The International Mountain Bicycling Association has a friend in the National Park Service's Intermountain regional director, Michael Snyder. In a recent memo to park superintendents in his region, Mr. Snyder says IMBA can provide "some great partnership ... that you may want to take advantage of."
This is just the kind of reference IMBA officials have been seeking in their continued efforts to gain more access to national parks, access that includes cutting single-track trails across the park landscapes.
It does seem kind of strange to me that the regional director would recommend that his superintendents explore possibilities with IMBA at a time when the Park Service is still working under a 5-year memorandum of understanding to test mountain biking in three parks. Of course, park superintendents all along have had the authority to approve or ban mountain biking inside their parks, so why there was a need for the MOU is equally baffling, unless it was merely intended to give IMBA some name recognition and legitimacy with the superintendents.
And really, there already are quite a few miles of mountain bike trails in the park. Across the park system hundreds and hundreds of miles of dirt roads are open to mountain bikers, ranging from the renowned White Rim Trail in Canyonlands National Park to backwoods routes in Mammoth Cave National Park. In all, 40-some parks already allow mountain biking to some extent. And there are thousands of more miles that range through U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Bureau of Land Management lands.
I've asked this before but will revisit it now: Why is there a need to cut single-track trails in the parks? Is that the best use of the resource at a time when there already are innumerable mountain biking opportunities? Can hikers and mountain bikers satisfactorily exist on the same trail? Many mountain bikers love the thrill of zooming downhill. Think those in national parks won't seek that thrill?
As I noted earlier this fall, mountain biking is a proposed centennial project at Big Bend National Park in Texas.
Roger Siglin, now retired from the Park Service, recently toured the site of that trail. Here's what he had to report:
My wife and I hiked a loop around Lone Mountain following the proposed mountain bike trail. The total distance can’t be much more than two miles. An extension of 1 to 1.5 miles leaves the north end of the loop and follows an old road which ends when it reaches the Grapevine Hills road. On the east side of Lone Mountain the proposed trail stays up on the mountain slope a short distance. This made the first half of the route unpleasant to hike. It is covered with lechugilla, cacti, sotol and other typical desert plants. The ground is very rocky, mostly because fragments of the hard lava capping the mountain have covered the slope.
Trail construction will be difficult and will leave a highly visible scar from the nearby highway north of the visitor center. The flagged route does not follow the contour, but zigzags up and down the slope short distances and skirts several large boulders. I suppose that is to make the route more interesting for bikers, but it would appeal less to hikers for that same reason. We continued on around to the west side of the mountain where flagging was no longer visible. More of the high Chisos Mountains is visible from the west side.
The entire route is north of park headquarters, with a proposed trailhead directly across the road from the concession gas station. A hiking or biking trail around Lone Mountain could easily be constructed below the base of the mountain on flat to gently sloping terrain and the views would be much the same. It would be a very easy hike and a constructed trail there would leave no visible scars from a distance.
Two more phases to the project would add five or six miles of bike trail with two loops that would basically parallel the upper end of the Grapevine Hills road.
I am not a mountain biker and at 71, don’t anticipate becoming one. But if I were planning a shared-use trail I would not pick this location. For children on bicycles, or anyone else for that matter, the east side of the trail would be dangerous because of the rocks and desert vegetation. None of the trails projected in the three phases of construction would be particularly attractive, but at least they are outside of potential wilderness according to the park's wilderness plan. Phases two and three near the Grapevine Hills road and the leg on Phase one, would be unattractive to hikers, and I do not think would appeal to mountain bikers. There is a horse camp at Government Springs with a corral, but it may be moved, so even horsemen would probably not use the trails.
It is difficult to avoid the thought that this project is being proposed primarily for IMBA to get one more foot in the door, the door being widespread creation of new bike trails, or the opening up of existing NPS trails to mountain bikes. The trailhead is already one of the centennial initiative projects. Apparently the trail itself may become a centennial project as the following quote from IMBA indicates: “IMBA is a member of several coalitions that are actively campaigning for increased NPS funding and a sponsor of a Centennial Initiative project for new shared-use single-track in Big Bend National Park.”
