterdam, NY. Please sign the family's guestbook at www.brbsfuneral.com.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
I spoke with our lead engineer, and he told me that in the original Para DI (with internal gain), the FX loop was not a True Insert path. The signal was split 50/50 from the normal path to the loop. So that is completely normal for that revision. All of the DI's made in the last 13 to 15 years have been modified for a True Insert path, as well as the addition of the external gain.
Unfortunately, we have a policy against distributing any schematics for our products new or old. So I wouldn't be able to get you a drawing of the circuit.


text:
Your shopping cart is empty!
England 2009-2010 home Women shirt white. Features embroidered England team badge and Umbro logo. Open collar . Climate controlling technology that pulls the sweat away from the skin for cool and comfort fit. Shoulder darn for an improved fit. Anatomically tailored sleeves for a great look . Stretch rib and woven material.100% polyester.
Soccerplus first opened in 1994. We were one of the first soccer websites to hit the webView more
Address: 1640 E. Washington Blvd.
Pasadena, Ca 91104, USA
Phone: 1-800-945-7291
Get Direct


text:
Can These Three Stocks Recover in 2013?
Here are my top three selections.
Microsoft (MSFT)
Microsoft has been a disappointment. Its inability to compete against Apple (AAPL) and Google (GOOG) in the realm of mobility has been its downfall.
But that doesn't mean the company lacks value. The question though, is whether current management knows how to harvest the value that is left. I'm not certain it does.
Even so, I'm willing to consider that today's version of the company is more about steady streams of cash flow and less about steady product cycles, much to the dismay of Wall Street. The stock is not sexy, as its recent earnings report proved. When it reported 2013 fiscal first-quarter results, Microsoft missed by top- and bottom-line estimates.
That came after Microsoft reported its first-ever quarterly loss as a public company, in the fourth fiscal quarter of 2012.
There have been plenty of disappointments, and they are all priced into the stock.
Things can't possibly get any worse. And given the company's cash hoard, there seems to be minimal risk to the downside. I'm placing my bets here at $26 a share. The stock should be able to reach $30 by the end of the second quarter.
Intel (INTC)
It's only fitting that Intel follows Microsoft as both remain leaders in a dying PC industry. However, Intel has all of the makings of a successful turnaround story. The company earned $2.83 billion in its most recent quarter, enough to beat analysts' estimates.
The company has been reinvesting heavily in its business, including R&D in core capabilities such as security while extending its process technology leadership. Unfortunately, nobody cared. Investors have grown impatient with the company's slow response in the mobile race. But it may be time to believe.
According to a recent TechCrunch article, investors should expect LTE-compatible chips from Intel sometime in 2013, which will allow the company to power more smartphones and seek more growth opportunities in tablets.
Plus, there continue to be rumblings that Apple might adopt Intel in its devices. Although Intel has yet to confirm these rumors, as with Microsoft, things can't get much worse with expectations already so low.
In the meantime, the company has given investors reasons to remain patient by announcing a pretty significant share buyback . The last time Intel bought back shares, the stock surged more than 40% in two quarters. At $21 per share, the stock deserves a long look and offers 20% premium potential on the basis of the share buyback.


text:
From the Margins to the Centre: The Future of University Literacy Support & Writing Across the Curriculum, a one-day symposium: 27 September, 2016, Flinders University, Adelaide. Symposium information and registration: http://www.flinders.edu.au/ehl/firth/firth-conferences/from-the-margins-to-the-centre/ Continue Reading
About ISANA
ISANA is the representative body for professionals in Australia and has a sister organisation relationship with ISANA New Zealand who work in international student services, advocacy, teaching and policy development in international education.
For media comments or urgent enquries please email email@example.com or email@example.com
Facebook Posts
Latest News
https://www.shil.nsw.gov.au/Homepage.aspx The new SHIL website…. It's now LIVE! www.shil.nsw.gov.au It now provides information about SHIL as well as links to: the Referral Manual, https://www.shil.nsw.gov.au/Referral-Manual.aspx a secure online Partner Notification referral service: www.shil.nsw.gov.au/hp , the Play Safe website A statewide service providing sexual health information and support for the general public and health professionals. www.playsafe.health.nsw.gov.au Continue Reading


