# e-bike Citations?



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Sounds like on the opener at least they're enforcing restricting e-bikes to pedal-assist only. No Class ii throttle bikes. Anybody get a ticket?


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

They weren’t out enforcing anything other than all 8 grunts harassing people at the entrance for not knowing who out of the 4 guys in the same truck killed which 7 ugly GW teal out of the pile of 28 total ugly GW teal. Ironically none of these clowns could properly identify the birds they were looking at to begin with. There was also a fed there trying to illegally pawn off a hen pintail he had in his hands to anyone he could talk to. Not sure if it was a set up or what. I’ve been extremely disappointed in the way FB has been handled lately, starting almost immediately after rich left. No DWR law enforcement presence to speak of the last few years, even on the opener. I suppose it’s easier to just hang by the phone or computer and wait for someone else to do your job for you.

side note: I saw 3 ebikes headed down turpin dike opening day. No one said a word other than I heard a foot soldier ask one of them where he could buy one at.


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

I've had a few people message me lately with questions about e-bikes and just how far they can push the envelope. As far as I'm concerned, a gas-powered pedal bike is no different than many e-bikes, so we will see how creative guys will get in the coming years. Pedal-assist is just a throttle that is regulated internally, so what is the big difference? The RAC members seem to think that our CO's should become experts in wattages, speed governors, throttle configurations etc...because our CO's have nothing better to do I guess?
R


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

rjefre said:


> I've had a few people message me lately with questions about e-bikes and just how far they can push the envelope. As far as I'm concerned, a gas-powered pedal bike is no different than many e-bikes, so we will see how creative guys will get in the coming years. Pedal-assist is just a throttle that is regulated internally, so what is the big difference? The RAC members seem to think that our CO's should become experts in wattages, speed governors, throttle configurations etc...because our CO's have nothing better to do I guess?
> R


The e-bike classification is clearly spelled out in the statute. Only Class I bikes are allowed, which do not exceed 750W, provide assistance only while the operator is pedaling and do not assist over 20MPH. However, I agree with your point. The signs say motorized vehicles are prohibited. Well, gas-powered vehicles use internal-combustion "engines". Electric powered vehicles use "motors", and are thus "motorized". So you can use a motorized bicycle behind the signs that say they are prohibited. And you're right, the difference in classes of e-bikes makes enforcement a nightmare. The simplest approach is to not allow any motorized vehicle beyond the signs that say they are prohibited.


----------



## nickpan (May 6, 2008)

Agreed. Should be no motorized, period, end of discussion. 

This isn’t very hard…..

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MallardFlew (Feb 22, 2012)

What problems do ebikes of the right classification present? Do you view them as harmful to the environment? Do they cause noise or nuisance? Do they give anyone an unfair advantage?

I am just trying to understand why so many seem to think they are such a bad thing.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

MallardFlew said:


> What problems do ebikes of the right classification present? Do you view them as harmful to the environment? Do they cause noise or nuisance? Do they give anyone an unfair advantage?
> 
> I am just trying to understand why so many seem to think they are such a bad thing.


It’s not ‘fair’. That’s what’s it boils down to with the guys pizzed about it


----------



## Ray (May 10, 2018)

My only question is, where are your duck pics paddler?!


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

MooseMeat said:


> It’s not ‘fair’. That’s what’s it boils down to with the guys pizzed about it


Bingo


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Ray said:


> My only question is, where are your duck pics paddler?!


Too early. Too hot, too many brown ducks. I'll be hunting grouse for a while.

As far as e-bikes go, Class 1 e-bikes are allowed where no other motorized vehicles are, at least legally. But given there will likely be no real enforcement, throttle bikes will be used routinely. Even Class 1 bikes are capable of 20MPH, so they are functionally equivalent to gas powered vehicles on our WMAs. In practical use, they are much more similar to any other motorized vehicle than they are to pedal bikes. Might as well just post a speed limit of 20MPH and let me use my DR650. "Motorized Vehicles Prohibited Beyond This Point" should mean just that, IMO.


----------



## MallardFlew (Feb 22, 2012)

MooseMeat said:


> It’s not ‘fair’. That’s what’s it boils down to with the guys pizzed about it


What is not "fair" about them?


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

MallardFlew said:


> What is not "fair" about them?


It's not really just a question about fairness, although the raison d'etre for e-bikes is to allow one to go further and faster with less effort than pedal bikes. It should more properly be viewed as part of a larger discussion about motorized access in general, its effects on habitat and bird disturbance in an era of shrinking acreage available to waterfowl.

