# E-Bikes greenlighted for federal lands



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

For good or bad, the Secretary of The Interior has issued an order to allow E-Bikes on federal lands. Seems to be stirring things up in the hunting and environmental communities. Might get a bit more crowded on some trails. National Parks will have to scramble to change some of their rules, as many parks specifically outlaw the use of these bikes. The first law suit when one plows into a hiker or hunter or even a mountain bike might be interesting...

Thoughts?

"Sec. 1 Purpose. This Order is intended to increase recreational opportunities for all Americans,
especially those with physical limitations, and to encourage the enjoyment of lands and waters
managed by the Department of the Interior (Department). This Order simplifies and unifies
regulation of electric bicycles ( e-bikes) on Federal lands managed by the Department and also
decreases regulatory burden...

b) E-bikes shall be allowed where other types of bicycles are allowed; and
c) E-bikes shall not be allowed where other types of bicycles are prohibited. "

https://www.nationalparkstraveler.o..._through_the_use_of_electric_bikes_-508_0.pdf

https://www.nationalparkstraveler.o...tary-moves-expand-ebike-access-national-parks


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

A good e-bike is like $5K. I don't know the extreme that it will cause crowding. Most people with them were already mountain bike riders.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

RandomElk16 said:


> A good e-bike is like $5K. I don't know the extreme that it will cause crowding. Most people with them were already mountain bike riders.


I hear what you're saying Random. I don't know that this will increase crowding by a lot, but it's sure to contribute at least some. I think those who will take up the E Bike will be a different crowd than those who venture out on mountain bikes. Heck, old guys like me who have a hard time hiking in a couple miles will surely take advantage at some point. The industry is just taking off, and this regulation will make it even more so, IMO. As to cost, that will go down. Right now for 1500 bucks or so you can buy a bike that has pretty darn good distance and built fairly well.

I think whats getting under the skin of a lot of folks is that this whole thing came about without public input, a unilateral decision if you will. I don't much like that either.

Anyway, I may start looking in to these bikes, as even the high end ones are less than a wheeler...haha.8)


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

The E Bike industry is targeted at growing the market. They will target those that are not inclined to use a regular mountain bike.

There is actually a lot of push back on mountain bike forums.

And we can discuss what is the difference between EMTB and a motorcycle except noise.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

middlefork said:


> The E Bike industry is targeted at growing the market. They will target those that are not inclined to use a regular mountain bike.
> 
> There is actually a lot of push back on mountain bike forums.
> 
> And we can discuss what is the difference between EMTB and a motorcycle except noise.


Have any of you rode e-bikes? The one's I have, you still have to pedal and it can still be very taxing. Now if they "Ok" e-bike it should be limited to pedal assisted so there isn't people on e-dirtbikes which can still hit speeds of 50-70mph.

I would ask the difference between an EMTB and an MTB other than a battery. They have the exact same platforms and a lot of interchangeable components.

Motorcycles can:

Go faster
Use larger tires, with deeper tread, spinning at a faster rate (dig up more)
Have the ability to blaze their own trail much easier
Make noise
Pollute
Safety is a factor due to speed


That's just the surface..


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

RandomElk16 said:


> Motorcycles can:
> 
> Go faster *NO*
> Use larger tires, with deeper tread, spinning at a faster rate (dig up more) *NO*
> ...


We're in the 21st century. Electric Motocross bikes are already here and winning races.






-DallanC


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

DallanC said:


> We're in the 21st century. Electric Motocross bikes are already here and winning races.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Alta *Motorcycles*.

I very clearly spoke about EMTB vs E dirtbikes and that they should require a pedal assist stipulation.

Alta motors are not competing on the real circuit of motorcross/supercross and go slower than gas bikes. Also, they closed down and sold off their assets to another company because it financially wasn't taking off.

My take was about a mountain bike, or an EMTB compared to a motorcycle. In response to a comment alluding to such a comparison. On a CRF450, shoot even on a CR80, all of the things I said were true. Even when you compare a comparable bike to the Alta, which would be a CRF450, all the things I said still hold true.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Motorized = motorized. Electric or gas, speed or power, athletic or not, the same principle.
Pedal assist is IMO a small problem to work around. I remember in France many years ago pedal bikes with a gas motor to assist going up hill.