There are some shared-use single tracks where I live. Before they were opened to mountain bikers, it was a great place to go for a quiet hike. Now on those beautiful fall days when you want to get out the trails are swarming with mountain bikers, which makes it kind of hard to have a leisurely hike.
That's not to say the mountain bikers aren't entitled to the trail, because it was designed as dual-use. But the result is that mountain bikers are displacing hikers. Hopefully that won't be the case in parks that take up IMBA's "great partnership."
Comments
Mark, you sound as if you know this topic quite well. Are you officially aligned with the mountain bike community?
How many people do you know who can recite the NPS Mission? I certainly can't. "...to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means..."
An English teacher would have a field day editing the seemingly endless run-on sentence that describes the NPS Mission.
Regardless, I've learned to overlook the Mission's rambling wording for the value of its meaning. It's about celebrating natural America, by allowing people to responsibly (emphasize "responsibly") visit, enjoy, and marvel at some of the most beautiful, wild and fascinating places around. One creative NPS employee I know compared the national park system to a can of your favorite soda. If you stick the sealed can on a shelf, you miss the experience of opening it up to savor its color, flavor, coolness, and effervescence.
Nowadays many NPS employees are quick to close portions of national parks, whether they be facilities, trails, or vast tracts of land. "Resource protection," "budget shortfalls," and "safety" are the most frequently cited explanations. Sometimes legitimate reasons exist to close an area, but all-too-often I've seen closed areas remain that way because park staff are 1) too busy attending meetings, writing reports, and creating podcasts to notice the value of these areas to the public, and 2) many NPS employees are such environmental purists they don't believe the places should ever be touched by human feet (or bicycle tires).
"Woops! You mean we haven't reopened that trail? Must have forgotten all about the silly Mission!"
This indifference is well known to many park visitors, and it doesn't bode well for public relations. If you want a supportive public, insure that your park is available for public enjoyment.
Simple Proposal #7: Keep Your Eye on the Mission
Why not regulate each trail according to its appropriateness for biking? Seems to work on the carriage trails in Acadia and the mosquito-infested old roads of the Everglades, but it sure as heck doesn't make sense on the steep, narrow trails in places like Yosemite or Bryce. Ya?
Certainly not every park or every suggested route is appropriate for bicycle use, but "mountain biking in national parks" should not be demonized. Park managers/planners should be open to consider it as an appropriate use for dirt roads that are closed to motor vehicle traffic, an be open to the idea of allowing a small percentage of trails to be suggested mountain bike trails.
Sycamore Canyon in Santa Monica Mountains NRA sets an example of how mountain biking can be allowed along with other recreational uses in a park area. I hike and bike in this area, and the terrain, which is riddled with old ranch roads and fire roads, is well-suited for mountain biking. Also, some excellent single-track provides a wonderful experience for mountain bikers of all skill levels. There is a volunteer mountain bike patrol force riding the trails on weekends. Trail runners, bikers, hikers, and equestrians appear to get along quite well. If there is a Santa Monica ranger reading this, I'd love to hear what he or she thinks. But, best I can tell as a user, Santa Monica managers have done a fantastic job of allowing a multitude of uses in their park.
The photo chosen for this story shows two "gear appropriate" mountain bikers going downhill on a dirt road. This is why they may appear a bit aggro at first glance. If Kurt had chosen a photo of a family biking on a flat dirt road or paved path in a national park, it would have a much different impact on the viewer's perception of mountain biking.
A vast majority of people who mountain bike are what I call "hikers on bikes." I know people from 7 to 70 who enjoy this activity. The NPS should keep the mountain biking card in their hat of recreation activities they consider when planning park use. I'm guessing there are some old mining roads in Rocky that might serve well as a mountain bike trail and still leave hundreds of miles of trail to hikers only.
