Yeah, I never expected it to come to this either. On a local level, the Forest Service recently recommended about 50,000 acres of prime elk habitat be protected as wilderness, namely the East Hermosa Creek drainage. Sportsmen were wildly supportive of this, given the quality of the habitat and hunting and the increasing problems with ATV invasion. Even the ATV people didn’t put up much of a fight, recognizing for once that they needed to compromise here. And most outfitters working that area, who would lose the ability to use chainsaws to clear trail and get in camp wood, also accepted the proposal. So all looked good … except that this area is a mountain-biking mecca, and the Colorado Trail pretty much encircles the Hermosa drainage and the proposed wilderness had a thumb that would put a 5-mile stretch of the Trail into wilderness, so that bikers couldn’t complete the circle. So they immediately set about to block and kill the entire wilderness proposal — willing to sacrifice this rare and threatened (with overuse) place just so they could have their fun. They managed to block it temporarily and in order to get the wilderness going again, we had to give up that chunk of land with nothing in return. Same thing has happened in CA and elsewhere, because the national mountain biking group decided to come out anti-wilderness unless the Wilderness Act is changed to allow bicycles. So, while bicyclists aren’t anti-hunting per se, they are anti-wilderness for selfish reasons, and that stance, if you really know the big picture and understand the intricate biological issues, equates to anti-hunting.
I really dislike these “political” threads because they tend to bring out strong opinions and emotions, certainly in me. I hope that answers your question and we can put this one to rest. If not, please PM me. Cheers, dave
