# Ban on e-bikes coming?



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

It looks like the Division is considering a ban on e-bikes on state WMAs. See page 132 of the November RAC packet:

https://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings/rac/2018-11_rac_packet.pdf

Make your feelings known at the RAC or the Wildlife Board meeting if you have a strong opinion.


----------



## 7summits (Nov 28, 2017)

Looks like only two Wood Ducks for the entire season as well.


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

7summits said:


> Looks like only two Wood Ducks for the entire season as well.


That's not how I read it..... Maximum season, possession and bag allowed by the Feds.....2 woodies daily.....


----------



## toasty (May 15, 2008)

7summits said:


> Looks like only two Wood Ducks for the entire season as well.


I read over that and I am pretty sure that is the daily wood duck limit. No mention of that as a season bag limit that I could see. Not that it makes a difference to me, I have shot 2 wood ducks total in the last 20 years.


----------



## 7summits (Nov 28, 2017)

toasty said:


> I read over that and I am pretty sure that is the daily wood duck limit. No mention of that as a season bag limit that I could see. Not that it makes a difference to me, I have shot 2 wood ducks total in the last 20 years.


Yeah, I misread it...


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

I've heard rumors that e-bikes will be prohibited. Wouldn't break my heart. I toyed with the idea of converting my Surly Pugsley but decided against it. Then it got stolen from my driveway Friday before last. SOB's cut the cable I'd used to secure it to my Yakima rack. Be careful, there appears to be a professional bike theft ring operating here, they used a cordless saw to cut my cable.

Bought a new 27.5+ 1x11 today, don't think I'll ever buy an e-bike.


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

Just noticed that they're also proposing a change to the swan hunt boundary. It looks like Public Shooting Grounds (south of Highway 83) would be open to swan hunting under the proposed boundary. :shock: I support that 100%.


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

Clarq said:


> Just noticed that they're also proposing a change to the swan hunt boundary. It looks like Public Shooting Grounds (south of Highway 83) would be open to swan hunting under the proposed boundary. :shock: I support that 100%.


I agree with you completely. I know there are others on the forum with more information/knowledge than I have about this, but I believe it has been closed in the past due to the number of trumpeter swans that use the northern area. It would be interesting to see the data collected from the years past about the number of trumpeter swans harvested and then compare it with the number of trumpeter swans harvested if the expansion of the swan boundary passes.

It'll be a rude awakening for those swans that have used public shooting grounds in the past and haven't been shot at out there!


----------



## GoosesNightMare (Dec 7, 2017)

It’ll be a rude awakening for those swans that have used public shooting grounds in the past and haven’t been shot at out there!

Swan hunters will be skybusting at ducks as well. I think most know what type of hunters I am talking about. That place gets enough hunting pressure now. It will be just inviting all the Yahoo's.


----------



## Longgun (Sep 7, 2007)

The Yahoo's are still there...


I remember swan hunting before the restriction happened, tag holders were MUCH more spread out, hunting them was more enjoyable. Killed them at Cutler, Salt Creek, Public and FB. A couple of times we filled two or three tags of swans, and tow or three limits of geese and ducks all the same day. I remember thinking, "goodness that's a PILE of birds!"


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

GoosesNightMare said:


> It'll be a rude awakening for those swans that have used public shooting grounds in the past and haven't been shot at out there!
> 
> Swan hunters will be skybusting at ducks as well. I think most know what type of hunters I am talking about. That place gets enough hunting pressure now. It will be just inviting all the Yahoo's.


The Coot army there is unphased by all of the shooting.


----------



## Longgun (Sep 7, 2007)

Clarq said:


> Just noticed that they're also proposing a change to the swan hunt boundary. It looks like Public Shooting Grounds (south of Highway 83) would be open to swan hunting under the proposed boundary. :shock: I support that 100%.


Salt Creek should be added to that also, along with Cutler Marsh.

SPREAD people out and monitor the Trump quota and slam it closed if needed.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

Im Glad to see them wanting extend the swan hunting area and i hope they raise the tag numbers as well. On the e bike im glad to see them not allowing them.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

the link not working any more


----------



## GoosesNightMare (Dec 7, 2017)

Longgun said:


> Salt Creek should be added to that also, along with Cutler Marsh.
> 
> SPREAD people out and monitor the Trump quota and slam it closed if needed.


Exactly, all the swan hunters will be confined in one half of a refuge.


----------



## GoosesNightMare (Dec 7, 2017)

Longgun said:


> The Yahoo's are still there...
> 
> I remember swan hunting before the restriction happened, tag holders were MUCH more spread out, hunting them was more enjoyable. Killed them at Cutler, Salt Creek, Public and FB. A couple of times we filled two or three tags of swans, and tow or three limits of geese and ducks all the same day. I remember thinking, "goodness that's a PILE of birds!"