Many management agencies fall behind the curve of emerging technologies, either responding late, ineffectually or not at all to new toys, Utah is no exception. We saw that with mud motors and it's now happening again with e-bikes, both of which allow much easier access for more hunters, which increase hunting pressure and bird disturbance, all in the face of a shrinking GSL. I see it only getting worse as e-bike use continues to grow at an ever-increasing pace. Areas that previously served as de facto rest areas no longer attract and hold birds, which will also impact the more easily accessible areas. Good luck.


----------



## Irish Lad (Jun 3, 2008)

paddler said:


> It's not really just a question about fairness, although the raison d'etre for e-bikes is to allow one to go further and faster with less effort than pedal bikes. It should more properly be viewed as part of a larger discussion about motorized access in general, its effects on habitat and bird disturbance in an era of shrinking acreage available to waterfowl.
> 
> Many management agencies fall behind the curve of emerging technologies, either responding late, ineffectually or not at all to new toys, Utah is no exception. We saw that with mud motors and it's now happening again with e-bikes, both of which allow much easier access for more hunters, which increase hunting pressure and bird disturbance, all in the face of a shrinking GSL. I see it only getting worse as e-bike use continues to grow at an ever-increasing pace. Areas that previously served as de facto rest areas no longer attract and hold birds, which will also impact the more easily accessible areas. Good luck.


Well said. I only hunt in Southern Utah, crowds are non-exsistent.(sometimes ducks ) I was just curious if the the e-bikes were intended for legally handicapped hunters. Do the WMAs have handicapped blinds or areas?


----------



## MrShane (Jul 21, 2019)

Yes, some WMA’s have disabled hunter only blinds.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

Maybe they should limit the HP of a boat motor to 6hp MAX. Environmentally speaking, E-Bikes are better than a hopped up mud motor running all over the area. I don't use a boat or a bike, I just huff it out and back.


----------



## JerryH (Jun 17, 2014)

🍿


----------



## prumpf (Apr 8, 2016)

So ebikes would allow what boats (air,mud motor, regular) already do just a lot cheaper?! 

Are we trying to protect the habitat of the birds(already hunted by boats) or the investment of boaters... or just trying to do something because some people don’t like change?


If ebikes would allow hunters to enter untouched and safe space I would be all on board. But to just not allow it because you might reach a few acres that no one else has hunted while the perimeter has boats on it doesn’t make sense to me.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

prumpf said:


> So ebikes would allow what boats (air,mud motor, regular) already do just a lot cheaper?!
> 
> Are we trying to protect the habitat of the birds(already hunted by boats) or the investment of boaters... or just trying to do something because some people don’t like change?
> 
> ...


Bikes don’t come close to doing what boats do and typically end up putting your in completely separate hunting areas. I don’t see the harm in riding an e bike down a dike built by tractors and used by trucks all the time. It’s not an environment issue, it’s a user issue. Selfish in wanting or hoping hunting will be better if you’re willing to put in extra effort. E bikes make it easier for some to obtain that success more efficiently than anyone else can/could.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

JerryH said:


> 🍿


Just one serving, Jer?


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

MooseMeat said:


> Bikes don’t come close to doing what boats do and typically end up putting your in completely separate hunting areas. I don’t see the harm in riding an e bike down a dike built by tractors and used by trucks all the time. It’s not an environment issue, it’s a user issue. Selfish in wanting or hoping hunting will be better if you’re willing to put in extra effort. *E bikes make it easier for some to obtain that success more efficiently than anyone else can/could.*


Exactly. But how long will that increase in success last?

Two issues. First, the signs say motorized vehicles prohibited. e-bikes, by definition, have motors. So there's that. Two, allowing e-bikes behind the signs will result in increasing bird disturbance over time. That will impact not just the areas hunted by e-bike users but also the surrounding areas that have previously benefited from their proximity to areas that had held birds. Thus, hunter success will decrease over time, as it always does with the increase in hunting pressure caused by allowing motorized access.

Apparently, there was a question on a recent survey about whether hunters support increasing motorless areas. I haven't seen the data but am waiting to hear back. I've been told that support has increased about 50% since the last survey. Perhaps more hunters are coming to recognize that motorized access is a double-edged sword?


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

paddler said:


> Perhaps more hunters are coming to recognize that motorized access is a double-edged sword?


^^^^ This! A local national forest closed the gates to two different areas ahead of the general season rifle elk hunt, with the following statement, "These closures were designed to provide a nonmotorized environment for deer and elk during the general season hunts. The closure of this area will last until next summer after calving and fawning season."

