There's a 1968 state law declaring the Youghiogheny a wild and scenic river and state "regulations require that its 'primitive' natural state remain intact and 'inaccessible except by trail.'"
What is a "trail" within the meaning of law about a "wild and scenic" river?
Opponents... argue that only a rudimentary foot path fits within the law’s intent; supporters say a durable trail — perhaps covered with gravel and able accommodate two-way traffic for bicycles, hikers and perhaps even wheelchairs — would qualify, too....
As a reader of this article, I wonder what's the difference between "rudimentary" and "durable"? I don't think it's just the width of the trail. "Durable" at least means gravel, doesn't it? So why say "perhaps covered with gravel"? Wouldn't the alternative be something more intrusive, like asphalt?
From the comments over there: "As someone who worked on the original legislation, I am appalled. The Yough being preserved was a huge win in 1968. Its lovely country and if people want to see it, they can get a good pair of hiking shoes and hoof it!"
পোস্টগুলি
৫৫টি মন্তব্য:
I know a trail when I see it.
Trail = something to ride with an e-bike at 25 mph
it's simpler, in Wilderness Areas. There the rule is: NO Wheels Allowed.
IF you're going to allow wheelchairs, it's pretty much GOT to be paved.
IF you're going to allow bicycles, they will demand paving too; because bikers are SUCH WEENIES that they won't ride on gravel (let alone dirt) either.
And Guess WHAT? Paved Paths are NOT trails
Answering that question with another question: how does one pronounce "Youghiogheny?"
Key Words here, seem to be 'primitive' natural state remain intact and 'inaccessible'..
Providing access, seems to contradict the idea of 'inaccessible'
Paving/Gravel/Cinders all seem to contradict the idea of 'primitive'
No surprise though. Bicyclists think they Own The World. The bicyclists i worked with thought that:
a) they Should be allowed in Wilderness Areas
b) horses should be prohibited, because the bicyclists didn't like them
Who would want to bike on gravel.
The intent is probably anything hand cleared and kept passable by continuing traffic. No external materials allowed.
Iowa passed "Riverboat"Gambling. Slots, cards, dice, only on boats. Originally, the boats had to leave the dock once a day. Then anything floating on any body of water, even a dug hole with water.
In short the money players will get there way, silly legislation is meaningless. BTW, judges are in on it too. Kelo ring any bells. Or maybe gay marriage, or Roe.
If the bike trail is what the "people" want, then legislation is clean and simple. If however the people want to preserve the wildness, the People will loose.
Remember when we promised that part of the Allegheny River to the Seneca Indians for “as long as the grass grows”? It’s impossible to write language tightly enough to keep greedy people at bay forever.
Who would want to bike on gravel.
There are relatively new types of bikes called gravel bikes which are built particular around riding on, well, you can figure it out...
It seems unlikely "trail" was meant to include a bike path or any wheeled conveyance. Applying originalism, we'd want to consider what "trail" ordinarily denoted in 1968, which was probably just a simple, unimproved foot trail. Mountain bikes weren't a thing then, so there wouldn't have been any contemplation of improving the trail to accommodate bikers, let alone paving it to make it wheelchair-accessible.
Trail = cleared by hatchet and handsaw, not chainsaw or other power tools. No boards, stakes or gravel. Definitely no asphalt.
Youghiogheny is pronounced yock (rhyming with sock) i (soft i like in it) gainie (rhymes with trainee). Some people pronounce it more like yock-a-gainie.
At least that's how we pronounce it in Ohio when river rafting is discussed.
Everyone knows damn well what "regulations require that its 'primitive' natural state remain intact and 'inaccessible except by trail." means. They just don't like it. Certainly nothing 'durable'. Mark the trail and clear brush, but no gravel or asphalt.
Only a controversy because it is publicly “owned”. No one will ever be happy with whatever the outcome is. Change the law - don’t we live in a democracy?
As Duke Dan said at 7:51, and others, simply no external materials allowed.
But further, there’s a balancing act between preservation and management. People want to go where they want to go. That needs to be managed to avoid those people from destroying the environment they want to experience.
