Spend time poking around the International Mountain Bicycling Association’s website and you might start to wonder about the group’s thoughts regarding pedaling in proposed wilderness and officially designated wilderness. After all, head over to their “frequently asked questions’ and you’ll find the following position regarding “Wild Places.”
Are Bicycles Appropriate in Wild Places?
Yes, bicycling is a human-powered, low-impact, quiet form of travel compatible with wild places and the intent of the Wilderness Act. There are instances where bicycling may not be feasible or appropriate. Some trails in proposed Wilderness areas are too rugged or steep for our use. On some national trails, such as the Appalachian Trail, IMBA respects the prohibition of bicycles. In other cases, trails should be closed to all forms of recreation (hiking, bicycling, horse use, etc.) when sensitive plants, wildlife or weather-related seasonal conditions are present.
In light of IMBA’s desire to see more mountain biking opportunities in national parks and in seeing that more than a few national parks – such as Yellowstone and Great Smoky Mountains – have thousands and thousands of acres they treat as wilderness, but which are not officially designated wilderness – I decided some clarification was needed. So I contacted Mark Eller, IMBA’s communications director.
The bottom line, Mr. Eller assured me, was that IMBA has no designs on lobbying for bike trails into proposed wilderness in the parks and would probably support official wilderness designation of those landscapes.
“If we’re looking at an area where there are no existing bike trails, chances are very good we would support that wilderness designation,” he told me Friday. “We really just want to look at it on a case-by-case basis.”
That said, IMBA wouldn’t mind a change in the language pertaining to what type of equipment can be taken into a wilderness area. For instance, rather than the current prohibition against “mechanical” devices, Mr. Eller said his organization would prefer official wilderness and wilderness study areas be off-limits to “motorized” vehicles, something a mountain bike decidedly is not.
For now IMBA is not, however, lobbying for such a change.
“We’re willing to discuss it with our partners. But as far as wilderness goes, there’s no campaign to change that in wilderness right now,” said Mr. Eller.
Specifically regarding mountain bike access in the parks, the spokesman said that where the National Park Service believes mountain bike trails likely would be inappropriate, IMBA probably would not push to see biking trails. Yellowstone, he said, is one park where the organization “would not be pursuing a bike system.”
Overall, Mr. Eller said it’s important to the organization that biking be a good fit with a park.
“We don’t think that one size fits all works very well for us,” he said. “We work with the park staff and with local mountain bike advocates and look for areas that would be good opportunities to add mountain bike trails.”
Comments
Dapster, I might be wrong, but I believe those signs are only erected during nesting of migratory birds and have nothing to do with wilderness. I've seen similar signs at Cape Cod National Seashore to protect nesting plovers.
Kurt,
You are correct about the signage in these pictures. They were used to illustrate the point that "No Access" by any means does indeed exist in our National Parks.
These sort of temporary closures are part and parcel of the park system, although I doubt there are many. That said, I believe that in Yellowstone some areas near Mount Washburn are permanently closed to humans due to grizzly bear habitat.
I promised not to digress, yet I feel I must. One last time....
Frank C, you are correct Sir, that the initial intent of these closures are to be "Temporary". However, couple these temporary closures with:
-Overwintering Population Closures (Birds)
-Critical Habitat Designation (Birds)
-Nesting Season Closures (Birds)
-Fledging Season Closures (Birds)
-Turtle Nesting Closures (Eggs laid)
-Turtle "50-day window" Closures (Hatching)
-Wilderness Study Areas (Year-round)
-Safety Closures (Storms, beach erosion, etc.)
-Closure Entry Violation Buffer Zone Expansions (Sporadic and Subjective)
…And you have overlapping closures that can last year-round. These closure windows can be also be manipulated so that immense stretches of beach are closed for the entire summer season. Also, please remember that CHNSRA is operating under a Consent Decree, which has changed the rules dramatically. The environmental groups that wrote said decree have their own agenda.
