Issues I have with E bike deer hunting want your thoughts

[Barehandlineman11]

My whole point if horse is allowed bike should be.. walk with nothing or horse with e bike

 

[dfanonymous]

Ive hunted back country oregon and idaho for long time. 1 outfitter with string of horses will do more damage to a trail then 50 ebikes. Again ive done both. So damage to the wilderness is not a valid argument other then people with horses not liking the bikes

Cool. I've hunted backcountry's of many states for a long time. So what? That's not the point.

That doesn't change the fact that everyone with a ebike would basically use a wilderness trail as ebike 4x4 trail. Usually, wilderness trails will have authorized horse trails. Not all trails allow horse impact. Still, not everyone has a horse.

The rules right now are no motorized access. It should stay that way for good reason. As was said, we who put in the work, don't want a ton of people to be zipping by with essentially a battery powered dirt bike. The amount of people add to impact of an area. The point of hunting wilderness is to get away from people. I could hunt national forests if I wanted to see road hunters and dirt bikers.

For clarity: "impact" is not just the trail. I think that's a big disconnect. Link is an example of totality of impact.

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest - Special Places

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest - Special Places

www.fs.usda.gov

 

[Barehandlineman11]

I hike into multiple places where they are not allowed im not saying they should be allowed everywhere. Im saying if a horse is allowed on a already existing trail so should they. They are not the same thing as a dirt bike or atv.

 

[bowhunter1287]

I don't have horses. I don't have an e-bike. I don't want to see a horse trailer at a trailhead that I want to walk down and I don't want to get passed by a dude with an e-bike on the way in. It sucks because there's no way I can get in as far as those guys with as much energy.

I have horses and like to hunt off them but I also hunted without horses before I got them. No you can't make it as far as someone with a horse. But I have seen people take horses in and there goal is to go far in to hunt so they generally don't hunt till they get as far as they want to be so that leaves all the closer stuff to people on foot and for instance I took my horse out looking for deer or elk and on way back in from a 11.5 mile ride I seen a deer that traveled in after I went through that morning and where I tied my horse to go harvest this deer was 300 yards from truck so I don't think it is always about how far can you go it's if your in the right spot at the right time.

 

[bowhunter1287]

I hike into multiple places where they are not allowed im not saying they should be allowed everywhere. Im saying if a horse is allowed on a already existing trail so should they. They are not the same thing as a dirt bike or atv.

I disagree they should be treated the same as a dirt bike or atv. You don't know what the e bike sounds like to a horse and if it's gonna freak out and have a wreck with a horse because of the noise that you don't see coming at least if it's a person or a animal there not moving at you at a fast speed so you can see what your horse is gonna do vs have a bike come around a corner and have a wreck cuz the horse freaks out.

 

[chav0_12]

I hike into multiple places where they are not allowed im not saying they should be allowed everywhere. Im saying if a horse is allowed on an already existing trail so should they. They are not the same thing as a dirt bike or atv.

I totally understand what you're saying, however designated Wilderness areas are for non-wheeled conveyances and no motors. Period. Horses don't have wheels so they're allowed. Bikes of any sort, any motor vehicle, any motorized piece of machinery (like a chainsaw) aren't allowed in designated Wilderness areas. It is what it is, e-bikes won't ever be allowed even though horses are. I don't see why we should/would change that rule because e-bikes are somehow different than a mountain bike?

 

[2buffalo]

I can see both sides, a difficult issue to articulate.

Anti-Ebike; there are an awful lot of irresponsible "users" that really shouldn't be allowed very far into the wilderness. We've all seen them and they certainly aren't out there to enjoy it while "leaving no trace". These people shouldn't be allowed to tarnish the set aside wilderness areas. There are also areas that are NOT wilderness that must limit Hunter access to prevent over harvest of game. That's the part that probably frustrates a lot of folks, because we see the trailhead signs as being just normal FS or BLM (so why no motorized…?). I get it that It's frustrating to research online, find an area with high densities, high hunter success rates and "trophy quality" only to discover that the trails are mostly/all non-motorized. The reason these amazing game units exist is because of the limited access allowing most of these critters to go unchallenged through hunting season.

Fence-sitter; if the reason that the rules exist is to protect the federal or state lands from trail erosion, over-use or abuse, my opinion is that ONLY foot traffic should be allowed. That would really cut down on all of these things and would be (almost) a leave no trace scenario. I'm not trying to pick at horses, but they leave a mess and their hooves absolutely wreak havoc on any sort of wetland/grassy/stream area (compared to boots). There have been a lot of good/valid points made already, it all boils down to effort and common sense. What we often encounter is that when a tree falls down, the hikers often go over it and stay mostly on an existing trail. If horse or wheeled travelers encounter a tree and don't take the effort to stop and cut it out, they go around it and make a "new trail". This drives land managers nuts and is not leave-no-trace. Common sense would also tell us that hooves and wheels don't go well with rain and muddy trails (we should all wait for them to dry out). In our fast paced and instant gratification society, nobody waits and we end up with ruts and deep hoof prints in the trails (in those circumstances even boot tracks are damaging).

