The extra power is handy climbing mountains
-
If you are being asked to change your password, and unsure how to do it, follow these instructions. Click here
Hunting with E-bikes
- Thread starter John Murphy
- Start date
-
- Tags
- ebike hunting long range
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
ZSteinle
Well-Known Member
I bought one for hunting on private property in ND. Was looking for something dual purpose hunting/recreation and decided with a Luna x1 2000 watt and couldn't be happier.
Luna makes a nice bike for the cost, i run there batteries with my bakcou
In the bike racing world Watts per kg is what determines success. For example Lance Armstrong at the peak of his doping was about 6.8 Watts per kg for a 20 minute effort.
Your current setup:
backcou storm = 72lb
Trailer = 42lb
Rider = 210lb
meat/gear = 200lb
total = 524lb or 237.682kg
Watts = 2300 not including drivetrain loss or additional power input at the pedals
Your Current Watts per kg = 9.68
You are riding around with beyond world class levels of power while hauling meat/gear.
If you were a disabled person such as myself and denied access to many places you might have a difference of opinion
Well let's look at the main reasons motors are restricted in certain places I believe it is strictly due to 1 noise and 2 erosion and damage to the environment an E bike will do neither and as mentioned horses hooves tear up the trails much more than a bicycle,When I was much younger I used to race dirt bikes and I will agree they are noisy obnoxious and destroy the ground but I believe bikes of several different kinds are unfairly grouped together in this category
If ebikes shouldnt be allowed then neither should a horse. Two separate means to enter the woods. Only one does more damage... and its not the bike. I grew up hunting with horses the bike is a better option
I too meet that status but I do not want to use it as an excuse... at least not yet.
Last edited:
I usually don't mention it but I feel it is relevant in this discussion and for me it's not an excuse it's a fact , And the reason I may never get to be in any of these places mentionedI too meet that status but I do not to make as an excuse... at least not yet.
Likewise!
And I don't even have an E bike yet if the laws were a little different I would already have one
wardog5
Well-Known Member
If it's closed to motorized vehicles why can they ride the trail it doesn't specifically say gas motors only it says motorized vehicles the rangers should put a quick end to it IMHO
shinbone
Well-Known Member
Interesting topic. My personal feeling is that the more motorized- or mechanically-assisted travel we allow in the woods, the less true wilderness we will have. And, wilderness is a fragile and vanishing resource that deserves the utmost protection. Accordingly, motorized/mechanical travel needs to be severely limited.
E-bikes, being relatively quiet and (mostly) pollution-free, have generally the same impact on the resource as horses, and thus, horse access is used as justification for e-bike access. My thought is that, while horses have similar impacts, horses are "grandfathered-in" because they were so widely used for so long before motorized/mechanical back-country travel became possible. In other words, the "horse access train" left the station 500 years ago, and it is unrealistic to say horse travel now justifies recently invented motorized/mechanical travel. Especially considering how inexpensive such modern means are in conjunction with the massive population we now have. Carrying capacity of the wilderness is the true issue, not the relative environmental impacts of the mode of transportation, themselves.
JMHO
E-bikes, being relatively quiet and (mostly) pollution-free, have generally the same impact on the resource as horses, and thus, horse access is used as justification for e-bike access. My thought is that, while horses have similar impacts, horses are "grandfathered-in" because they were so widely used for so long before motorized/mechanical back-country travel became possible. In other words, the "horse access train" left the station 500 years ago, and it is unrealistic to say horse travel now justifies recently invented motorized/mechanical travel. Especially considering how inexpensive such modern means are in conjunction with the massive population we now have. Carrying capacity of the wilderness is the true issue, not the relative environmental impacts of the mode of transportation, themselves.
JMHO
cabelasken
Well-Known Member
I personally am against any auxillary powered mode of transportation to areas designated for foot or horseback access and I'm nearly 70 years old. In Idaho a few years back, three of us walked into a wilderness area designated for foot and horseback access only. the trail had a chain across it and signs clearly stated no motorized vehicles. We were over two miles in when we heard the sound of quads behind us. The four of them passed us and parked about a half mile in front of us and glassed the area we intended to hunt. We were from out of state and they were residents of Idaho. None of us saw any shootable animals that day although our scouting of the area previously told us that many nice specimens lived on those ridges. Although e-bike are technically not motorized, I put them in the same category.