text: Security researchers have discovered that, of devices at more than 80 million unique IP addresses responding to Universal Plug and Play discovery requests, between 40 and 50 million of them are vulnerable to attack via UPnP. Although security problems with the protocol have been well known for at least a dozen years, the issues put networks at risk and the research served to quantify the extent of the issue. UPnP is a set of networking protocols that let routers, printers, network-attached storage, media players, smart TVs and other devices seamlessly communicate. The researchers from security-software vendor Rapid 7 said they discovered more serious problems than they expected when they began their study. For example, they found that the most commonly used software stack used by the Universal Plug and Play protocol to control the device is also the most vulnerable. (SlashDot)(ThreatPost)(Rapid7)


text:
Your course is using Canvas. If you are new to Canvas, please visit the
Canvas Basics course space
to become familiar with Canvas prior to the start of your course. No login is required to
access this space.
Log in to your Canvas course space at
If you do not know your Bucks Username, you can retrieve it by using the Find Your Username Form. Enter your Name, Birthday (mm/dd/yyyy) and either your 7 digit student ID number OR your social security number, then click Submit. Your Bucks username will display on the screen.
Note: Students are uploaded to Canvas several times a day. If you registered late, you won't be
able to access Canvas until the next upload takes place.
While you may purchase your books and other course materials from the provider of your choice (using the
ISBN number available through the course's academic department
where applicable to ensure the correct version), both the campus bookstore
and our online bookstore,
guarantee that they stock the correct version for your course.
Approximately 3 weeks prior to the start of the session you can use the link
below to see the list of books that have been selected by your instructor. If you have
any questions about the course materials listed, please contact your instructor or the academic
department directly.
this link to see the book list for your course.
This is a survey class so we will cover a lot of material, however you are never alone in the learning endeavor. You will quickly discover that our online Introduction to Psychology class is a supportive community in which classmates assist one another. Further, I will guide you and convey specific instructions and expectations for successfully mastering this course.
Most students find the material both helpful and extremely interesting. You may even find yourself having fun while learning!
Specifically, this course will cover the following topics: The Science of Psychology, Research Methodology, Critical Thinking, Personality & Development, Biology of Behavior, Consciousness, Perception, Cognition & Memory, Learning, Sociocultural Similarities & Differences, Psychological Disorders & Therapies, Coping, Emotions, and Motivation. Although the textbook also covers sensation, we will NOT cover sensation.
This course demands that you be self-disciplined and achieve DAILY study goals. Success in this course is gained via studying everyday and CREATING examples of concepts, rather than simple memorization. The exams are, mostly, application of concepts so begin by knowing concepts inside and out but expand on this knowledge with examples (feel free to do this on the discussion board). Not making your studying a PRIORITY leads to a situation where you keep thinking you'll catch up, but rarely is that the case.
You are always free to visit one of my face to face Introduction to Psychology courses to reinforce the material you are learning - this is an OPTION. I am here to HELP you but the ultimate responsibility of course success lay in your court. That being said, if you do the work, stay engaged, and continually study you'll get a lot from this course, including (but not limited to) a grade that reflects your effort & knowledge. There is no need to come to campus for any portion of this course.
Questions about Online Learning? Contact the Virtual Campus
at 215-968-8052 or email@example.com