Modern E bikes come with different levels of motors along with selectors for how much assist you want. The most powerful motor on the highest setting makes it pretty painless to climb some pretty steep hills.

Now they are being pushed into the pathway category. All to capture more market by making biking easy for people who are out of shape or unwilling to work hard.

E bikes have become very popular in Europe and yes they are allowed on most trails. Have they torn up the trails? No. But they certainly have made them more crowded.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

middlefork said:


> Motorized = motorized. Electric or gas, speed or power, athletic or not, the same principle.
> Pedal assist is IMO a small problem to work around. I remember in France many years ago pedal bikes with a gas motor to assist going up hill.
> 
> Modern E bikes come with different levels of motors along with selectors for how much assist you want. The most powerful motor on the highest setting makes it pretty painless to climb some pretty steep hills.
> ...


There is a big difference between a Backcountry Ebike that is pedal assisted and a 50hp Alta Motors dirtbike. Or even the 25hp KTM. That was my only point. They need some sort of regulation. Maybe it is a combo of features the bike has to have.

My whole point was that when it's an electric assisted mountain bike, it's pretty much the exact same as a mountain bike with a $5K-$6K price tag.

The world is going to get busier. I certainly don't see them removing this option, or if they do it will come back. All I tried to say was if we restrict it, it won't be as bad. Guess that's the wrong viewpoint.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

I agree they should be restricted.

The problem is it is just a nose under tent situtation. It will take some major pushback to stop it.

MTN bikers want access to FS trails that are currently closed to them. Get enough EMTB to join them and all of a sudden there is enough pressure to make the change above.

I don't really care one way or the other, I got tired of sharing the trail years ago after an out of control MTB came within inches of putting me in a hospital.

Use whatever you want. Be prepared for the Strava ridicule ( if you do the SM thing).

Bikes are good for a lot of things. And watch for the price of E bikes to come down. The bike business sucks right now.


----------



## Lone_Hunter (Oct 25, 2017)

I won't pretend to know much about Ebikes, but from what i've seen/read, they seem like a workaround to cheat the existing rules. Personally, my concern is roadless areas; not that we have a lot of those here. However If I bust my ass to hike in 4 miles just to reach the bowl I want to hunt, (plus 4 miles back, another couple stalking around, for 10 miles total ) seeing somebody zip by me in an ebike when they couldn't before will probably chap my hide.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

There are a couple of units in my home state where something like this would be good. One of which has a single road closed to public use and only used for administrative purposes. Only 10 hunters per hunt are allowed in there, and the only ones that would even use one are the bowhunters as nearly most all the rifle hunters use horses. Riding a standard mountain bike really isn't an issue as the road is relatively flat. Much easier and faster to access the back of the unit on a bike than a horse if that's all you're doing.

To access the very back of the unit, it would be a 6 mile walk down this road. The road is maintained and in a mountain FS road condition. This is the only scenario I believe they would be an "acceptable" use.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Lone_Hunter said:


> I won't pretend to know much about Ebikes, but from what i've seen/read, they seem like a workaround to cheat the existing rules. Personally, my concern is roadless areas; not that we have a lot of those here. However If I bust my ass to hike in 4 miles just to reach the bowl I want to hunt, (plus 4 miles back, another couple stalking around, for 10 miles total ) seeing somebody zip by me in an ebike when they couldn't before will probably chap my hide.


I had that happen to me. Not in the mountains, but hunting ducks. I rode six miles out, had just dismounted and was getting ready to walk out when I heard a little noise behind me. Turned around to see a guy on an ebike looking fresh as a daisy. Irritating. That was a couple of years ago. Blair Stringham apparently tried to get them banned from our WMAs but that didn't happen. So I guess we're stuck with them. I'll still ride my 27+ bike for now, but as I get older that may change. I think that they should only be allowed if the rider is 65 years or older.:smile:


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I found it interesting that I got an email from REI today about e-bikes. Some of the statements in the email are as follows: 

"Discover a new Super Power with an E-bike" 
"Electric bikes are for everyone" 
"Nothing's out of reach now" 

REI is supposed to be a champion of our outdoor wilderness experience, right? Isn't that why they supported Outdoor Retailer leaving Utah? Now they are selling e-bikes marketed to disturb the outdoor experience? 