Are there any trout in the river?
If the answer is no.
Who cares?
IF you're going to allow bicycles, they will demand paving too; because bikers are SUCH WEENIES that they won't ride on gravel (let alone dirt) either.
Countless thousands of miles of single-track mountain-bike trails all over the country say otherwise.
Who would want to bike on gravel.
The most popular new category of bike being sold is the 'gravel road bike'. Why ride on gravel roads? Because most gravel roads are quiet, with nice scenery and very little car traffic (and what there is tends to be going slower and drivers are actually paying attention). Where I live, there is a network of dirt roads outside the city and most of the serious bikers I know have hung up their road bikes and instead ride gravel bikes on these roads (to avoid being maimed or killed by some distracted knuckle-head who's texting while driving).
Snowmobile trail? There's been a fight over that in Blue Mounds State Park for a few years now.
“ IF you're going to allow bicycles, they will demand paving too; because bikers are SUCH WEENIES that they won't ride on gravel (let alone dirt) either “
You’re forgetting mountain bikes. They could easily use the dirt foot path.
And there are also special wheelchairs for rugged dirt paths.
And there are also special wheelchairs for rugged dirt paths.
Any built trail would be required to accommodate ordinary wheelchairs, meaning an asphalt trail with minimal slopes, to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
If they do anything, they will be required to go all the way and destroy the pristine character.
A trail has a walking pace. A bike lane is a different kind of pace. Having a bike lane in a walking trail mirrors cars and bike lanes in cities. Isn’t the point of a trail in the woods to get away from the pace and scenery of a city?
I know the feeling of getting out and looking at landscapes... The cartoonist doesn't contemplate the middle ground between huge city and complete country. link to a previous Althouse post
Louis CK on the magic of the country
If paved you will find happy bike riders and unhappy hikers dodging the happy riders.
I've worked with the people that make these kinds of decisions in long years past. They would fight against wide OR paved paths like a mama bear.
No more, I guess.
As an engineer, durable depends on environment and intended use. Soil near water tends to expand and contract quite a bit, so "paved" will likely crack often and need repair. Gravel is a bit better, as it can move with the soil, but you need fine material for it to be pleasant to walk on and useable for wheelchairs. The fine material is easier to wash away in floods. You know what works well for foot and bike traffic? A dirt path cleared of vegetation. It gets damaged too, but it's easy to repair.
As for the politician that worked on the legislation: ableist. I'm not necessarily opposed to the notion of keeping natural environments natural, but if you do so and want them to be seen, then why establish barriers to prevent it from being seen?
“ Who would want to bike on gravel.”.
You’re probably picturing rougher gravel than would be used. I think it would be a fine gravel that is tightly packed.
Remember Jeb! ? That's Mitt!
Agree with Bender: once the bureaucracy is empowered to act, its work will never end. Vast sums will be required for infrastructure; and for maintenance of infrastructure; and for overseeing the maintenance of infrastructure; and for managing the oversight of maintenance of infrastructure. With standard-setting, records and reports. And awards at the offsite for best managers.
Starting in Pittsburgh PA and ending in Washington DC
there is a wonderful collection of interconnected trails that are wide enough for 2 lane bicycle use. They are mostly built on old railroad lines. Almost entirely covered in fine gravel (modified) with proper drainage for durability. There are some short stretches with asphalt in high traffic areas near parks etc. It's wilderness/woodsy but also passes through some touristy areas with restaurants etc. No motor vehicles. Electric is allowed (pretty sure).
In my neck of the woods the trail follows the bank of the Yough. Just south of Pittsburgh to a few miles north of the Maryland border. It then splits from the Yough River (we pronounce as "yok") and heads east before going south into Maryland. The river forms a lake at this point.
Great Allegheny Passage.
I've never been south of the Yough River Lake into Maryland but I imagine it to be a very similarly forested area. I can't see how that trail spoils any of the wild areas through which it passes. However most of the heavy excavation was done many years ago when the rails were built. The environmental damage from that has long since been washed away or covered with regrowth.
Allowing bikes, means a wide right of way and injuries to hikers.
no bikes
Rusty correctly said...