Again, correct Sir. However, the former can quite easily, and often times will, lead to the latter. That has been my point this entire thread. Nothing is sacred when it comes to access.
Kurt, I second Beamis’ motion that this is a great topic to be discussed in another posting.
"And really, let's be truthful, wilderness areas are not off-limits to humans. They are off-limits to motorized and mechanical vehicles and devices, but open to those on foot, cross-country skis, canoes, kayaks, snowshoes and probably some other non-mechanical means that don't come immediately to mind."
That's an interesting take on the definition of mechanized. I don't see how skis, canoes, kayaks, snowshoes, or even high hiking poles are less mechanized than a bike. It just defies logic. Wilderness access should be based on 1) whether it's human powered or not and 2) the impact of the activity.
We don't want wilderness to become less accessible to humans. We all need to go in wilderness to enjoy its beauty. We can't erect nature temples that only a chosen few will be allowed to visit. Humans need to be part of the wilderness, not just some spectator from afar.
As for the landmass percentage, it is totally misleading. It would be more interesting to compare the amount of wilderness to the total amount of accessible parks, since this is really where the issue is. Finally, let me give an example of how absurd the wilderness designation has become. California has been toying for a while with the idea of making Henry Coe state park (90,000 acres) state wilderness (CA wilderness rules follow Federal rules). People have been biking in Henry Coe for decades now. However, if this park becomes wilderness, bikes will automatically be kicked out of it. Nobody can reasonably explain why this park is suitable for bikes now, but might not be tomorrow if labeled wilderness. It just goes to show that banning bikes from wilderness defies logic and science, however, the Sierra Club and its ilk have been pushing for more wilderness knowing full well that it's a perfect means of appropriating a public park to a select few users. One day or another, reason will prevail and cyclists will be once again allowed in Wilderness. And BTW, you can ride a whole day in Henry Coe, and you'd be surprised to encounter more than 5 other users.
Really, Zebulon, you can't see the difference? A bike is a machine. Chains, gears and other devices that multiply human force and effect. None of the other devices you mention are machines. I think trying to see these devices as the same, is just a legalistic argument.
I am not flat out against bikes in any National Park, but I do believe it should be presumed they are inappropriate, unless a specific finding is made that for a specific resource they are compatible and consistent with the purposes and capacity of that area.
Geez, Zeb, sounds to me like you need to get in touch with your inner 19th century anachronistic side. Why don't we just change all the rules and regulations to suit your fancies?
I don't think the ban against "mechanical" devices defies logic. Believe it or not, there actually are some folks who enjoy escaping today's contrivances and experiencing a simpler time and life in a wilderness setting.
And while you're right that one can head off down a trail and encounter few if any other users, how long will that last if bikes are allowed on those trails? A cyclist can cover much more ground than a hiker. Is it out of the realm of possibility that a hiker heads 5 miles or so into the backcountry, sets up camp and begins to enjoy the setting when two or three bikers come through?
Just as bikers should be able to enjoy their activity, I don't think it's unreasonable to allow backcountry hikers to be able to enjoy their's -- especially when you consider all the opportunities for bikes outside the national parks.
I have yet to hear a reasonable argument as to why cyclists should be banned from Wilderness. People need to escape the harsh reality of daily life... Well, public parks are not your own private Idaho. Being publicly funded, they should be shared by all. All I hear is rationalization to justify the unjustifiable.
I've been to Henry Coe (south of Silicon Valley, home to millions of people), biked there for a whole day, and barely saw another soul. And this is 30 miles south of San Jose, CA, a major metropolis. I bet that the same is true for just about any park in this country, and that except for a handful of very popular trails, most of them are empty beyond 2 miles from the trailhead. Yet, some Wilderness advocates are pushing hard to make Henry
Coe state wilderness. The real goal is simply to ban bikes, and this is what is going on all around the US, thanks to the eco zealots from the Sierra Club and other so called environmental organizations.
Please take a read through the following for the real history of the Wilderness Act: http://www.dirtragmag.com/print/article-print.php?ID=673