Seems odd if you bought their excuses for their previous motivations. Since I did not buy them, this doesn't seem all that odd to me.


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

Nice, should come right down into my price range by next summer. I'll mount a red lamp on the front and pedal on up to my spot, I bet I can get another 30 minutes of sleep and still be sitting on top of the ridge by 4:30. They make some with camo paint jobs on the body, lol.


----------



## Aznative (May 25, 2018)

I also Mtn Bike for fun. I have seen some of these out on trails which cracks me up as I do it to stay in shape but people can do what they wish and probably does help some keep biking with bad knees on hills etc. With that I can say hardly anyone will be able to straight up go offroad without busting their arse falling down etc. For hiking trails etc yes I can see them working. However usually guys who use these are lazy anyhow so will they really stop and hike off the trail. Doubt it. Plus they are pretty heavy to pedal uphill at times. Im gonna laugh hard when I see a guy in full hunt gear stiff boots pack and all pushing the bike as the battery died. Now if I saw a true mtn biker busting his but in gear riding up a trail id say okay hes gonna also get off hike. But in actuality it takes alot more effort to pedal a bike then hike. And to put some at ease I have heard Utah is going to impliment some none motorized trail rules for hiking areas. Not that everyone follows rules but we will see.


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

You see guys on ATVs stop and shoot bows from them all the time. I bet if you stopped on a bike and grabbed your bow you would have plenty of time to take a shot. Speaking of ATVs there are plenty of people hunting from them right now, it's not like e-bikes would be much different. Certainly I would choose a pair of shoes that would fit in the toe clips but also be hikeable, maybe some of those hunting sneakers from Cabelas. Binos, bow, hydration pack, snacks and a knife is all you'd need. Field dress if you kill something, then ride down and hike back up with your meat pack. Sounds perfect.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

This E Bike rule is for lands managed by the Department of the Interior, which includes BLM and national parks, NOT the Forest Service. USFS is under the Department of Agriculture management.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Aznative said:


> I also Mtn Bike for fun. I have seen some of these out on trails which cracks me up as I do it to stay in shape but people can do what they wish and probably does help some keep biking with bad knees on hills etc. With that I can say hardly anyone will be able to straight up go offroad without busting their arse falling down etc. For hiking trails etc yes I can see them working. However usually guys who use these are lazy anyhow so will they really stop and hike off the trail. Doubt it. Plus they are pretty heavy to pedal uphill at times. Im gonna laugh hard when I see a guy in full hunt gear stiff boots pack and all pushing the bike as the battery died. Now if I saw a true mtn biker busting his but in gear riding up a trail id say okay hes gonna also get off hike. But in actuality it takes alot more effort to pedal a bike then hike. And to put some at ease I have heard Utah is going to impliment some none motorized trail rules for hiking areas. Not that everyone follows rules but we will see.


Some of the most athletic hunters I know utilize these. Bust out the first 2-3 miles on the bike, lock it up, and then do another 1-2 miles of hiking and you are at your spot way way faster, and pretty darn deep.

I am a pretty avid mountain biker (non motorized). I don't associate these with lazy people. I don't even associate ATV's with lazy people. It's fine to be a puritan, I don't think it's fine to be judgemental though. The lazy people are at home. And pedaling a bike, electric or not, takes work.

As for dead batteries.. If you wanted to bike in deep to camp you could use your solar charger which have become pretty popular for hunters in the backcountry.

You did re-enforce what I was saying earlier with a few statements. These aren't a cakewalk to ride, have resistance going uphill (and are heavier than a traditional mountainbike), and you can't just go blazing your own trail. Very different from a dirtbike as someone argued earlier.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

If REI is pushing these it's time to take a hard look. Been a member since 1974. I'll be able to tow my fully loaded canoe without breaking a sweat. Already working on a tow bar for my Jet Sled. Happy days!


