I just received word that horses are NOT allowed in this no wheel area...
just a FYI on the rules of this one area. I am surprised on how quickly the US Forest service responded.
Hunting with E-bikes
- Thread starter John Murphy
- Start date
-
- Tags
- ebike hunting long range
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
just a FYI on the rules of this one area. I am surprised on how quickly the US Forest service responded.
E-bikes are motorized. Nothing technical about it. They simply run on electricity instead of gasoline.
Salmotrutta
Member
Fascinating thread! I actually read through the whole thing, and I see some rational thought or reasoning behind almost every post...but just for today! At the moment e-bikes are very similar to a conventional bike in many ways, and have a similar impact. My concern is not about today, but tomorrow and beyond. Anyone who thinks that e-bike technology and capability won't take the same path as the electric golf cart to a Tesla, has to be ignoring the obvious. "They aren't a motorcycle..." kinda true today, but not tomorrow. Unless some real enforceable limit is established that keeps their capability in line with conventional pedal bikes - they really are the next motorcycle, and the regulations we set now need to reflect that. A 69 Corvette did a quarter in 14.2 at 98 mph a Tesla does it in 9.8 at 155 mph. It's not about electrifying a bike it's about advancements in technology and how we want the spaces we recreate in to look and feel for us and our children. I still want places I can go and not be run over (or run by) whatever the next conveyance is.
Precisely. Thank you. The meat of this thread is about whether or not e-bikes should be allowed on non-motorized trails, or limited to motorized areas. Allowing them onto traditionally non-motorized trails is a game changer, and not in a good way long term.
4
If you actually read the articles provided in #4 and #11, it addressed the limitations you refer to, i.e., 750W or less.
Salmotrutta
Member
Thanks! I am well aware of that and the total lack of enforceability of that restriction. Unfortunately I have no faith that the person with the 1000w motor will faithfully turn around at the sign that says "limited to 750w or less..." More than likely they will go home and print off a sticker that says "750 watts" slap it over their 1000W sticker and ride on. I trust you have seen a 50 in wide ATV gate? They had to make them to help those that couldn't read.
If you actually read per my reference, it addressed that too.
Give me the verbiage, because I just lost 10 minutes of my life reading one of the memorandums you posted on the first page of the thread and I don't see a thing that addresses how a land manager would be able to confirm that someone didn't do what Salmutrutta suggested. The bottom line is you know dayem well there is no way to enforce that limitation. We have that limitation now on some of our paved multi-use paths and the local cities have zero capability to enforce.
Sorry but no one can give you back the 10 minutes you lost, and I cannot read and understand the memo for you to lose more time. Yes, it is not the clearest of memos, but #4 and #11 is asking the various offices to formulate implementation strategies so e-bike can be used; if the existing directives/guidance need to be changed/upgraded then do so, in essence, the e-bike is new and start with a clean slate to incorporate into those areas of concern.
No one is saying enforcement is not a challenge. I remember when the suppressors were first tabled for hunting use. People are saying it would make poaching easier. Poachers will do it with or without suppressors. Like anything, a longitudinal study is required after it is implemented to determine any impacts/effects and adjust accordingly. Actually, conducting the study is another story.
I am not opposed to the use, but ask the same question someone else already did, where does the technology stop? I suspect it won't and we will just see more and more ways that stay within Local Parks and Wildlife rules, or the rules will be adaptive for certain things.
My rub on e-bikes, or you could say wilderness recreation in general, is maintenance. Too many people say it's "ours to use" but don't realize there is a cost to maintain and monitor. In Colorado, most of this is hunting/fishing licenses and lottery money. But the majority of summer users aren't hunting/fishing or playing the "mathematically challenged 401k plan".
Groups like the RMEF expand access to areas, and it become public access.
I would support a general recreation fee for use and maintenance, although many masses of people will disagree. Remember the "hug a hunter commercials"? They have messaging in that the fees go to this. But there are so many users of the trails that think hunting is a cruel activity. How do they pay for use?
So to the point. If the E-Bikes are broadly allowed the average Jack and Jill will begin to access the wilderness areas for weekend rides. Just as expanded hiking and biking has already added pressure to wildlife, giving people further reach for weekend recreation will make this worse. I think the access for bikes needs to be minimized for these reasons. The weekend folks will go 20 miles in on an e-bike where the hike may have stopped at 5. An exception could be game retrieval. Simply because of a hunter can successfully get game out more efficient and limit spoilage risk, all the better.
A friend of mine bought his wife an e-bike. They used to ride regular bikes and brewery hop. Now that she has the e-bike and he has the pedal bike he can't keep up. He said it was a mistake because now she wants to go the breweries 15-20 miles from the house, where before they stayed in a 5-10 mile radius. Anecdotally this would be push game around differently and could have unintended consequences.
My rub on e-bikes, or you could say wilderness recreation in general, is maintenance. Too many people say it's "ours to use" but don't realize there is a cost to maintain and monitor. In Colorado, most of this is hunting/fishing licenses and lottery money. But the majority of summer users aren't hunting/fishing or playing the "mathematically challenged 401k plan".
Groups like the RMEF expand access to areas, and it become public access.
I would support a general recreation fee for use and maintenance, although many masses of people will disagree. Remember the "hug a hunter commercials"? They have messaging in that the fees go to this. But there are so many users of the trails that think hunting is a cruel activity. How do they pay for use?
So to the point. If the E-Bikes are broadly allowed the average Jack and Jill will begin to access the wilderness areas for weekend rides. Just as expanded hiking and biking has already added pressure to wildlife, giving people further reach for weekend recreation will make this worse. I think the access for bikes needs to be minimized for these reasons. The weekend folks will go 20 miles in on an e-bike where the hike may have stopped at 5. An exception could be game retrieval. Simply because of a hunter can successfully get game out more efficient and limit spoilage risk, all the better.
A friend of mine bought his wife an e-bike. They used to ride regular bikes and brewery hop. Now that she has the e-bike and he has the pedal bike he can't keep up. He said it was a mistake because now she wants to go the breweries 15-20 miles from the house, where before they stayed in a 5-10 mile radius. Anecdotally this would be push game around differently and could have unintended consequences.
Last edited:
shinbone
Well-Known Member
Make a exception for those with a doctor-certified disability, but no one has the right to hunt where their own body won't take them.
Muddyboots
Well-Known Member
Ok, so you ride a horse back in 15-20 miles versus E-bike? Game is pushed no differently. Human impact is human impact. There is no doubt there needs to be a study that takes in ALL HUMAN impacts including foot, horses, bicycles, E-bikes and ORV's and develop a PLAN that addresses ALL these modes of transportation to allow the land management access for ALL citizens. Any plan needs to be fluid to address emerging technologies and potential increases in adverse impacts caused by ANY mode of transportation to maintain the land in a defined manner.
People WILL abuse ANY requirement but do you restrict EVERYONE for the actions of the few? Three guesses what road that takes us down?
People WILL abuse ANY requirement but do you restrict EVERYONE for the actions of the few? Three guesses what road that takes us down?
shinbone
Well-Known Member
Making access so easy that everyone will go in will destroy the wilderness. No way around that fact. Though not politically correct, that's just the reality of what wilderness is.
Last edited:
Agree with you until the second to last sentence. A non-motorized trail does not restrict everyone. It simply keeps out motorized users. Why is this so hard to comprehend?