text:
Many people believe that, in addition to issuing visas to foreigners wishing to visit the United States, American embassy officials primarily discuss weighty international issues with foreign officials. The truth is that most U.S. diplomats, including ambassadors, spend a far greater percentage of time reaching out to average citizens in the countries where we work.
Outreach might sound simple but can be very challenging, especially in countries where the power center seeks to maintain and tighten its control over the population. Leaders unwilling to give up power don't appreciate outside voices questioning their methods and goals. Finding the right tools to facilitate the sharing of ideas and information can be difficult, but, thanks to the efforts of Sharon Hudson-Dean, my public affairs counselor, and the Chautauqua Literary and Scientific Circle (CLSC) based in the Chautauqua, New York, we here in Harare now have some of the most effective tools imaginable -- brilliant books and a forum in which to discuss them.
Founded in 1878 at the Chautauqua Institution, the CLSC is the oldest continuous book club in America. Each summer, the CLSC chooses nine books of literary quality and invites the authors to Chautauqua present their work to an audience of approximately 1,000 readers.
Earlier this year, we inaugurated two CLSC-Zimbabwe groups with an ambitious12-book reading list loaded onto Kindles purchased through a U.S. Department of State Innovation Fund grant. Our two circles include a senior group of government officials (academics, editors, and other thought leaders), and a Next Generation group of up-and-coming young intellectuals. Both groups include several embassy staffers, and I make an effort to attend all of the meetings, which are held every two months to discuss one or more of the books we've read.
To say that the discussions have been productive and energetic understates the impact this initiative has had on communications dynamics here. While none of the books relate to, or even mention, Zimbabwe, the discussions have helped to shed light on a number of social, cultural, and political problems that have plagued this country for decades.
The first book we discussed was Hampton Sides' Hellhound On His Trail. This gripping account of the travels and actions of James Earl Ray, the man who assassinated Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., might not seem like something that would resonate with a Zimbabwean audience, but the night we discussed the book showed me otherwise. There was, of course, interest in race relations during that turbulent period of U.S. history, but the account of the FBI's actions to track Ray down proved the most provocative to some of our Zimbabwean colleagues. Despite FBI director Hoover's antipathy for King and the Bureau's actions to discredit him, the organization's professionalism assured that it would leave no stone unturned to solve his murder. In Zimbabwe, where police and military organizations are blatantly partisan, the FBI's actions impressed our group tremendously.
Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do, by Michael J. Sandel, was another book that provoked lively discussion. People not unexpectedly saw his discussion of morality in government decision-making as entirely pertinent to the current situation in Zimbabwe.
Having completed eight of the twelve books on our the reading list, I've found a nugget of wisdom in each that can be applied to the tasks I've set for myself in Zimbabwe. From the beginning, my aim has been to bridge the cultural and political divide separating our two countries for the past decade, and to get the dialogue back into rational territory. Great books, and the Chautauqua list is great, and the intellectual concepts that they contain, provoke the kind of discussions that span these gaps of misunderstanding and mistrust. A discussion of "what's the right thing to do" from a philosophical viewpoint is non-threatening and allows the issue to be dissected without the acrimony that is generated from a discussion of specific situations. All of the books on the list, such as The Last Great Revolution and Islam: A Short History, contain universal principles that, when discussed, point to solutions for the problems we face. Discussing these principles has helped us to start building the necessary bridges linking our people and our countries in a mutually beneficial way. In addition, it has helped each of us to grow intellectually as individuals. Sharing ideas and interpretations in a collegial atmosphere has demonstrated that there is more that binds us together than there is that separates us.
There is an old public service ad line I recall that says, "Reading is Fundamental." The CLSC has validated that statement admirably, and even more has shown that reading can also be FUNdamental.
Eric in New Mexico writes:
@ Amb. Ray,
Cultural exchange is a great thing , but what kind of culture profits from this?;
Looks like you may want to take a field trip sir, and investigate these atrocities yourself.
I'm not suggesting it will be fun, but it could be fundemental to holding Mugabe to account.
Best Regards,


text:
Extended maintenance of Ruby 1.9.3 ended on February 23, 2015. Read more
Win 32 interface methods for Rake. Windows specific functionality will be placed here to collect that knowledge in one spot.
Normalize a win32 path so that the slashes are all forward slashes.
# File rake/win32.rb, line 49 def normalize(path) path.gsub(/\/, '/') end
Run a command line on windows.
# File rake/win32.rb, line 21 def rake_system(*cmd) AltSystem.system(*cmd) end
Commenting is here to help enhance the documentation. For example, code samples, or clarification of the documentation.
If you have questions about Ruby or the documentation, please post to one of the Ruby mailing lists. You will get better, faster, help that way.
If you wish to post a correction of the docs, please do so, but also file bug report so that it can be corrected for the next release. Thank you.
If you want to help improve the Ruby documentation, please visit Documenting-ruby.org.