Longgun I don't hunt ducks there anymore, I spend more days hunting out of state, so you can have all those 3 man goose and duck limits along with the swan hunters.


----------



## JerryH (Jun 17, 2014)

Restrictions restrictions. Pretty soon they will have a size limit on canoe paddles. :smile:


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

The boundaries have been a joke for a long time. The trumpeter swan thing is a joke too. Hell, I guarantee there are more than 10 trumpeters shot every year in Utah. The DWR measures the bills of every swan harvested and if it's not a certain size, even if it absolutely is a trumpeter, it's counted as a tundra swan. I think the measurement is somewhere around 63 mm....


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

Went to the central RAC last night. The UWA commented in favor of the e-bike ban. Three commenters argued against it. The RAC ultimately passed all recommendations as proposed with the exception of the e-bike ban.


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

The northern RAC basically went the exact same way as the central RAC. The UWA voiced our support for the DWR recommendation to ban e-bikes from WMA's. The UWA is basically concerned with motorized bicycles operating off the dikes and out in sensitive wetlands and causing habitat damage.The RAC voted to continue to allow e-bikes to operate both on the dikes and off the dikes. 
R


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

rjefre said:


> The northern RAC basically went the exact same way as the central RAC. The UWA voiced our support for the DWR recommendation to ban e-bikes from WMA's. The UWA is basically concerned with motorized bicycles operating off the dikes and out in sensitive wetlands and causing habitat damage.The RAC voted to continue to allow e-bikes to operate both on the dikes and off the dikes.
> R


That's unfortunate, IMO. I've toyed with the idea of buying one, but have long favored a non-motorized approach. My Surly Pugsley was stolen a few weeks ago in the middle of the night, though it was locked to the bike rack on my car which was parked in my driveway. Not all bad, though, I bought a new 27.5 Plus from REI that's way better for what I do. Yesterday on the way back to my truck I did 8MPH towing my canoe loaded with gear. Not bad.

I don't think that ebikes should be allowed behind the gates. It doesn't matter whether a motor is electric or internal combustion, they're both motors. Just ask Tesla. And, the signs on the gates say no motorized vehicles. Who's on the RAC, anyway?


----------



## 7summits (Nov 28, 2017)

Ebikes are a great idea. As for damage to habitat, I would bet sleds do more. Plus, it helps spread out hunters. The only people really whining are the airboaters. If someone wants to spend the cash for an ebike (and they are not cheap), help spread out the hunters, more power to them.


----------



## JerryH (Jun 17, 2014)

7summits said:


> Ebikes are a great idea. As for damage to habitat, I would bet sleds do more. Plus, it helps spread out hunters. The only people really whining are the airboaters. If someone wants to spend the cash for an ebike (and they are not cheap), help spread out the hunters, more power to them.


Airboater's whining. How did you come up with that conclusion? An E-bike will not even come close to where a airboat will go. I don't think most airboater's give E-bikes a second thought.


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

I've never heard of any airboaters whining...mostly I guess it is because E-bikes are rarely, if ever, out on the state sovereign lands of the GSL wetlands. Even if they were, E-bikes can't go where airboaters hunt anyway. I'm not sure where that impression came from, but please allow me to clarify that airboaters have little or no interactions with e-bikes. 
R


----------



## Goshawk (Sep 7, 2007)

A couple things come to mind while reading this thread...


The signs on the gates say NO MOTOR VEHICLES... so why are motor boats allowed to go beyond the gates??


If the UWA is so concerned about habitat destruction why aren't they actively lobbying to restrict or eliminate the use of mud motors? Mud motors destroy the lake bottom by digging trenches and killing the aquatic vegetation they cause the same kind of damage the carp do that the Division is working so hard to eliminate. 



There is no way a bike tire will cause as much damage as cattle. And the fact that everywhere that it is feasible to access by bike has had or will have herds of cattle stomping around grazing on it all spring and summer makes the UWA's argument about habitat destruction completely invalid.


I personally don't care one way or the other on the e-bike ban. I don't own an e-bike and probably never will but I don't see that it would hurt anything if someone else wanted to use one...


----------



## JerryH (Jun 17, 2014)

Goshawk said:


> A couple things come to mind while reading this thread...
> 
> The signs on the gates say NO MOTOR VEHICLES... so why are motor boats allowed to go beyond the gates??
> 
> ...


