Motorcycles in Pecos Wilderness NM

Ursidae69

Expedition Leader
This happened in Sep 07 and was published in the latest NM Wild newsletter. Basically a large group of motorcyclists (11) were caught by some folks on horseback well inside the Pecos Wilderness. I have actually hiked this trail to Jicarita peak before and it is well marked as wilderness, though the fence and signs are vandalized yearly.

Any organized group of OHV users should know the wilderness boundaries in NM regardless of whether it is marked. New Mexico is FULL of places to ride, why would these riders hurt the cause more by doing this? It disturbs me... Way to give land closure groups more ammo. :mad:

There is also a large thread on the AV riders forum on this.
 

dnellans

Adventurer
That definitely sucks. I regularly ride in the Santa Fe area and indeed there are a huge number of trails that are blessed for motorized travel. The area around Pecos is under a lot of debate right now where national forest is trying to be re-zoned for no motorized travel. While I'm against this rezoning personally, there is no question if you look at any map that the wilderness area is a no-go for ANY motorized vehicles. Lots of people don't realize that also means for forest service people as well, if they have work to do they bring equipment in via horses and mules.

Makes me sad to see that people in the dirtbike/atv world can't respect the wilderness area. As a backpacker I like the peace and quiet of no bikes around, and as a biker I like having places I know I can ride to my hearts content without crapping up a quiet place for others. There is a time and place for all fun, and the wilderness area isn't it for riding :mad:
 

Clutch

<---Pass
Once again, a few going to ruin it for many. We try so hard to keep motorized trails open...then a few yahoos...go off and ride in the wilderness areas. Ruins all of our work.

Personally I don't think horses or humans should be allowed in wilderness areas, should just let it be as natural as possible.
 

dnellans

Adventurer
Kermit,

Horse access is actually my major objection to many of these regulations. I have been on many trails where damage from horses is as bad if not worse than dirt bike access where people tread as lightly as possible. I might be on board to closing access to a lot of areas if it were human foot traffic only, or maybe horse access for just rangers.
 
Last edited:

Clutch

<---Pass
I would rather see everyone getting along and sharing, than pointing fingers. We all cause damage and erosion...play nice or close it down to all, even foot traffic. I don't care how people enjoy the back country, just be nice to one another...and respect it. I know I enjoy all forms, some days I like to hike or ride my mountain bike...heck, you may even catch me on a horse or mule. Dirt biking is my favorite, I think everyone should try all forms at least once before they judge others.

I try to be nice as possible, pull off to the side and shut the motor off...I still get called names, and get dirty looks. hard core hikers are probably the angriest...at least from my personal experience....and that is on moto legal trails...oh well, must suck to be that angry.

The way I look at it, the Earth is in constant state of erosion...I mean really, how is a little peice of trail going to change the whole scheme of things? The mountains are being thrusted up, then torn back down. The trails that are on them will disappear in time, along with the whole mountain.
 
Last edited:

Wanderlusty

Explorer
Kermit said:
I would rather see everyone getting along and sharing, than pointing fingers. We all cause damage and erosion...play nice or close it down to all, even foot traffic. I don't care how people enjoy the back country, just be nice to one another...and respect it. I know I enjoy all forms, some days I like to hike or ride my mountain bike...heck, you may even catch me on a horse or mule. Dirt biking is my favorite, I think everyone should try all forms at least once before they judge others.

I try to be nice as possible, pull off to the side and shut the motor off...I still get called names, and get dirty looks. hard core hikers are probably the angriest...at least from my personal experience....and that is on moto legal trails...oh well, must suck to be that angry.

The way I look at it, the Earth is in constant state of erosion...I mean really, how is a little peice of trail going to change the whole scheme of things? The mountains are being trusted up, then torn back down. The trails that are on them will disappear in time, along with the whole mountain.

I agree. And, I would say that a hard rain storm probably does more 'damage' to the terrain than most bikes, or vehicles can do. Don't misunderstand this to be an all inclusive, always true statement, but I do think it is "often" true.