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Vanilla said:


> I found it interesting that I got an email from REI today about e-bikes. Some of the statements in the email are as follows:
> 
> "Discover a new Super Power with an E-bike"
> "Electric bikes are for everyone"
> ...


They are first an outdoor retailer, catering to multitudes of different outdoor enthusiasts. They have never defined themselves solely by a wilderness experience.

And to clarify, their battle was over monuments, not (W)ilderness. I don't see anything inconsistent with them selling e-bikes and their Utah stance. They didn't want to reduce the monuments sizes.

You can sell e-bikes and also advocate for limiting their use in certain areas. Stakeholders hold such nuanced lines all the time.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Of course you don’t see the difference. No offense intended.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Vanilla said:


> Of course you don't see the difference. No offense intended.


Want to clarify? Because as of right now I'm the one actually seeing the difference and I spelled it out in my previous response.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Sorry, I should have said “Of course you don’t see the inconsistencies.” 

Thanks for letting me clarify.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Vanilla said:


> Sorry, I should have said "Of course you don't see the inconsistencies."
> 
> Thanks for letting me clarify.


Care to explain?

Your original/quoted claims were misrepresentations of their stances but I assume you must have a reason for believing they are being inconsistent.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

You may think that is the case, but I assure you not everyone agrees with you. 

Look, I get it, you like and support REI. There is nothing I can say or do that will change that. I know about their marketing I quoted because I’m a member too. I have my reasons for feeling the way I do, and I’ve gone around this merry-go-round with you on this very topic before. They, along with others, have been disingenuous and downright dishonest. No reason to re-hash it again. 

This is absolutely an inconsistency with their previously stated policies on other topics. You can disagree with that. I won’t lose sleep over it. They see a way to make money, and they’re taking it. I won’t begrudge them for that. I just wish they would have admitted that is what it was about all along.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

You make too many assumptions. Not really a supporter myself. I'm a member but haven't bought anything from them in a while. I actually think their political calculus won't pay off in the long run but I have different opinions than they do on who the environmental movement needs to work with to sustain policy.

Your assumptionss about me are similar to how you approach them. I say critique away, just don't do it in bad faith through misrepresentations. Your previous comment didn't deal with their conservation or business stances honestly. You assume my critique of that means I "support" them. That's a fabrication.

And to be clear, you were the one rehashing their political stance. It's the entirety of your previous contribution regarding e-bikes advertising. And one that is largely tangential to the original topic.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Advertising that e-bikes can give you new super powers, are for everyone, and make no area out of reach are largely tangential to the original topic of the impact of e-bikes?

Ha! Whatever you say, sport. Whatever you say.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Vanilla said:


> Advertising that e-bikes can give you new super powers, are for everyone, and make no area out of reach are largely tangential to the original topic of the impact of e-bikes?
> 
> Ha! Whatever you say, sport. Whatever you say.


Once again, you engage in bad faith claims. The claim you are mangling relates to the opening one that stated "you were the one rehashing their political stance". But you already know that.

For context here is your original comment ending:



Vanilla said:


> Seems odd if you bought their excuses for their previous motivations. Since I did not buy them, this doesn't seem all that odd to me.


That's the part that is clearly tangential, that you randomly rehashed. The rest of your replies are just more examples of how you misrepresent ideas you disagree with.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

As opposed to your personal attacks on anyone that disagrees with you?

More of your bad faith misrepresentation bologna you spew on anyone that takes the time to point out your crap. 

Bye Felicia.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Who did I personally attack? Please show me and I'll apologise, assuming it's not someone like sheep nor the very terse retort in the closed thread (see below for why).

Or are you conflating criticism of ideas with personal attacks? Because they aren't the same. And as you know, I have no problem critiquing ideas. 

Not going to apologise for calling you out about your bad faith rhetoric here. It's near constant on these threads. You make wild, exaggerated claims regularly and normally baulk when challenged to support your allegations. Instead your comments become further littered with strawmen.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

backcountry said:


> Not going to apologise for calling you out about your bad faith rhetoric here. It's near constant on these threads. You make wild, exaggerated claims regularly and normally baulk when challenged to support your allegations. Instead your comments become further littered with strawmen.