What an incredible idea and I applaud the folks overseeing this national forest and the UDWR for this move. We, as hunters, can't expect sustainable animal populations with an ever-increasing demand on their numbers, all-while making access to them continually easier.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

CPAjeff said:


> ^^^^ This! A local national forest closed the gates to two different areas ahead of the general season rifle elk hunt, with the following statement, "These closures were designed to provide a nonmotorized environment for deer and elk during the general season hunts. The closure of this area will last until next summer after calving and fawning season."
> 
> What an incredible idea and I applaud the folks overseeing this national forest and the UDWR for this move. We, as hunters, can't expect sustainable animal populations with an ever-increasing demand on their numbers, all-while making access to them continually easier.


Regarding big game, why are trail cameras still allowed during hunting seasons? It's always been illegal to use electronic devices in order to locate and hunt big game. So, a hunter on one ridge may not use a two-way radio to direct a hunter on another ridge to a big game animal. The Division is just now considering changes to the rules regarding trail cameras. Many years too late, and yet another example of an agency slow to respond to new tech. Trail camera use should be prohibited for two weeks prior to the start of any big game season, IMO. Rules of Fair Chase requires that, as a minimum.

Apologies to the OP for the hijack.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

In regards to trail cameras, they are working on regulations for them. 

There was a bunch of talk about them a number of months ago when the DWR decided to outlaw baiting but they but the trail cameras on the side burner waiting for more information.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Critter said:


> In regards to trail cameras, they are working on regulations for them.
> 
> There was a bunch of talk about them a number of months ago when the DWR decided to outlaw baiting but they but the trail cameras on the side burner waiting for more information.


Yes, I am aware. First page and page 30 of the Guidebook.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

I'm waiting for the ban on cell phones with cameras under the "light amplifying devices" clause. Lots of people digiscope now with their cameras. Ever try that in the dark with one of these new phone cameras? You can see animals through the dark easily.

-DallanC


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Back to waterfowl. In the most recent guiding survey a question was included about whether hunters favored or opposed additional motorless areas. A full 40% favored it (16.1% slightly, 24% strongly), while just 26% opposed it(11.1% slightly, 14.9% strongly), while the rest, 33.%, were neutral.








I wrote the 2009 proposal to provide a ramp accessible, motorless pond at all WMAs that have more than one pond with ramps. It may be time to look at it again. Of course, the UAA was opposed, and the UWA didn't want to talk about it. I was surprised that the division guy who put the advisory group together to discuss future waterfowl management and invited me to participate, who shall remain nameless, pulled a fast one and torpedoed any discussion of motorless access. I resigned in protest after that meeting as I didn't want to legitimize the group recommendations.


----------



## JerryH (Jun 17, 2014)

paddler said:


> Just one serving, Jer?


Oh free refills!


----------



## gander311 (Dec 23, 2008)

This is a hard topic for me. Most of my thoughts are hard not to justify as being selfish, so it's hard to decide where I land on it.

Honestly, at this point in time, and the way I hunt I think an e-bike would be a better tool for my success than my 16' boat with a 35HP short-tail. But I also don't think it's sustainable for the amount of increased pressure and guys that e-bikes are putting out into areas that used to have much less pressure. That's not a knock on e-bikes, its just fact that it's a new technology that is being used more and more. More use, means more pressure. More pressure affects hunting. 

I've thought about buying an e-bike, but didn't want to invest if laws got put into place to prevent me using them on the dikes. But it's starting to seem like that isn't going to happen either. So maybe I'll cave and become "part of the problem". That being said, if I had a choice, I'd choose to not allow e-bikes and just keep walking or peddling into areas that I hunt. 

To me, the problem isn't whether or not e-bikes should be allowed, or having enough motorless boat areas, etc. The base problem is population growth. Overcrowding is just going to keep becoming a bigger and bigger issue along the GSL marshes with more population growth, less and less water over the last 30 years I've been duck hunting, and more and more guys with technologies (boats, e-bikes, etc.) getting them out further and faster. I wish I was smart enough to have ideas on what to do about it. In the meantime, I'll just keep trying to adjust and do what I can to keep being successful shooting birds.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

JerryH said:


> Oh free refills!


