A lawsuit that sought to ban mountain bikers from the Palisades Wilderness Study Area in Wyoming has been thrown out, the
Jackson Hole News and Guide reports.
Wilderness Study Areas are protected areas of land that may one day be designated as
Wilderness. Unlike in true Wilderness areas, motorized and mechanized activities like mountain biking are allowed in Wilderness Study Areas so long as the level of use remains similar to the time of designation.
The lawsuit was filed in 2019 by Mountain Pursuit, a group that advocates on behalf of Wyoming's hunters. It was an attempt to sue the Bridger-Teton National Forest (BTNF) for allowing mountain bike access and argued that mountain bikers and ATV drivers were in danger of eroding the Wilderness eligibility of the Palisades. Mountain Pursuit particularly cited increased mountain biking in Black Canyon and on the Lithium Trail near Teton Pass, and it described a "negative impact...on big game, specifically elk and deer." The lawsuit also targeted ATV use in the Shoal Creek Wilderness Study Area.
However, U.S. District Court Judge Nancy Freudenthal dismissed the case as it had no legal standing. "In short, Mountain Pursuit does not identify the specific federal conduct, decision or action at issue and, because of that, it fails to explain how any of the general allegations... would constitute final agency action," she said. "It is Mountain Pursuit’s burden to identify a discrete and legally-required action that the [U.S. Forest Service] failed to take.”
The judge believed that Mountain Pursuit took issue with “about 30 years of perceived U.S. Forest Service mismanagement of certain trails,” rather than a specific unlawful decision, and dismissed the case. After an earlier initial dismissal, Mountain Pursuit's attorneys amended the complaint, but Freudenthal ruled again that the group failed to identify a specific action from the past six years.
The case was thrown out in August last year, but it was not widely publicized until Mountain Pursuit's founder, Rob Shoal, wrote about it in the organization's newsletter. He said, "What we really wanted to do was demonstrate that hunting organizations truly care about wildlife and habitat. We learned a lot with our lawsuit against the U.S. Forest Service and are looking for another issue to litigate.”
Freudenthal's order can be read
here.
Yes, disturbing wildlife is an issue, especially in spring.
As you stated the fees are primarily for wildlife management and protection, so lets not get all "we're the saviors of the forest" over here.
You could also pay for a lisence and not kill and animals!
Good call pal!
It's also funny how the world has made it for millions years without forementioned specimen managing it all but now it suddenly wouldn't work. Hypocritical much?
Given that any time I eat meat, at least one animal had to die to provide it, what is so crazy about going out and obtaining it through my own efforts?
You whole den argument is overwrought. I hunt deer, elk, and antelope, during hunting seasons their young are clearly visible and close to mom, so I just don't shoot any adult females with young.
It almost seems like you have an entrenched position and aren't even open to the idea that others could have a different view that is reasonable, valid, and/or rational. Must be fun.
(Hunting for food) is all what it should be; not a multi billion dollar sporting outlet with designer clothing and equipment. To add, it should be mandatory that hunting is an inconvenience and not a drive through grab -n-go side of the road stop. Remote areas only, miles from any populated areas unlike places where others use land as a place for daily exercise activity or near dwellings or properties and buildings.
And yes, i was raised under the tutelage of those that did hunt.
This is also how several African countries have kept relatively decent populations of animals - elephants, rhinos, etc.
The rule of eating meat should be this: if you won't hunt it, if you won't raise it or you won't pay someone to raise it, you shouldn't eat it. Its far more damaging to planet to get meat at the grocery or a fast food restaurant than taking the time to go out and get meat yourself. There are many more people that recognize this.
I personally think dialogue is better than banning one group to the benefit of the other.
Just regulate the use of the area if it's a big stress factor for the animals, banning one group will only lead to friction and less unity.
I think it's very good that Netflix picked it up, as it can have a very positive effect on the dynamic between hunters and non-hunters, while also positively affecting those that don't have the right mindset when it comes to hunting.