text:
LINGUIST List 20.3336
Fri Oct 02 2009
Jobs: Applied Ling, Lang Acq, Syntax: Asst Prof, Arizona State U., USA
Editor for this issue: Matthew Lahrman <matt
The LINGUIST List strongly encourages employers to use non-discriminatory standards in hiring policy. In particular we urge that employers do not discriminate on the grounds of race, ethnicity, nationality, age, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. However, we have no means of enforcing these standards.
Job seekers should pay special attention to language in ads regarding employment requirements and are encouraged to consult our international employment page at http://linguistlist.org/jobs/jobnet.html. This page has been set up so that people can report on the employment standards of various countries.
To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at
1. Faye Verska,
Applied Linguistics, Language Acquisition, Syntax: Asst Prof, Arizona State University, AZ, USA
Message 1: Applied Linguistics, Language Acquisition, Syntax: Asst Prof, Arizona State University, AZ, USA
Faye Verska <faye.verska
Applied Linguistics, Language Acquisition, Syntax: Asst Prof, Arizona State University, AZ, USA
E-mail this message to a friend
University or Organization: Arizona State University
Department: English
Job Location: Arizona, USA
Job Rank: Assistant Professor
Specialty Areas: Applied Linguistics; Language Acquisition; Syntax
Arizona State University, Department of English
Job Rank: Assistant Professor
Specialty Areas: Second Language Acquisition Syntax
Required: Ph.D. in Linguistics or a related discipline; college level
teaching experience; and a evidence of ability to maintain a compelling
record of ongoing, high quality research and publication in Second Language
Acquisition Syntax.
Teaching load is 2/2 for tenure-track faculty with a significant research
agenda. Teaching opportunities are at undergraduate, Master's, and PhD
levels. The appointment will be in the Department of English
). Arizona State University is a large
metropolitan university with programs in linguistics housed in various
Applicants must send: Cover letter, vita, three letters of recommendation,
and a brief sample of relevant academic writing. Application Deadline (no
faxes or emails): received by November 5, 2009; if not filled, then every
Monday thereafter until the search is closed. A background check is
required for employment. Arizona State University is an equal employment
employer (AA/EOE).
Please see application and contact information below.
Application Deadline: 05-Nov-2009
Mailing Address for Applications:
Chair SLA Syntax Search Committee
Department of English
Arizona State University
Tempe, AZ 85287-0302
Contact Information:
Faye Verska
Email: Faye.Verska
Read more issues
LINGUIST home page
Top of issue
Print This Page
any bad links or misclassified data
LINGUIST Homepage
Read LINGUIST
Contact us
While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed
on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.