Oh, like Olive Garden breadsticks.


gander311 said:


> This is a hard topic for me. Most of my thoughts are hard not to justify as being selfish, so it's hard to decide where I land on it.
> 
> Honestly, at this point in time, and the way I hunt I think an e-bike would be a better tool for my success than my 16' boat with a 35HP short-tail. But I also don't think it's sustainable for the amount of increased pressure and guys that e-bikes are putting out into areas that used to have much less pressure. That's not a knock on e-bikes, its just fact that it's a new technology that is being used more and more. More use, means more pressure. More pressure affects hunting.
> 
> ...


I've toyed with the idea of buying an e-bike, too. But I'll just continue paddling and peddling, as I feel like I'm earning my birds. I'm less focused on killing a limit than photography and just enjoying my time outdoors. Better exercise, too, to work off the popcorn.


----------



## prumpf (Apr 8, 2016)

I agree 100% that if a law says no it’s a no because we abide by the laws (doesn’t mean we have to like them 😜)

What I don’t understand is the argument that it’s not fair to other hunters. First, would you rather I sit close by you? Second, come on.... don’t talk about what’s fair and what’s not. We all live in the freaking greatest country in the world and have the ability to figure things out. Yea I might be able to afford an e-bike and you may have grown up with a dad who took you duck hunting. You might be old and can’t walk as far and I might not have the time to walk as far because of family commitments. Once we start talking about fair we are sounding like whiners.

As far as keeping lands protected for wildlife I agree 100% that we should do that to protect the resource that we treasure and are ever creeping up on. HOWEVER the argument that we are taking away from something because we get to the same spot others get to anyways faster is just not a very solid argument in land protection. 

If you want the land to be protected for the resource close the land off and don’t bike in cause you are still in at that point.


----------



## JerryH (Jun 17, 2014)

paddler said:


> Oh, like Olive Garden breadsticks.
> 
> I've toyed with the idea of buying an e-bike, too. But I'll just continue paddling and peddling, as I feel like I'm earning my birds. I'm less focused on killing a limit than photography and just enjoying my time outdoors. Better exercise, too, to work off the popcorn.


Jon
Not to highjack the thread but. Covid tests are passed so we're in the 72 hour count down. Better put in your Speck order 

So happy it gets two smiley heads!


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

prumpf said:


> I agree 100% that if a law says no it’s a no because we abide by the laws (doesn’t mean we have to like them 😜)
> 
> What I don’t understand is the argument that it’s not fair to other hunters. First, would you rather I sit close by you? Second, come on.... don’t talk about what’s fair and what’s not. We all live in the freaking greatest country in the world and have the ability to figure things out. Yea I might be able to afford an e-bike and you may have grown up with a dad who took you duck hunting. You might be old and can’t walk as far and I might not have the time to walk as far because of family commitments. Once we start talking about fair we are sounding like whiners.
> 
> ...


Phillip, you may have noticed that I've avoided talking about fairness. Although, I'll admit that I was a bit irritated when Duane showed up on his e-bike fresh as a daisy after I'd peddled 6 miles out working pretty hard. In fact, it didn't take long for to tell him he wasn't supposed to have an e-bike behind the signs. He replied that they are legal, which was news to me. I got over it, and we now hunt together a fair amount. 

It really isn't about fairness. I prefer riding my pedal bike and take pride in being able to do what most other guys my age simply can't do, and what most younger guys won't. My point is not that guys can get there faster, it's that more people will get out there, and thus the pressure will significantly increase. If the numbers of hunters and thus pressure remained constant, no worries. But that isn't the case, allowing e-bikes will absolutely increase bird disturbance. Also, there are degrees of protection, there is no need to completely close areas. Motorless areas will hold more birds than those with motorized access, eliminating e-bikes almost certainly will benefit areas that would see less pressure.


JerryH said:


> Jon
> Not to highjack the thread but. Covid tests are passed so we're in the 72 hour count down. Better put in your Speck order
> 
> So happy it gets two smiley heads!


Jer, Tom is holding some prime cans and pintails for me. I'll be heading over soon to pick some up. I'll happily take any WF that you kill my way, ie, those you hit so poorly that there are no holes in the breast and you have to chase down and wring their necks. Have fun up there, I'm still waiting for my passport renewal.


----------



## prumpf (Apr 8, 2016)

Agree 100% that it will increase the number of people in your area, and that sucks!! However I don’t think that it has a negative impact (at least not significant enough to measure) on bird population. But what do I know, ask my wife and I am wrong 100% of the time 😂

With that said, illegal is illegal...


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

I'm pretty lucky, I guess, as my wife thinks I'm pretty smart. Which means I'm only wrong most of the time.