Pro-Ebike; it's already been said the some people are "too broke" to own pack stock. That's an ignorant or perhaps a lazy comment. I have the money to own stock (and I'd LOVE to). Stock ownership is a significant investment if you didn't grow up with them, or have the good fortune to reside in an area where land is affordable and work is nearby. I choose not to because as has been pointed out before it takes a significant investment in time (time that i would prefer to spend with my family doing the things They love to do). An Ebike would allow me the opportunity to unlock an awful lot of country that otherwise I couldn't responsibly access and haul game out of (and sit in my garage 10 months a year). It's an awesome resource (as are horses/mules). Denying people this access because of the erosion that it causes, while touting how awesome horses are seems silly to me. That argument to anyone that doesn't own horses sounds like a very convenient way to minimize access to the same mountains that you enjoy (reduce your competition by promoting old laws). It looks like the wheel was used in the Americas as early as 1,500 BC, but wasn't utilized for transportation until horses became prevalent and utilized for transportation (so the "primitive" argument favoring horses and not wheels is BS in my eyes).

If we want to generalize groups of hunters and say that E-bike hunters are fat/lazy, horse hunters make a mess and are selfish and backpack hunters are hipsters… then we accept that non-hunters will generalize all of us and in ways we don't want to argue. It isn't helpful.

To be honest a lot of my opinions above are over-dramatic compared to my real feelings, I just wanted to make a point.

It seems like we are right back to a point of needing to support one another as hunters and not argue over laws/rules that we didn't create. If there's a rule/law that you are passionate about, go through the proper channels to fight it, but I'd caution us all against the infighting only because we want to carve off pieces of the mountains that ONLY a few can access. The more of us fighting for hunting (by any legal means), the better our future looks.

Excellent post. Live and let live.

 

[Husky user]

I feel the same way about horses.
Except when I need one to pack out game!

 

[Small Lady]

Lamas suck they do cause wrecks but the bikes almost caused a wreck also riding up to them no big deal but when guys took off horses freaked

Those must be very skittish horses.
Mine wouldn't even blink.
Better training would help substantially.

 

[Small Lady]

I can see both sides, a difficult issue to articulate.

Anti-Ebike; there are an awful lot of irresponsible "users" that really shouldn't be allowed very far into the wilderness. We've all seen them and they certainly aren't out there to enjoy it while "leaving no trace". These people shouldn't be allowed to tarnish the set aside wilderness areas. There are also areas that are NOT wilderness that must limit Hunter access to prevent over harvest of game. That's the part that probably frustrates a lot of folks, because we see the trailhead signs as being just normal FS or BLM (so why no motorized…?). I get it that It's frustrating to research online, find an area with high densities, high hunter success rates and "trophy quality" only to discover that the trails are mostly/all non-motorized. The reason these amazing game units exist is because of the limited access allowing most of these critters to go unchallenged through hunting season.

Fence-sitter; if the reason that the rules exist is to protect the federal or state lands from trail erosion, over-use or abuse, my opinion is that ONLY foot traffic should be allowed. That would really cut down on all of these things and would be (almost) a leave no trace scenario. I'm not trying to pick at horses, but they leave a mess and their hooves absolutely wreak havoc on any sort of wetland/grassy/stream area (compared to boots). There have been a lot of good/valid points made already, it all boils down to effort and common sense. What we often encounter is that when a tree falls down, the hikers often go over it and stay mostly on an existing trail. If horse or wheeled travelers encounter a tree and don't take the effort to stop and cut it out, they go around it and make a "new trail". This drives land managers nuts and is not leave-no-trace. Common sense would also tell us that hooves and wheels don't go well with rain and muddy trails (we should all wait for them to dry out). In our fast paced and instant gratification society, nobody waits and we end up with ruts and deep hoof prints in the trails (in those circumstances even boot tracks are damaging).

Pro-Ebike; it's already been said the some people are "too broke" to own pack stock. That's an ignorant or perhaps a lazy comment. I have the money to own stock (and I'd LOVE to). Stock ownership is a significant investment if you didn't grow up with them, or have the good fortune to reside in an area where land is affordable and work is nearby. I choose not to because as has been pointed out before it takes a significant investment in time (time that i would prefer to spend with my family doing the things They love to do). An Ebike would allow me the opportunity to unlock an awful lot of country that otherwise I couldn't responsibly access and haul game out of (and sit in my garage 10 months a year). It's an awesome resource (as are horses/mules). Denying people this access because of the erosion that it causes, while touting how awesome horses are seems silly to me. That argument to anyone that doesn't own horses sounds like a very convenient way to minimize access to the same mountains that you enjoy (reduce your competition by promoting old laws). It looks like the wheel was used in the Americas as early as 1,500 BC, but wasn't utilized for transportation until horses became prevalent and utilized for transportation (so the "primitive" argument favoring horses and not wheels is BS in my eyes).