That being said, in Arkansas, both the national forests are shutting down trails at the discretion of the local ranger districts due to trail damage. Dan (Big_Geek) called and spoke to a ranger about the new closures prior to his latest outing.

The culprit, according to the rangers, is out of state ORV users, primarily ATV's. That has little to do with the bikes in the Pecos, but has a lot to do with trail closures, in AR, AZ, and all through the southwest. :( As described by the ranger, large riding groups truck in their ATV's and pretty much run wild. Not cool. I know one area (near AR/OK border) that even before this had been turned into a de-facto wilderness area, all but closed to ANY motorized transport, due to this kind of misuse.

I read the entirety of the ADV thread and come away with the same impression that I had before reading this. Most dirtbike riders are generally respectful of the trails they ride, moreso than it appears ATV'ers for sure, as I have seldom seen an ATV rider that was acting appropriately. We even had one mudbogging in a drainage ditch between ours and our neighbor's house, in a freakin' subdivision! Worse yet, he lost control and knocked down a fence.

Stepping off of ATV soapbox...

In regards to the Pecos report, as is pointed out in the ADV thread, the riders should have known they did not belong there. But (and it is a big but) reading the reports, it is clear that the writers of the report had an agenda, and even a vendetta against a riding club that it appears quite likely had nothing to do with the offenders in question.

But, even if you take the reporting with a grain of salt, the fact still stands that motorized recreation was being conducted in a wilderness area where it did not belong, and it is shameful and regrettable, as it does give anyone who uses motorized vehicles in wilderness (lower case w) of any sort a bad name, and will only help those trying to force land closures.
 
Last edited:

Clutch

<---Pass
Those riders probably knew better, than go into the wilderness. I know the routes I ride and know where the boundries are. It makes us responsable folk, look bad. Maybe they were thinking...well if they let horses in...then why not us!?

I think there should be designated spots for different user groups...there should be even spots where no humans are allowed too...just let the flora and fauna, have their piece.

What I do have a problem with, is closing down existing motorized trail systems...just because, you and your group doesn't like it. I know we stay the trail, and take care of our trails. Sure, there will be problem areas that erode, like anything else that is used, you have to maintain it.

As for ATVers, I really don't know why most don't follow the rules. They are ruining it for the rest of us. We had quads when were kids, but, used them for chores around the house...one was my dad's wheel chair...wheel chair on steroids...
 

DesertRose

Safari Chick & Supporting Sponsor
dnellans said:
Kermit,

Horse access is actually my major objection to many of these regulations. I have been on many trails where damage from horses is as bad if not worse than dirt bike access where people tread as lightly as possible. I might be on board to closing access to a lot of areas if it were human foot traffic only, or maybe horse access for just rangers.

I agree with Chuck on this issue - we just saw the same thing in Nevada, with deliberate fence cutting and lots of organized Wilderness riding by ATVs, motos, and 4x4s.

If we only look at erosion comparisons, it's true that hikers and horses can cause the same amount of erosion as motor conveyances. But the purpose of Wilderness is not to stop erosion. It has many other important purposes- primarily being a core region for wildlife to exist without a lot of disturbance; and a place for the public to get away from disturbance - all from motorized forms of transport.

Our public lands are actually set up with a great system of levels of use, from the lowest disturbance and human use (Wilderness - which is open to all who can and would use it without motors, and is open to grazing but not mining and timber), to intermediate multiple use (Forest and BLM, which have more trail development and organized motorized recreation as well more extensive grazing, mining and timber, to - in the West - highly utilized and expendable "public land", which are state-owned and can be disposed of to the highest bidder for the benefit of trustees.

I like this system - there's nothing else like it in the world for extensive public access to land. The problems or conflict arise when one user group uses the democratic system to try to expand or change the use of the land.

That's why it's important for all advocates of one type of use or another - and one can be a member of many different user groups - to respect the laws of the different lands, work within the system (albeit flawed) to enact or not enact change, and try to cooperate as much as possible.

It bothers me when people decide that it's okay to selectively choose which laws to follow - and to trash something that's a public legacy just because they don't agree with it. If they don't like it, work within the legal system to change it, don't trash it.