text:
NYPA, Regional Officials Want to Use "Aquarium
Dollars" for Tourism, Economic Development Study
Connie M. Cullen
printer-friendly version
December 2, 2005
MASSENA—The New York Power Authority (NYPA) announced
today that it intends to use money owed to it by the St. Lawrence
Aquarium & Ecological Center (SLAEC) toward a comprehensive regional
master plan for tourism and economic development in St. Lawrence County.
"We're eager to direct this money to the St. Lawrence
County Industrial Development Agency [IDA] to help fund a comprehensive
plan for bolstering the county's tourism industry and overall economic
development," said Timothy S. Carey, chief operating officer, NYPA.
"This area of New York has a great deal to offer visitors, including
outdoor attractions and a rich history and culture. We want to support
local efforts to attract tourists and create new jobs, and we believe a
study of this magnitude could help steer us in the right direction."
"I'm gratified by the Power Authority's continued
support under Governor Pataki for encouraging economic development here,
beyond the low-cost hydropower it provides Alcoa and G.M. from the St.
Lawrence-F.D.R. Power Project," said Senator James W. Wright. "We want
to bring together in one document some of the innovative ideas
percolating for expanding our economy. So I'm appreciative of the Power
Authority's plans for the refunded money, along with its other recent
"I think creating a master plan is an excellent use for
these funds on the part of the Power Authority. It is very important
for a community to have a vision and plan for future development.
Expanding our tourism and economic development opportunities can only
strengthen St. Lawrence County and support our local businesses,"
Senator Raymond A. Meier said.
In September, an attorney representing the St. Lawrence
Discovery Center notified NYPA it would receive $144,439 of its
unexpended contribution. The money is what remains of approximately $1.6
million the Power Authority had provided the SLAEC for an aquarium
project; a project that has since folded due to a lack of a successful
local fundraising campaign.
St. Lawrence County Industrial Development Agency's
Administrative Director Raymond Fountain commented, "On behalf of the
St. Lawrence County IDA I would like to express our gratitude to NYPA
for their contribution toward our area's economic development
efforts. These funds will allow us to develop a coordinated strategy for
the promotion of tourism and the enhancement of our economic development
efforts in St. Lawrence County. We are clearly aware of tourism's
significant role in the economic well-being of St. Lawrence County and
the region."
Fountain went on to say, "Through a process of working
with economic developers, chambers of commerce, education, industry and
government leaders we feel we can best integrate the promotion of
tourism into our mainstream economic development efforts. The challenge
will be to identify concepts to promote tourism, evaluate what is
currently being done, determine what future projects would draw tourism
and investment to this region, and improve our overall economic
"To me, it's all about job creation and improving the
quality of life in St. Lawrence County. I'm very appreciative of NYPA's
commitment to creating jobs and creating better jobs so that the people
of St. Lawrence County can have a better quality of life," said Tom
Nichols, chairman, St. Lawrence County Legislature. "It's imperative
that we create a strong team and by having NYPA, Senators Jim Wright and
Ray Meier, local governments and the county IDA working together, I
believe we can achieve that goal of a better quality of life in St.
Lawrence County."
Earlier this year, NYPA trustees approved an agreement
for the Power Authority to provide up to $10 million to bring technology
companies to St. Lawrence County, as part of an ambitious plan to
leverage another $20 million in private investment for creating new
businesses and jobs to the region.
The $10 million the Power Authority has agreed to
provide for this endeavor is part of $26 million NYPA plans to commit
toward tourism and economic development efforts in the North Country.


text:
One touch Drawing level 50 tips
- App name: One touch Drawing
- Developer: Ecapyc
- Genre: Education
- Release: Feb 3, 2012
If you are stuck on One touch Drawing level 50 you came to the right place. Below you will find a video walkthrough and some written tips that will guide you through that level. Have fun and enjoy this great game.
level 50 Walkthrough
This page contains One touch Drawing video walkthroughs for iOS (iPhone/iPad) called "solution walkthrough" and has been uploaded on HanjoHoubein official channel at Apr 22, 2012.
Still need help with this level? Here you can ask questions and discuss with other One touch Drawing users.
Hit like if this helped you!
Stuck on some levels in One touch Drawing? This walkthrough can help you finish the game.


text:
Better...love those black socks and short shorts.
Better...love those black socks and short shorts.
Last edited by bksox3; December 2nd, 2012 at 11:40 PM. Reason: bigger picture
^^^^My dad has loads like these that i somtimes like to slip on!!
now these are short... All for the right reasons!
These are so short it cant be kept in....
Holy bum...
Are there any short shorts that is not athletic wear?
I'm PROUD to be a Gay
Bona to vada
Last edited by Kyanimal; March 27th, 2013 at 05:39 PM.
WISDOM is the Knowledge you've gained ... After you could have used it! _Me
Have you noticed in the clothing stores that the women shorts are much shorter than the men's shorts? I wonder who decided that my shorts should be down to my knees!
I am seriously thinking about buying some women shorts that don't look too feminine. I was in Old Navy the other day. They have some pretty decent women shorts I could wear. Have any of you guys done something similar to this idea?
I'm PROUD to be a Gay
These are nice shorts, not cutoffs. They have pockets too.
Now, why can't this type of shorts come back into fashion?
I'm PROUD to be a Gay
No one looks hotter in short shorts than my favorite male model DW Chase
I'm PROUD to be a Gay


text: A dark mahogany brown on a short, boyish cut translates to an attractive women's hairstyle. The pixie crop is short on the sides and back, but eases up on length when it comes to the crown. Longer sections are sideswept from a deep part on one side. Hair is naturally straight, and so the sections are neat, even if they are not quite long enough to be tucked behind the ear. The cut and natural thickness of the hair provides some height over the forehead, so that lines are slightly curved instead of totally flat, successfully framing the face.