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

It think the "fairness' argument is moot. It boils down to whether WMA's allow motorized vehicles to be used. Either allow them or not. Allowing motorized vehicles with certain wattages and speeds seems silly to me. If motorized vehicles are allowed (either internal combustion or battery), then post a speed limit and be done with it. This nonsense about making CO's try to figure out if your e-bike is too powerful or not is a colossal waste of resources. A motorized bike is just that...motorized. Going to the RAC for answers is another colossal waste of time...maybe just let each WMA manger decide if he/she wants to allow motorized access or not?


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

rjefre said:


> It think the "fairness' argument is moot. It boils down to whether WMA's allow motorized vehicles to be used. Either allow them or not. Allowing motorized vehicles with certain wattages and speeds seems silly to me. If motorized vehicles are allowed (either internal combustion or battery), then post a speed limit and be done with it. This nonsense about making CO's try to figure out if your e-bike is too powerful or not is a colossal waste of resources. A motorized bike is just that...motorized. Going to the RAC for answers is another colossal waste of time...maybe just let each WMA manger decide if he/she wants to allow motorized access or not?


I agree, it has little to do with fairness, much more to do with disturbance. I disagree about making each WMA manager responsible for deciding whether or not motorized vehicles are allowed. That would be a nightmare for so many reasons. I think a system-wide approach is the answer, with policies informed by biologists and hunter surveys. 

The division has historically been disproportionately responsive to organized sportsman groups, which of course have their own agendas and do not necessarily reflect the views of rank and file Utah waterfowlers. For example, the UAA and UWA have both opposed increased motorless areas in the past. Our most recent data shows a plurality of respondents favor more. And it's certainly possible that the rather large group of neutral respondents would come to appreciate more motorless areas in the future.

It's time to take a hard look at the impact of new technologies and what appears to be a long term trend of a shrinking GSL on waterfowl use patterns and hunter experience.


----------



## MallardFlew (Feb 22, 2012)

paddler said:


> I agree, it has little to do with fairness, much more to do with disturbance. I disagree about making each WMA manager responsible for deciding whether or not motorized vehicles are allowed. That would be a nightmare for so many reasons. I think a system-wide approach is the answer, with policies informed by biologists and hunter surveys.
> 
> The division has historically been disproportionately responsive to organized sportsman groups, which of course have their own agendas and do not necessarily reflect the views of rank and file Utah waterfowlers. For example, the UAA and UWA have both opposed increased motorless areas in the past. Our most recent data shows a plurality of respondents favor more. And it's certainly possible that the rather large group of neutral respondents would come to appreciate more motorless areas in the future.
> 
> It's time to take a hard look at the impact of new technologies and what appears to be a long term trend of a shrinking GSL on waterfowl use patterns and hunter experience.



I appreciate all of the points each of you have made. I agree with others that I am not exactly sure where to stand on the issue but I don't think the fairness argument is one we should take seriously. I personally have health issues that make paddling or pedaling extensively very difficult and sometimes dangerous. My boat motor and an electric bike help me to be able to get out and do what I love without fear of the side effects I get from strenuous activity. 

Paddler I would be interested to hear your proposals on motorless units and what they entail.

Perhaps some adjustments to the way WMA's are managed would be helpful if the real concern over ebikes is overcrowding and increased hunting pressure. Would it be more beneficial to have numerous, smaller rest areas placed throughout a WMA? Put one on Doug miller or east crystal. The birds will figure out their safe spaces quickly and it could provide more opportunity to hunters in all areas. Just a thought I had while reading this.

I have talked to a few of our CO's and have had conversations on ebikes, various access laws, and ethical dilemmas we may face as hunters. One common point that comes up is the hard time the limited number of CO's has enforcing all of the laws, let alone all the areas. The state statute lists the requirements for class 1 e bikes and does a good job. Co's enforce those when they need to but they are constantly bombarded by bigger issues. I wish we could get more officers in our marshes to help solve all the problems they face. As waterfowlers right now the two biggest challenges we face are water levels (part of loss of habitat) and the ethical/legal issues other hunters present. How we solve them I don't know but I hope we can.


----------



## Irish Lad (Jun 3, 2008)

MallardFlew said:


> Perhaps some adjustments to the way WMA's are managed would be helpful if the real concern over ebikes is overcrowding and increased hunting pressure. Would it be more beneficial to have numerous, smaller rest areas placed throughout a WMA? Put one on Doug miller or east crystal. The birds will figure out their safe spaces quickly and it could provide more opportunity to hunters in all areas. Just a thought I had while reading this.