That's my two cents!
 

MountainBiker

Experience Seeker
DesertRose said:
(Wilderness - which is open to all who can and would use it without motors, and is open to grazing but not mining and timber),
Should say "for those that can use it without wheels, and that have a job that allows them huge amounts of time off in order to get into the backcountry on foot". Amazingly, wilderness is closed to bicycles but open to grazing! The grazing impact on land and streams is tremendous compared to bicycle use.

DesertRose said:
It bothers me when people decide that it's okay to selectively choose which laws to follow
Yes, I agree!! However, the majority of people do this every day. How many people never jaywalk? How many people ALWAYS stay below the speed limit and come to a complete stop at stop signs? Unfortunately, people have trained themselves to ignore the laws they consider unjust.
 
Last edited:

Ursidae69

Expedition Leader
MountainBiker said:
Amazingly, wilderness is closed to bicycles but open to grazing! The grazing impact on land and streams is tremendous compared to bicycle use.

I agree with this MtBiker. The way the original law was written sort of ruined for mountain bikers before the user group even existed. Grazing in wilderness is a hot button topic for me. It shows how powerful the grazing lobby is.
 

preacherman

Explorer
I saw one study once that said it took 650 mountain bikes to have the same environmental impact of one horse ridden on a wet trail. I love wilderness but I never understood the no mountain bike rule.

We have a cabin just outside of the Pecos so it saddens me to see some guys doing that. I talked to a ranger last summer about 4x4 trails in the near by Santa Fe National forest and she said the reason several trails where not open was because they feared "abuse" would occur. At the time I thought "who would do that". Guys like this I guess.
 

Ursidae69

Expedition Leader
preacherman said:
I saw one study once that said it took 650 mountain bikes to have the same environmental impact of one horse ridden on a wet trail. I love wilderness but I never understood the no mountain bike rule.

Do you have any info on this study by chance Preacherman?


Also note to other NM Portal members. The local environmental groups have really latched onto this Pecos Wilderness incident and are using it as a major talking point. That is unfortunate because there are many OHV groups in NM that do a decent job of treading lightly. I think we are in the minority though around here. It's my guess that the vast majority of the abusers are not part of a club or even own a computer. It all comes back to enforcement or lack thereof. :(

Some members of the state legislature have drafted a memorial to be submitted to the Forest Service regarding OHV use in northern NM. It is not flattering. A link to the draft is here.

It has been mentioned all over this forum countless times, but users need to participate in the Travel Management Rule process or else the squeaky wheel will get the grease. Some areas do warrant closing I'm sure, but it should be based on sound science, not politics.
 

MountainBiker

Experience Seeker
The logic goes like this: "Every once in awhile, some motorcycles ride out of bounds in wilderness areas. It seems that additional law enforcement doesn't stop this behavior 100%. So we should eliminate motorcycles not only from wilderness, but from all adjacent areas."

Here is the same logic: "Most people speed in their personal vehicles on the freeway. Additional law enforcement doesn't stop all speeders. So we should eliminate all personal vehicles from the freeway!"
 

alvarorb

Adventurer
We ran across a large group of dirt bike riders a few years ago. We were on an organized trail run during an 4x4 event.
The bikers were driving off the trail, in and out of the creek. They felt as they could drive anywhere. And they did. When we politely called them on it, they got quite agressive.

I know that is not the bike, it's the driver. But ATV and bike riders are more likely to drive off the trail than road vehicles are. The adrenaline rush factor is not there by staying on the trail.

If riders/drivers can't play by the rules, they should be fined/persecuted to the extend of the law.

Alvaro
 

alvarorb

Adventurer
preacherman said:
I saw one study once that said it took 650 mountain bikes to have the same environmental impact of one horse ridden on a wet trail. I love wilderness but I never understood the no mountain bike rule.

Let me tell you, those bikes that I saw, maybe a group of 30, did a lot more damage than a few horses would have done going up that trail.

Alvaro
 

Forum statistics

Threads
185,542
Messages
2,875,688
Members
224,922
Latest member
Randy Towles
Top