Disclosure: I am a former NPS ranger who is a hiker/backpacker first and foremost, yet I have riden over 2000 miles as a long-distance "thru-biker," carrying all my food, water, and equipment on my mountain bike. And I have written mountain biking guides, including one for a national park. Kurt, perhaps you should let me take you "bike-packing" one day? Maybe I can convert you.
Haunted Hiker, no need to convert, I love biking. Spent my vacation this summer doing it, as a matter of fact, and just returned from a 24-mile ride.
In fact, I agree with you that there are plenty of good dirt roads across the park system that would make wonderful mountain biking trails. The White Rim in Canyonlands is one great example, and of course the carriage paths in Acadia are another.
I also understand there are some pretty good single-track routes on non-Park Service public lands that make excellent multi-day treks. The Kokopelli Trail that winds 142 miles from Colorado into Utah is one great example.
And, to be truthful, I'd probably enjoy riding my mountain bike through Yellowstone's backcountry on a multi-day trip. But I just don't believe there's a need for it or that it'd be appropriate. I like knowing there's some backcountry where I can head without having to worry about a mountain biker coming around the bend at me.
As someone mentioned earlier, this isn't an access question. There's plenty of access already in the parks, including plenty of mountain biking opportunities, as you yourself noted. Is it so difficult to agree that the Park Service has a different mandate than the U.S. Forest Service and BLM, which are more multi-use oriented?
Lastly, that photo you mentioned? It pictures two IMBA reps cruising at Hawaii Volcanoes National Park during a demo day. I used that shot to illustrate the story because IMBA is the most ardent proponent of more mountain biking in the parks and, as the picture shows, they like to rock.
We all sure can think of plenty of ways to spend monies the NPS doesn't have now, can't we? Blasting a convenience cruise crater in Lake Powell, planning mile after mile of new bike and hike paths, hundreds of millions for a museum to house the "colorized" version of the NPS. How about this sure to be unpopular notion.....no new ammenities of ANY fashion until the system is dealing from a balanced budget with all existing billions in backlog maintenance completed. Then, we talk turkey. Or to the turkeys, whatever.
While I can definitely see the arguments made against biking, in the Big Bend's case in particular I think that a well-planned, environmentally friendly, sustainable single track trail is feasible. As it is not slated for the Basin, and as it is not slated for an area that sees a lot of foot traffic, I don't have a problem with it if done properly.
I also think it is highly possible to create a trail in this area that doesn't promote consistent down-hill thrill-seeking behaviour, but rather trails with lots of small ups and downs that prevent a rider from gaining too much speed without sacrificing enjoyment. The Texas Trail Docs (an IMBA supported group) and Talon Trail Systems (an Austin-based trail building business) are both experienced in creating such trails.
Conversely, if a new trail is not the best solution, perhaps we should close some dirt roads to vehicles and make them mountain bike and equestrian trails only. Like hikers don't appreciate mountain bikers bearing down on them, nor do bikers appreciate being run over by automobiles.
I think the case should be made for park specific regulations. The impact felt in the Big Bend region is not the same as the impact that would be felt elsewhere, and vice versa. Thus we should not judge all parks by one, or one by all, or all by three in the case of the 5 year MOA.
Ultimately, I hope that human powered activities have a fair shot over lazy vehicle-centric pursuits, lest we give way to the "pave our way to greatness" mentality that has turned Yosemite into the world's most beautiful parking lot.
Food for thought....
Full disclosure: I am an occasional mountain biker. (I spend more time rock climbing than anything else, but also very much enjoy camping/backpacking) I am not a member of IMBA, nor do I race in the Texas' local TMBRA circuit. I have hundreds of hours of trail building/maintenance experience, much of those used by mountain bikers. I am right handed. My favourite beer is Guinness, although I'm fond of New Belgium's many offerings. You can't beat the price of a good Shiner Bock though.
Cheers.
I was not aware that any for-profit, trail building businesses existed.
The fact that they exist says it all.
This issue is nothing more than mountain bike creep.