You bring up some very valid points. I can't see a bike track doing much damage. I don't think a bike could go to far off the dike. But I'm all for the cattle program. I hope they increase the cattle at FB and graze it flat.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

I had the disappointing experience of pedaling out 6 miles only to have a guy on an ebike pull up right behind me. There is absolutely no way an ebike will cause any more damage to habitat than a peddle bike. OTOH, a motor is a motor. ebikes tilt the field in favor of guys who own them, as they can do 20MPH effortlessly. A level playing field would dictate that everybody starts pedaling from the gates, no assist. The guy I met on the dike that day is a good guy, we've even hunted together a few times. I'd just prefer no motors of any kind beyond the gates. Almost 13MPH today not towing a canoe.


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

Goshawk said:


> The signs on the gates say NO MOTOR VEHICLES... so why are motor boats allowed to go beyond the gates?





Merriam-Webster said:


> Motor vehicle definition: an automotive vehicle not operated on rails
> _especially _*: *one with rubber tires for use on highways.




By what stretch of imagination can you equate that definition to apply to any kind of watercraft? 

And for the record, I am not in favor of banning them. They are no more dangerous to the environment than are peddle bikes. Ban one; ban them all.


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

It is not just the DWR that is struggling to determine where an E-bike fits into the motorized vehicle category. 20 states classify them as a motor vehicle and must be licensed and registered as such. Forest Service is trying to figure out how to allow electric motors on trails that don't allow motorized vehicles (such as motorcycles). The state of Utah recently added laws stating that you can't ride an E-bike with an open container of alcohol. Most states classify E-bikes as a 2 or 3 wheeled vehicle powered by an electric motor that also has a functioning pedal system. With the wide array of styles (some E-bikes go well over 60 mph), coupled with the fact that E-bike sales have increased by 83% since 2017, I can understand why the DWR wants to try and get a handle on the issue before the tsunami wave of e-bikes hits the WMA's. The UWA prefers to have them restricted to roads and dikes where they are not a problem with sensitive habitats (not all marshes are sensitive to rutting but some are). The next generation of E-bikes will surely be faster, and stronger, some are as strong as motorcyles and use similar tires and wheels. It will be interesting to see how things shake out.
R


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Electric motors are here. I think now the definition of ebikes requires pedal effort in order for the assist to operate. At the very least, the DWR needs to limit the wattage of the motors. There is huge controversy in the mountain bike community about these contraptions, and they can do real damage to mountain trails.

https://www.zeromotorcycles.com/zero-fx/


----------



## Hoopermat (Dec 17, 2010)

The DNR does need to classify exactly what type of E bike is allowed. 
With company’s like Zero and KTM making electric motor cycles there is potential for confusion. 
I think if the bike is able to move completely on a motor without human action it need to be banned


----------



## JerryH (Jun 17, 2014)

How fast can a E-bike make it through the buffer zone going to & from east crystal?


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

JerryH said:


> How fast can a E-bike make it through the buffer zone going to & from east crystal?


About 30 seconds. A lot less time than it takes Beau to cross over from the New State.


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

A bicycle, also called a cycle or bike, is a human-powered or motor-powered, *pedal-driven*, single-track vehicle, having two wheels attached to a frame, one behind the other.

A motorcycle, often called a bike, motorbike, or cycle, is a two- or three-wheeled motor vehicle.

The main distinction between the two is, of course, one can always be pedal-driven and the other can NEVER be pedal-driven.

The e-bike, by definition, is an electric *bicycle* (a.k.a. powerbike or booster bike) with an integrated electric motor which can be used for propulsion. Many kinds of e-bikes are available worldwide, from e-bikes that only have a small motor to assist the rider's pedal-power (i.e., pedelecs) to somewhat more powerful e-bikes which tend closer to moped-style functionality: *ALL*, however, *retain the ability to be pedalled by the rider and are therefore not electric motorcycles*.

The link shown for Zero Motorcycles is inappropriate for this discussion. By definition, it is NOT an e-bike and it certainly should not be allowed in our marshes or on bicycle only mountain trails. True e-bikes pose no more threat to the environment than do a pedal powered bicycle.

What is needed in this issue of e-bikes in our marshes (or on our mountain trails) is a clear definition of e-bike in the Utah Legal Code (and hunting guidebooks) that would exclude any conveyance that doesn't include pedals as part of the drive system.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

The link was provided to show that electric motors are already advanced enough, small enough, powerful enough, to propel two-wheeled vehicles fast enough as to be competitive with internal combustion machines. It was completely appropriate to this discussion, as ebikes are in their infancy. 