If you eat meat bought in a store, then you have no moral high ground over any hunter, period.
I do pay a small amount ($25/yr) for my offroad vehicle permit to ride my dirt bike on public lands in Colorado. Imagine the funding if parks and wildlife in this state asked non-consumptive users to pay $5 for an annual pass?
Or stay home if your scared
This is what is wrong...
that alone should be worthy of a countersuit to bankrupt them and put an end to such nonsense once and for all.
.
I hunt the very same National Forest I ride in here in NC and I do occasionally see hikers and riders while I am trying to hunt Turkey or Deer. As a member of both user groups I am more mellow about this since I enjoy both equally.
Would a rider coming through the area I am hunting scare game? Yes...
I still tag out every year so it sounds like these Hunters are just entitled a$$holes...
The " My needs are more important than your needs" feelings reeks on this one...
This isn't like road biking, where you can ride in the middle of the road and get mad at cars for not accommodating you, and then while you're driving yell at road bikers in your lane.....
So, obviously, suing over mountain bike access was a natural first step...
Maybe just poorly worded but this statement seems to epitomize a major problem with many lawyers and our legal system today. From a man with a Family filled with Lawyers.
Seems legit
I think that says it all. Not about an actual issue, simply an expensive PR stunt. Hopefully the above statement is put before a judge considering a cost award when the next meritless claim is similarly dismissed.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Teton?wprov=sfti1
BTW, Barelli mentioned it in its last video when he met Métailler: "Raymond, mangeur de petits tétons / Raymond, little nipples eater".
Cheers mates! Have fun!
Sigmund Freud explained that very well...
If you don't like something or someone, or if you feel angry, frustrated, whatever, just pass your way and have a good ride instead, for instance.
It's not our fault if you're not happy.
Breathe.
I just remember it was spectacular but nothing else. "Entertaining" like you say.
BTW: your cinematographic culture is very impressive
Murica
It still seems like the sound from motors had more impact on elk than bikers, hikers, and horses, and on deer the results were all over the place.
“Actually the guys that go out and kill wildlife (myself included) are the main driving force behind wildlife management and protection. When you buy a hunting license, part of those profits go to maintaining wildlife populations and a healthy habitat. So without hunters the forests that we love to bike in would not be in as pristine condition”
A VAST majority of hunters are road hunters, or use some form of motorized transport during their hunt.. “So with out hunters the forests that we love to bike in would not be in as pristine condition?” What a joke! My family has plenty of hunters/fishermen in it and none of them use motorized transport to roam around and “hunt.” They park their truck, and get out and hike all day/as needed. I know this will ruffle some feathers, but the truth hurts for many.
We are merely a species of animal that has inherited a gift that is continually squandered. A vast majority of native tribes were able to live with Nature harmoniously, until the “civilized” man arrived. Then the forest was a scary place that had to be tamed. Over 100 years of horribly mismanagement and we are still marching down that path.
Wish people would start learning some history. Here is a video to learn some history from.
youtu.be/Aa71l-t8bJw
We don't know why we don't bikes, but we'll think of something. When we do it'll be really important.
Mountain Pursuit (or rather their attorney) clearly didn't do their homework. Amateurs mistake.
Funnily enough I do work on this issue in Africa and I can tell you it isnt a viable form of conservation.
"Wilderness Study Areas are protected areas of land that may one day be designated as Wilderness. Unlike in true Wilderness areas, motorized and mechanized activities like mountain biking are allowed in Wilderness Study Areas so long as the level of use remains similar to the time of designation."
Ref article "Most recently, Montana’s Bitterroot Valley lost 110 miles of singletrack to the Sapphire and Blue Joint wilderness study areas in a series of court battles that hinged on administrative technicalities and inflamed tempers on both sides of the issue."
Confused!
Mountain Pursuit's founder, Rob Shoal.
Coincidence or has the Shoal family been in the area long enough to have a creek named after them?
@jamessmurthwaite
That's pretty scary ...truly caring about something means that you care about it so much that you want to kill it.