Overcrowding will get worse. In California they have a reservation and draw system for alot of the managed waterfowl areas. Before I get blasted, I'm not saying we should follow California. It does help with the overcrowding, but limits when you can hunt, group size and what area you can hunt on the managed area.



https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=70431&inline


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Electric:










-DallanC


----------



## prumpf (Apr 8, 2016)

I have had the wrong E-bike the entire time....


----------



## fatbikehunter (Nov 16, 2019)

I've been an avid hunter for about 45 years as well as avid MTN biker since they became popular in the mid 80's. I started duck hunting with my mtn bike at FB and surrounding areas about 20 years ago. I then switched to a fat tire bike when they became viable about 8 years ago and it really changed my hunting style. I switched to fat tire pedal assist ebikes about 6 years ago and have owned several. Upgrading as they improve. 
Here's the pros & cons of ebikes from my experience.
Pros:
1. Easier to pedal requires less physical effort most of the time.
2. Easier to tow within limits.
3. Easier to climb steep hills that are unrideable on a MTN bike.
4. all of the above expands access
5. The ebike has made a huge positive difference for a physically disabled hunter friend of mine in his overall hunting experience.
6. Non polluting negligible impact on the environment.
7. They'll keep me hunting longer into my golden years and they still require physical effort, which I appreciate.
Cons:
1. They weigh 2-3x more than a comparable fat tire pedal bike 60+ lbs so they can be cumbersome.
2. Limited battery performance and range and significant range reduction in cold below freezing temps and headwind. 10-25 miles is average range for my fat tire ebike with the largest battery option available today. Range varies widely among different bike styles, conditions, use etc..... I have optimal setup for hunting and when it's cold and I'm towing on flat it's around 12-15miles. You can always carry another battery at an additional 8lbs and extra $500-800. If you just used throttle only (not allowed wma) you would be out of battery in less than 10 miles, they are designed to be pedal assist. There are tons of variables with range - too much to get into here.
4. If the battery dies pedaling an ebike without the motor running is significantly harder than a regular pedal bike. Especially when towing. I've done it more than once and it's heinous.
5. They can be temperamental and costly to repair. This is new technology and many brands put stuff out before thoroughly testing. Don't buy crappy cheap stuff you'll regret it at the worst possible time.
6. Mud, salt, water all mess with electrical parts and bearings. Most of the bikes on the market today with the exception of , Bakcou , Rambo and Quietkat brand, are not designed for the abuse duckhunters put them thru.

Yep - bikes of all types spread out hunters across a larger area and now my favorite spots may see more use although I get beat out by airboaters more often these days than by other bike hunters. The latest Non electric standard mtn bikes and fat tire bikes are great options too and way more efficient than the older designs. My observation is that I've seen an increase in ebikes as well as airboats at FB over the last few years. More humanity moving to Utah = more hunters. Nation wide hunting license sales declining but increasing in Utah.
I used to primarily hunt west of the blue silos ,(out of WMA) accessing via my pedal and ebike in conjunction with walking and dragging a sled until about 2 years ago. It was open ponds and shallow water flats of several hundred acres that could handle many groups of hunters without impacting each other. Frag has basically shut that area down completely. I've watched it shrink in just 5 years to become no longer a viable hunting option. In my opinion frag is one of the worst things impacting our waterfowl hunting, not ebikes, motor boats, airboats or more hunters. Frag keeps closing out areas to hunt and therefore everyone piles into the WMA's where the frag is less and somewhat controlled. The new growth frag in the burn area from last month was already 12"+ tall as of two weeks ago when I last checked. I love the ingenuity of duck hunters in figuring clever, innovative ways to hunt. We can all coexist and enjoy a great sport. Good luck this season and keep praying for rain it's working!


----------



## fobit (Mar 1, 2017)

Boy! this forum has a bunch of karens who think the National Forest should belong to a few elite granola chewers in spandex and the unwashed masses, who want to continue hunting the places they hunted in the 70s should stay home.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

fobit said:


> Boy! this forum has a bunch of karens who think the National Forest should belong to a few elite granola chewers in spandex and the unwashed masses, who want to continue hunting the places they hunted in the 70s should stay home.


So, exactly what are you saying? Are you talking about the Class I ebike restriction on our WMAs? I saw an illrgal ebike out at Farmington recently and called it in. Nothing happened.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

Outlaw ALL motor vehicles. Boats, bikes, and the like. It's discrimination to allow a hopped up mud motor attached to a chunk of aluminum to operate but not allow an electric bike on the WMA.


----------