Your definition of what should be legal in our marshes and mountains is overly simplistic. Perhaps you've never seen one in action. Simply having pedals isn't enough, IMO, as that criteria will be gamed. If an ebike will propel itself without any effort at pedaling by the rider, should that be allowed? Such a bike can effectively function as a motorcycle. Should maximum speed be regulated? If so, what should they be limited to? Should wattage be limited? These are all questions the the DWR needs to sort out. My buddy can do 20MPH down the dike without much effort. My max sustained effort to date was just under 13MPH. Is that equitable? How rapidly will ebikes proliferate, how fast will they get?


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

Just so you understand where I'm coming from, I am NOT your biggest fan. In fact, I'm not a fan of yours at all. Your tree hugger attitude with regard to our marshes is well known and documented.

And like you, I'm entitled to my opinions. And in my opinion, you are grasping for straws on this issue when none of the straws you are grasping for exist currently.

My definition of what should be legal in our marshes and mountains is definitely NOT overly simplistic. I'm dealing in current definitions as they apply to current technology. As, a/o IF, the technology advances to the point that current e-bikes become an environmental hazard, then that threat can be evaluated and appropriate action taken by the State of Utah to eliminate the problem/threat.


> If an ebike will propel itself without any effort at pedaling by the rider, should that be allowed? Such a bike can effectively function as a motorcycle.


Bovine excrement of the highest odor.


> Should maximum speed be regulated?


In my opinion, No.


> Should wattage be limited?


In my opinion, No.


> These are all questions the the DWR needs to sort out.


Yes, it is most definitely the DWR's responsibility to sort out - NOT yours or mine.


> My buddy can do 20MPH down the dike without much effort.


:clap2: Good for him.


> My max sustained effort to date was just under 13MPH.


:clap2: Good for you.


> Is that equitable?


Why would it have to be equitable? Are you out there to be competitive in a bike race or have an enjoyable experience and easier access to remote locations. Choose whatever access mode works for YOU. Stop trying to be your brothers keeper and regulator.


> How rapidly will ebikes proliferate, how fast will they get?


Nobody knows at this point. And yet - YOU - want to regulate the p**s out of something that may, or may not, exist in the foreseeable future. Give me a break.:evil:


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

This is a philosophical question. The signs on the gates says no motorized vehicles beyond this point. But, that regulation preceded ebikes, so applied only to internal combustion engines at the time. The question is whether that narrow definition should be reexamined. If an ebike can match the performance of an IC powered vehicle, why should it be allowed to go places where IC engines are banned?

Also, why aren't motorized vehicles allowed behind the gates? Is it to protect the habitat, or to provide a variety of hunting opportunities for hunters? If it's to protect the the infrastructure (dike roads) or habitat, we could simply put down road base on all the roads, or even pave them. In that case, why not allow IC engines?

If it's to provide a variety of hunting opportunities, then restricting ebikes makes more sense. We already have motorless areas, and airboats aren't allowed inside the WMAs, so obviously the DWR recognizes that some restrictions are necessary and is interested in providing different opportunities for hunters. The DWR recommendations presented at the RAC included banning ebikes, so they agree with me. Are they tree huggers, too?


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

I believe Paddler is correct, but Dubob has some points also. It is an interesting question that will need to dealt with, and there will be nuances that will arise that simple definitions will not add clarity to. It will be interesting to see how they figure out what an E-bike really is in regards to WMA restrictions, because right now it is an open question with many answers.
R


----------



## OverTheEdge (Sep 12, 2013)

So are electric trolling motors allowed on boats in motorless WMA units?


----------



## JerryH (Jun 17, 2014)

OverTheEdge said:


> So are electric trolling motors allowed on boats in motorless WMA units?


Oh hell. They will both take the top water bait.

I think we should be able to fly drones for scouting purposes.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

OverTheEdge said:


> So are electric trolling motors allowed on boats in motorless WMA units?





JerryH said:


> Oh hell. They will both take the top water bait.
> 
> I think we should be able to fly drones for scouting purposes.


You two are nothing but trouble. Bob's going to stroke out if we're not careful.

But that's an interesting question about trolling motors. Utah law says if you mount an electric trolling motor, even temporarily, on a boat, you must register it. I did that at one time on my canoe but it was more trouble than it was worth. But the motorless pond at HC comes to mind. That east channel is kind of a pain to paddle up. I could significantly reduce my time and effort if I put a motor on that canoe. And after all, isn't that what life's all about? Reducing to the absolute minimum whenever possible the amount of energy one has to expend to achieve an end?

Hey, TOTP!


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

paddler said:


> Bob's going to stroke out if we're not careful.


Nah - just LMAO at all the insanity being posted. Not even worth commenting about. Y'all just carry on and keep brightening my day with laughter. :rotfl:


----------