If we want to generalize groups of hunters and say that E-bike hunters are fat/lazy, horse hunters make a mess and are selfish and backpack hunters are hipsters… then we accept that non-hunters will generalize all of us and in ways we don't want to argue. It isn't helpful.

To be honest a lot of my opinions above are over-dramatic compared to my real feelings, I just wanted to make a point.

It seems like we are right back to a point of needing to support one another as hunters and not argue over laws/rules that we didn't create. If there's a rule/law that you are passionate about, go through the proper channels to fight it, but I'd caution us all against the infighting only because we want to carve off pieces of the mountains that ONLY a few can access. The more of us fighting for hunting (by any legal means), the better our future looks.

Finally a good post.

If people start complaining about others who are out using the land, those complaints will eventually get the land closed to EVERYONE!

If you are filing complaints, you are the problem, not the solution.
And as a horse lover, and someone who rides her horse probably 250 days per year, or more, I see many trails torn up worse by horses than by vehicles with tires.
Horses are very heavy, and standing on 4 small hooves, the PSI per square inch is huge, hence all the holes they make on soft terrain.
Stop being petty, share public land openly with all, and knock off being so **** prejudiced.
And blaming an almost silent ebike, for scaring your horse, says a lot more about yourself and your horse, than the quiet bike.

A 2 stroke motocross bike like my Yamaha YZ85 should be able to go past a horse, and the horse do nothing more than take a casual look.
My boss comes towards my horse and I fast in his truck, ATV, whatever, and then stops 2 feet away to talk, my horse doesn't so much as flinch.
Get out there, ride your horse often, at least a couple of days per week minimum, and get it used to traffic, deep water, mud, large logs down, noises, and everything else.
Once you have a bomb proof horse, maintain that.
If my horse acts up, I blame myself for not working on whatever bothers him.

Back to the original question.
Share, share well, don't be rude, don't report an ebike, and if you don't want the government to take away even more of our rights, be the solution, not the problem.

 

[sp6x6]

The rules vary from were you are located.I can take a motor bike right behind my house up 6000 feet and what id call a steep horse trail, legal.I use to ride the divIde between MT/ID,legal along with a slew of other trails.i also spent my life hunting Great Bear wilderness and BMW,NO WHEELS.Dont have a bike , yet...

 

[MtPockets]

If you are filing complaints, you are the problem, not the solution.


don't report an ebike

So, am I understanding you correctly that even if an eBike is in a Wildeness Area that is closed to anything with wheels- pedal bikes and game carts included- that we should all just be ok with folks who ignore the rules?

I gotta disagree with you there.

If they are legal in a particular area, knock your socks off but to encourage people to ignore them when they are riding in closed areas is just plain wrong. It starts as one guy doing his own thing and pretty soon you have a crowd of them because "So-and-so does it".

 

[dfanonymous]

Finally a good post.

If people start complaining about others who are out using the land, those complaints will eventually get the land closed to EVERYONE!

If you are filing complaints, you are the problem, not the solution.
And as a horse lover, and someone who rides her horse probably 250 days per year, or more, I see many trails torn up worse by horses than by vehicles with tires.

Stop being petty, share public land openly with all, and knock off being so **** prejudiced.




Back to the original question.
Share, share well, don't be rude, don't report an ebike, and if you don't want the government to take away even more of our rights, be the solution, not the problem.

Fine.

Then I want to drive my Jeep through there, bring jamboree of 180 rigs, create enough campsites for all the overlanders, have all my kids stupid *** dirt bike friends run through there every which way.
Of course that's not fair to the disabled, so let's add a pathway for wheel chair access. Of course while you're at it, let's do unfettered logging there too.

Matter of fact…why is there even a wilderness? Why can't it all just be national forest or state land?

This isn't about the horses…if the point is going over your head..

No motorized traffic. It IS fairer than you think.

 

[Small Lady]

Fine.

Then I want to drive my Jeep through there, bring jamboree of 180 rigs, create enough campsites for all the overlanders, have all my kids stupid *** dirt bike friends run through there every which way.
Of course that's not fair to the disabled, so let's add a pathway for wheel chair access. Of course while you're at it, let's do unfettered logging there too.

Matter of fact…why is there even a wilderness? Why can't it all just be national forest or state land?

This isn't about the horses…if the point is going over your head..

No motorized traffic. It IS fairer than you think.

Are we not talking about single track, very rugged trails here?
No jeep is going up any single track, at least what I call single track. My horse barely fits down many of the trails, and its also narrow ledges, steep loose rock where I actually get off and walk so he doesn't have to also carry me on such difficult terrain. The sort of stuff a 2 wheel bike only can do, or hikers and horses. I also envision the bike rider having to carry the bike over obstacles.
Heck if its such a major trail a jeep can drive down it, who built the road to begin with?