You are so willing to rationally discuss so many topics, until someone hits at one of your emotional political feelbads, like how REI, Patagonia, and OR all blatantly lied to our faces. Remember when someone mentioned abortion and the week long hissy fit you threw, refusing to let it go?

This is the same crap you pull any time someone mentions something that touches your tender political leanings. Bad faith, Wild exaggerations, blah blah blah. Not the first time you've been called out for it, and I'm sure it won't be the last. Let it go dude.

And I've supported every claim I've ever made about the dishonesty of OR and that situation. Very clearly. You can deny it, but you'll be dishonest in doing so.

Straw man, bad faith, blah blah blah. At least you're consistent.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Vanilla said:


> backcountry said:
> 
> 
> > Not going to apologise for calling you out about your bad faith rhetoric here. It's near constant on these threads. You make wild, exaggerated claims regularly and normally baulk when challenged to support your allegations. Instead your comments become further littered with strawmen.
> ...


You didn't provide one shred of support for your original claims about REI. You only provided marketing quotes but nothing to support your fabrications about their political posturing. Feel free to show me where you showed any support for your claims about their alleged inconsistencies. I don't see any in this thread.

The only one ever to really call me out is you and when challenged to actually support your allegations the only thing you do is move the goalpost or double down.

And talk about fabrications, you just made up another series of random claims about me that are ironically the closest thing to a "personal attack" yet. That's a classic use of a strawmen.

At least try harder. Are you really going down the road of the worn out snowflake line of assaults. It's odd how invested you are in your lie about my supposed sensitivity to outdoor retailers. Heck, I criticised them in this exchange. I'll continue to do so because I firmly believe that we need outreach to the very communities they abandoned.

You might want to look back but I'm pretty sure the tense exchange between me and the abortion line of attack lasted maybe half a day. It was closed before too long. Yet another example of how you blatantly exaggerate and fabricate lies to support your zealouted claims on these topics.

It seems your strategy is to bombard me with BS whenever I call out certain allegations you make. But back to the matters at hand....

Feel free to finally support your claims that:

1). REI was focused on "wilderness" in their interactions with Utah and Outdoor Retailer and therefore selling e-bikes is inconsistent of them. You haven't done that at all.

2) That I personally attack people. Insert a reply with a hyperlink to such posts (plural as you claim) and I publicly apologize. Seems you are invested in this currently unsubstantiated allegation against me so it should be easy to satisfy that request.

Until then I think it's fair to highlight that I'm the one acting rationally amongst the two of us.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

If you say so, sport.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Do people normally fall for your rhetorical slights of hand and blatant fabrications? 

Because those strategies are the opposite of rational. Pretty sad that you can't even rise to the basic challenge of supporting claims you volunteered up for no reason.

Feel free to keep lobbing unfounded accusations though. I'll just bat them down with ease.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Do people often feel obligated to give you an answer you demand because you feel you’re entitled to it? 

Keep batting with ease, Babe Ruth. Swing that stick, baller!


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Vanilla said:


> Do people often feel obligated to give you an answer you demand because you feel you're entitled to it?
> 
> Keep batting with ease, Babe Ruth. Swing that stick, baller!


No one is obligated unless they care about the rationality you referenced earlier. And that is less obligation and more about personal integrity. I care about it and believe contributions like you make just add to the misinformation on the internet. The best way to expose such obvious falsehoods is to simply ask the person to support their claims. If they fail to do so there are fair and obvious conclusions.

I obviously have no problem challenging problematic claims. Even if it gets tense. But within short order I normally forget who made them as my criticism is about the ideas not the person. Reality is we have no clue about people here beyond the words they share. Believing otherwise is as much fantasy as my alleged "week long" interaction in the abortion thread.

Best of luck with your strategy though. Seems we can both keep this up for a while.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

backcountry said:


> Do people normally fall for your rhetorical slights of hand and blatant fabrications?


Nope. You're seeing V at his finest. Innuendo, straw man arguments, outright falsehoods. I have come to expect nothing but, given up on seeing anything resembling integrity or honesty out of him. Best to simply ignore him, he's a pusillanimous trifling. Engaging with him is a complete waste of time.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

-DallanC


----------