Are there any trout in the river? If the answer is no. Who cares?
yes! for maryland, this is an important trout stream, it's a tail water
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youghiogheny_River#Recreation_and_travel
Youghiogheny River Catch and Release Trout Fishing Area
Lem said...
A trail has a walking pace. A bike lane is a different kind of pace.
if you're walking on a trail, and a mountain bike speeds by; your options are:
a) Jump out of the way, because bikers think that they "own the road"
b) Get hit
don't believe me? TRY IT!
bikes are the transgenders of the non car world.
places are set aside, so that non cars can have a place..
bikes roll in; and roll over, screaming "We have all the rights that a car has! Even on trails!"
Does gilbar get tired of being pushed off trails.. Why Yes, Yes he does
Once it has been blazed, a trail is not paved or otherwise improved except by the actions of those walking the trail.
A path is continually maintained and groomed and can be otherwise improved by gravel, paving, etc.
You can mountain bike on a trail, if you are skilled enough, but a trail is mostly for feet or maybe horses. Paths can be anything, up to and including macadam two-way bike lanes with white stripes and road signs.
Trail = single file, step off the trail to let someone pass.
Path = wide enough for two way traffic. Paths can be improved with gravel, cinder, asphalt, etc.
Road = designed for automobile traffic
Of course, some trails begin, for example, on a fire road and dwindle down to single track. National Parks abuse the term "trail", especially in busier parks like Zion.
I'll echo the comments on gravel bikes-hugely popular now, There are gravel rides that will pull in more participants than most road races.
I saw a really cool video by Tom Scott lately on the legal no-man’s zone in Yellowstone where no potential jurors live within any proper district to oversee a trial for defendants accused of committing a crime in the part of that park located in Wyoming. Something about the Sixth Amendment’s vicinage clause conflicting with the Article III right to a trial by jury. Similar legal issues?
I wonder if the construction of this trail will use power equipment, chain saws and small vehicles, or two-man bow saws and horses/mules as are used in wilderness areas along the AT.
Speaking of the AT, that's one trail that absolutely not "improved except by the actions of those walking the trail". Policraticus, where the hell did you get that from?
We've run into the hiker / biker problem. In my community in Oregon there is a new park that by design "accommodates" mountain bikers. The problem is that the biker trails are too narrow to actually ride a bike on. They go along cliffs where the biker has to hold the bike over the cliff as he carries it past a stretch. And switchbacks too sharp and steep for any rider to negotiate without dismounting. Nobody would ride the trail more than once. I asked a bike shop about the situation, and the owner said the park bureaucracy did it on purpose to eliminate bikes from the bike trails. He advised to not ride a trail where there are no bike tire tracks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-Dz-nEPafA
Burke
don't believe me? TRY IT!
Try it? I do it regularly. We have a number of shared mountain-bike/hiking trails around here. In fact, hikers are allowed on all of the MTB trails. Hikers and bikers generally use the trails in opposite directions, so they can see each other coming. I'm not saying there are never any unpleasant encounters, but they're rare, and I've heard no stories (nor read any in the local news) of hikers being injured in collisions with bikers. I engage in both activities on the trails (hiking with my wife and dog, but usually biking solo), so I know the experience from both sides quite well. Nobody around here is screaming for mountain bikes to be banned on the MTB trails, and there are plenty of trails that are pedestrian only for hikers who really don't want to see any bikes.
The standard rule is bikers yield to hikers and hikers and bikers yield to horses. I used to hate horses on trails but in wilderness areas horse group aid in carrying in tools for the trail work.
If you are going to go faux primitive and pave a trail for accessibility rights e-bikes, motorized skate boards, etc. will be right behind and the nice peaceful trail is gone forever. This "2 lane" idea bothers me. Instead of peacefully sharing a trail, preferably a narrow path, people will yell to get out of my lane.
We often hike on mountain bike trails. I love the Over Lode trail at Blue Mound. And it’s fine. The mountain bikers and hikers are mutually respectful.
Simply put, it’s not wilderness if it has mechanical devices racing through it.
