#!markdown
I guess as someone seeing the battle between wilderness and bike access
advocates right here in my own state (not to mention the thousands of idiot
rednecks on OHVs), to me, it's quite simple: if it has an engine or a motor,
it doesn't belong on most public land.
Now, before anyone starts hurling tomatoes or calling names, let me be the
first to say that I'll happily throw a leg over a 250 any day to hit some
amazing dirt with friends after a rainstorm (on moto-legal trails, of course).
However, with the current war going on between outdoor recreationalists,
mountain bikers and land managers, adding motors/engines to the mix is just
bad, bad, bad fucking timing on the part of the MTB industry. On one hand,
we're demanding equal access of public land and on the other, we're pushing
e-bikes harder than a coke dealer trying to make rent. As much as I'd like to
have my cake and eat it too, timing is everything, and we cannot make MTBing
into everything for everyone.
There are so many members of the aforementioned hick patrol that have openly
and directly advocated for OHV access in wilderness using the argument that
'new mountain bikes have engines, too!' Does this make sense? Abso-fucking-
lutely not. But I also live in Utah, the place where a state representative
staged a 'ride in' on protected wild land with his OHV buddies. So yeah. It
gets heated here.
My point? We can't sell and push and promote 'faster, easier, better' while
telling land managers that we're responsible, respectful trail users. We
already have enough problems with illegal building, overrun trails, a fight
against the Sierra Club… It's like shitting in our own soup, then being upset
that there's shit in the soup.
Love them or hate them, we have to pick our battles, and the e-bike push isn't
helping the 'get more trail access' fight.
Jan. 13, 2017, 10:58 p.m. - Amanda
#!markdown I guess as someone seeing the battle between wilderness and bike access advocates right here in my own state (not to mention the thousands of idiot rednecks on OHVs), to me, it's quite simple: if it has an engine or a motor, it doesn't belong on most public land. Now, before anyone starts hurling tomatoes or calling names, let me be the first to say that I'll happily throw a leg over a 250 any day to hit some amazing dirt with friends after a rainstorm (on moto-legal trails, of course). However, with the current war going on between outdoor recreationalists, mountain bikers and land managers, adding motors/engines to the mix is just bad, bad, bad fucking timing on the part of the MTB industry. On one hand, we're demanding equal access of public land and on the other, we're pushing e-bikes harder than a coke dealer trying to make rent. As much as I'd like to have my cake and eat it too, timing is everything, and we cannot make MTBing into everything for everyone. There are so many members of the aforementioned hick patrol that have openly and directly advocated for OHV access in wilderness using the argument that 'new mountain bikes have engines, too!' Does this make sense? Abso-fucking- lutely not. But I also live in Utah, the place where a state representative staged a 'ride in' on protected wild land with his OHV buddies. So yeah. It gets heated here. My point? We can't sell and push and promote 'faster, easier, better' while telling land managers that we're responsible, respectful trail users. We already have enough problems with illegal building, overrun trails, a fight against the Sierra Club… It's like shitting in our own soup, then being upset that there's shit in the soup. Love them or hate them, we have to pick our battles, and the e-bike push isn't helping the 'get more trail access' fight.