A freeze on new regulations proposed in the waning days of the Bush administration puts in limbo a number of rules and actions that affect national parks. One pending rule, for instance, could greatly expand mountain biking in the parks.
The Obama administration on Tuesday announced a freeze on publication of all proposed and final rules in the Federal Register until they are reviewed by an agency or department head appointed by the new administration.
Benefiting from this freeze are gray wolves in the Northern Rockies surrounding Yellowstone National Park and Grand Teton National Park. The Bush administration recently had lifted Endangered Species Act protection for the canids, saying they were sufficiently recovered. Conservation groups, however, have argued that there is not enough genetic diversity to maintain a healthy wolf population in the region.
The bid to make it easier for individual park superintendents to expand mountain bike opportunities was published December 18 in the Federal Register by the Interior Department. Since the change is open to 60 days of public comment, it has not yet been finalized and so possibly could be held up by the freeze.
Conservation groups maintain that the proposed rule could lead mountain bikers down hiking trails and into lands that are either proposed for or are eligible for wilderness designation. But International Mountain Bicycling Association officials have said the proposal merely makes it easier for parks where mountain bikes make sense to allow their use
At Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, though, officials interpret the proposed rule as much more egregious, saying it could open thousands of miles of existing national park trails to mountain bikes. And Wilderness Society officials said the proposed rule change would degrade the Park Service's conservation ethic by creating user conflicts on trails and eroding the landscape.
The current rule requires that designation of routes open to bicycles outside of developed (and special use) zones must be accomplished by promulgation of a special regulation for an individual park. IMBA wants to change this requirement, saying it's too cumbersome and requires a fair amount of redundancy when it comes to NPS officials signing off on the proposed change.
Under the Bush administration proposal, the promulgation of a special rule would no longer be necessary, except for as-yet-constructed trails. Thus, for thousands of miles of existing trails in what we call park "backcountry," a special rule would no longer be needed if the proposed rule took effect.
Now, to be fair, the NPS proposal does prescribe a process for designation of such trails as open to bicycles – although a less rigorous process than the one now in place.
Another concern of some groups is that the proposed rule appears to allow the designation of trails as open to bicycles even where they lie in areas formally recommended as wilderness by the president to Congress, or proposed by the NPS director to the Interior secretary, or the Interior secretary to the president. This class of lands, in the lower 48 States, amounts to approximately 8 million acres.
And yet, despite the current rule pertaining to mountain biking, which has been in effect since 1987, some parks have designated trails open to bicycles outside of developed zones -- such as in backcountry areas -- without a special rule.
Support Essential Coverage of Essential Places
Comments
Ah, Tooth Doctor . . . know ye not our country's social history? For your sniping at Zebulon has a long and unfortunate pedigree in the context of excluding social groups.
Many were the people who told Rosa Parks to accept her place at the back of the bus. A few of them even were black.
(Source: http://www.lpb.org/programs/brbusboycott/background.html.)
And many are the people who tell mountain bikers like Zebulon to stop whining and accept their place on dusty wide ranch roads and pavement. A few of them even are mountain bikers (or at least claim to be).
The way you think ignores the way excluded people react to unfairness and you're not going to get anywhere by preaching unjust laws and rules to them. As a recent Harvard Environmental Law Review article that discussed mountain biking and Wilderness access observed, "Studies of persons who have been excluded from a benefit suggest that those excluded harbor deep resentment for the seeming special treatment afforded the included class. As a result, the excluded class tends to resist the creation of more systems that might further exclude them." (Source: Laitos & Gamble, "The Problem With Wilderness" (2008) 32 Harv. Envtl. L. Rev. 504, 531, fn. 156.) The same applies to the national parks, of course.
imtnbke,
I hear and completely agree with your point of view, that when the current law perpetuates some social injustice or in some way inures a group of people then it is our responsibility as a people of this country to rise up and speak out until said law is changed. That being said, comparing mountain bikers to Rosa Parks is a bit of a stretch. As a mountain biker, I do not feel like a second class citizen or that I have had any of my inalienable rights infringed upon. Not being able to mountain bike in a National Park is not going to keep me from living my life one day to the next. Those that do, need to grow the heck up.
As for relegating mountain bikers to dusty ranch roads and pavement, that is completely missing the point. We already have access to vast amounts of BLM land, National Forests, State Parks, and many smaller areas overseen by local municipalities, just to give a few examples. And as apparently the validity of my mountain biking status has been called into question, I volunteer that while not a 'hardcore' biker I have enjoyed ten years spread across three states in the Midwest frequenting the latter three types of areas, as well as in one Western state.
And lastly, I'm not ignoring how excluded people feel when confronted by unjust laws. As stated above, I will completely side with a group found to be adversely affected by an UNJUST law. I just don't see how having people use their own two feet (my apologies to those who are handicapped) to help minimize their impact on trails, to help the already overwhelmed NPS maintain said trails for the enjoyment of the greater good is affording special treatment or unjust. It's not special treatment, it's about as simple as it gets.
Tooth Doctor, I appreciate your reply and understand your points. I know that many will regard comparing basic civil rights for racial minorities to mountain bike access in the national parks as a poor or even insulting comparison. (I'm not saying that you're reacting that strongly, but others no doubt would.)
You're right, of course, that we have access to thousands of square miles of BLM, national forest, state, and local lands, and to thousands of linear miles of great singletrack trails on those lands. I think, though, that the ultimate goal of the puritans who detest mountain biking is to force us out of roadless areas completely and to relegate us to dirt service roads in nonroadless areas where a mix of dirt roads and trails exists. In California I perceive such sentiments often enough. This situation may help to explain mountain bikers' insistence on principle when it comes to the national parks.
You're also right to say that those mountain bikers obsessing over access to national parks singletrack may "need to grow the heck up" if it's interfering with their daily lives. I hope I haven't gone that far! The question can be turned around, however: why are the antibike types so dogged and/or panicky about the notion of a bicycle on a trail in a national park?
Toothdoctor, what a lame argument. Bikers need to get over it because they impact the trail! 1) the science does not back your claim, and 2) why are horses allowed since they destroy the trails more than any other user? Another poorly thought out contrived argument to justify the unjustifiable. Funny.
Dubbya, I mean Zebulon,
I guess science is just a bunch of hocus-pocus magic that has no basis in the real world. Because obliviously the trail degradation that my eyes took in (increasingly deeper ruts (around a 1/4 to 1/3 of the wheels radius), loss of trailside vegetation as people try to avoid the ruts and widen the trail, the associated increase in erosion following a hard rain, etc.) in the areas that I have biked must all be make believe. I'll refer you back again to the study you posted as it reiterates what I have seen: http://www.imba.com/resources/science/marion_wimpey_2007.html. In all seriousness, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and postulate that in the area that you live the ground is of a tougher soil composition or made up of a higher percentage of rock, which would explain why your eyes don't perceive this reality that occurs in other areas. But realize this however, not areas are created equal. You may not be seeing it, but that does not mean it does occur. And I don't disagree in regards to horses, but pointing your finger and complaining that 'if they get to, then why not me' is a petulant, contrived argument. Sad. I've said my piece and I'll put my faith in that clearer heads will prevail.
Open them up!!! Damage only occurs from mountain bikers that don't follow the rules of the trail... LIKE RIDING IN THE MUD!!!!! (hate those guys...)
I see the damage that can be done by idiots that drag their rear tire down the hills. This is what causes most of the damage. I’ve biked and hiked the same trails every weekend for years, I also carry a 357 GP100. I’ve never had a problem.
I wish Bush would have left it alone, now it’s an issue……
Please forgive my writing skills, I went to public school before the no child left behind initiative started….