There’s a rich philosophical and legal literature on wilderness. Mountains Without Handrails is as good a starting place as any.
What about this:
"Under Title III [of the ADA], no individual may be discriminated against on the basis of disability with regards to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases, or operates a place of public accommodation. Public accommodations include most places of lodging (such as inns and hotels), recreation, transportation, education, and dining, along with stores, care providers, and places of public displays."
The object is to make available to the public that currently does not avail itself of what is already available. What about the mpaired, the blind, the lazy, the stupid. Don’t they have a right to go along the river should they want to.
Oh and suddenly, a year or two ago there became a thing called a gravel bike. We have racing bikes and mountain bikes and now, for no reason other than marketing, gravel bikes. Look at any bike maker’s website and you will see gravel bikes. Marketing genius. Gotta have. New thing. Because gravel roads are everywhere?
King Arthur: I command you, as king of the Britons, to stand aside this bike trail!
Black Knight: I MOVE FOR NO MAN.
King Arthur: So be it!
Note to readers: This ended poorly for the Black Knight
A rudimentary trail the quality of a durable trail!
JSM
Pave paradise, put up a parking lot.
I canoe-camp at Sylvania Recreation Area in the U.P. It is rustic, but the dispersed campsites originally had a picnic table and an outhouse. Then it became a Wilderness Area and the Forest Service, in its infinite wisdom, decreed that picnic tables and outhouses were incompatible with a Wilderness and they were removed. I can see not putting such items into a newly established Wilderness Area, but found it ridiculous to remove those already there.
Having hiked a good bit, but only as a child, I am not sure about "nothing brought in from outside." We hiked in various places -- Lake Placid, Bar Harbor, and places in CA I'm too young to remember properly -- and though they were all dirt trails, there were generally small streams to cross, and so there were small bridges. Occasionally entirely natural (I remember one in CA that was just a single massive log, and freaked my four-year-old self out), but more often planks. Are those OK with the purists among you? Or do we have to wade?
The mountain bikers and hikers are mutually respectful.
Mountain bikers and hikers generally get along.
Paved "trails" shared by bikers and walkers, not so much. Pavement shared by bikers and walkers is analogous to pavement shared by bikers and cars, just in the other direction.
The bikers generally refuse to accept a speed limit, and enforcement is universally lax. A local paved trail has a 12MPH bicycle speed limit, which is exceeded by at least half of bikers, and I'd guess about 98% of bikers who have the means to do so.
Once it has been blazed, a trail is not paved or otherwise improved except by the actions of those walking the trail.
I walk on a lot of trails, mostly in national forests or state parks.
They're all maintained, erratically. A big one is when a landslide takes the trail out leaving no way across except perhaps walking down to the creek/river, into the river, up past the slide, then back up to the trail.
Sooner or later, perhaps ten years later, the agency will rebuild the trail across the landslide.
Washouts can also make a trail impassable.
Ann, you cannot possibly believe that anyone (or any lawyer) can define the word "trail" in 2020 when a United States Supreme Court justice cannot even define what the word "woman" means.
The weird legal world you spent your life inhabiting has no method for defining the meaning of words. It has only justifications for why today's meaning is different than yesterdays.
Words mean nothing when their meaning can be changed on a whim, for whatever the current narrative requires.
Sounds good .The CCC boys can put in benches and bridges. No problem except wild life and robbers.
The WaPo link is bad, BTW
I both hike and bike on trails. In my experience, people who are willing to make the physical effort to get out on hiking trails, or to do mountain biking, tend not to be jerks. Walkers or bicyclists on paved trails are a different kettle of fish.
That said, "wilderness" means "wilderness". Primitive. Minimal infrastructure, if any. I'd happily give up some miles of trail to preserve a wilderness.
As long as the bike trails require several fords/crossings of the Yough. So those bikers better be pretty good swimmers too.
One need only look at the canal towpath of the Potomac at Great Falls MD to see that biking and pedestrians (hikers) do not necessarily coexist well.
The best way to keep it wilderness is to severely limit the amount of parking nearby. Make it as close to inaccessible as possible.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন