Mountain bike accessibility in national parks could expand exponentially under a rule change proposed by the Bush administration, according to the National Parks Conservation Association.
While the current regulation largely restricts mountain bike use to designated trails in developed areas, NPCA officials said the pending regulation would, if approved, allow superintendents to "designate bicycle routes on:
1. existing trails within developed areas;
2. existing trails within undeveloped areas; and
3. new trails within developed areas."
"Under the proposal, if any trail designations within these three areas were considered controversial or would significantly alter public use patterns, then the superintendent would be expected to issue a special regulation," the parks advocacy group said in comments on the proposed rule change."
The comments came near the end of the public comment period on the proposed rule change. Also opposing it was Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, the Association of National Park Rangers, the Tamalpais Conservation Club, the Bay Area Trails Preservation Council, Wilderness Watch, Wild Wilderness, the New Mexico Wilderness Alliance, and Grand Canyon Wildlands Council.
In its comments, the NPCA said the proposed changes would increase "the risk for local stakeholder groups to unfairly influence local park decision making" because a park superintendent in many cases would have the final say on opening trails. The current rule-making process requires National Park Service officials at the regional and national levels to review any proposed changes.
Additionally, NPCA said that while "a special regulation issued in the Federal Register would still be necessary for uses of, or activities of a, 'highly controversial nature' or that would result in 'a significant alteration in the public use pattern,' it is unclear what conditions would need to be met.
"Guidelines are needed to both assist the public in making this claim and assist superintendents in supporting their decision," the group continued. "We believe the Federal Register should not be used as a notification tool, as this proposal would do, but rather as a public involvement tool."
NPCA also believes any rule change should include language specifically prohibiting bicycles not only in officially designated wilderness areas but also in areas proposed for wilderness designation by the Park Service as well as areas currently managed as “potential Wilderness.”
NPCA officials also voiced their opinion that while national parks exist for the public's enjoyment, not all forms of recreation are appropriate for the national parks.
"We understand that some bicyclists, especially mountain bikers, would like to have increased access to the parks. However, the national parks do not have to sustain all recreation; that is why we have various other federal, state, local, and private recreation providers to share the demand, and to provide for those types of recreation that generally do not belong in the national parks, or that must be carefully limited," the group said.
"The 1916 NPS Organic Act, emphasizing conservation for future generations, is substantially different from the organic laws of the Bureau of Land Management, the US Forest Service, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the Army Corps of Engineers, or any other federal agency. The NPS mission is also different from that of state park agencies, or of county or city park agencies. Together, these agencies provide for many forms of public recreation, including single-track mountain bike opportunities—but not all forms of recreation are appropriate in national parks."
Meanwhile, the other groups also urged Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to withdraw the proposed rule change, saying it was "a late lame-duck Bush administration plan to carve mountain bike trails across the backcountry of the national park system."
In announcing their opposition, the coalition pulled from an "action alert" the International Mountain Bicycling Association sent to its members, asking them to file comments in favor of the rule change. In that action alert, PEER officials said, IMBA described what is at stake this way: "…over 170 forests and grasslands administered by the NPS [National Park Service] and a potential 130,000 miles of trails, the move is a mouthwatering prospect for cyclists."
Among the concerns raised by the coalition are:
* Increased User Conflict. Introducing mountain bikes on backcountry trails will drive off hikers, horseback riders and other users, as fast moving bikers, sometimes in large groups, whiz down narrow paths;
* Introduction of Extreme (BMX) Mountain Biking Trails. The wording of the proposed rule appears to endorse, for the first time, construction of trails designed specifically for high-speed, bicycle motor-cross (BMX) racing, to the practical exclusion of other uses; and,
* Aggravation of Maintenance Backlog. High volume biking on backcountry trails will multiply the demand on the Park Service for erosion control to keep unpaved trails functional. The agency already reports a $9 billion backlog in maintenance projects.
"While we endorse the use of bicycles through the developed areas of park units like the C&O Canal in D.C., these proposed rule are designed to facilitate mountain bicycles in undeveloped park areas - the backcountry, far from paved park roads," commented PEER board member Frank Buono, a former NPS manager. "This rule could not only negatively change the backcountry experience for park visitors, but would allow a non-conforming use in proposed and recommended wilderness."
Jeff Ruch, PEER's executive director, added that, "This mountain bike rule is a classic example of special interest influence over management of our national parks. There is no shortage of other venues for mountain bikes that would justify opening up the last, best places within our national parks."
Comments
Bob,
Muir woods has plenty of dirt trails (hiking only of course :)) that start from the bottom and go up toward Mt Tamalpais. I heard that they are quite fun to ride as well. :) Anyway, the point is that Muir woods is a huge attraction to hikers of all stripes, but the vast majority of them sticks to the asphalt portion of the park, which I found to be quite ironic.
Lee: you're stuck on that nonsensical definition of mechanized. Somehow, bikes are mechanized while carbon fiber poles, snow shoes, and pedal equipped cayaks are not. That is irrational. Just be honest and come out and say that you don't want to share your public parks with others. BTW, the dimishing number of people visiting the parks does not seem to support your vision that a growing number of citizens want to escape mechanized society. The truth is that a growing number of people can't seem to escape their couch.
Anonymous: the vast majority of park users are not dedicated hikers, they're casual strollers. They come in, walk around for a couple miles and go home. Equestrians are by far the smallest user group, and diminishing. Out here in CA, they're somewhere below 1% of all park users. The last statistic I read said that there were 30ish mountain bikers for every equestrian.
Trail impact of bicycles: if trail impact was the real reason for not allowing bikes, horses would have kicked out a long time ago based on how badly they trample everything they ride on.
Bottom line: this is all politics and established user group selfishness and nothing else.
IMTN, re: "No one I know of has offered, with similar convincing detail, a kindred personal account about being displaced or forced to hike radically damaged trails because of bicycles. Moreover, the available science runs counter to Anonymous's assertion that mountain biking damages trails more than hiking."
I'm not sure what kind of "kindred personal account" you'd like or "available science" you read that shows biking is no more damaging than hiking, but I've been on some trails in the Stanley Basin of Idaho that very easily could be described as "thrashed" by bikers. Trails where rocks rise 6-8 inches and more above the trail bed because tires have eroded away the soil, trails that pass through riparian areas that have been shredded by bikers not wanting to follow their friends' tires so they swing a little wider each time, trails where the elbows of switchbacks have grown wider and wider and more and more concave from biking pressures.
As for the courtesy of some mountain bikers, I was riding a single track with my wife and a friend when two bikers came upon us so quickly and quietly that they were on our rear tires before we knew it and somehow managed to pass us.
Sadly, your belief that the majority of mountain bikers "ride politely and with sensitivity to others" runs counter to my personal experience and certainly would seem to run counter to IMBA's perception as to what mountain bikers want. Here's a snippet from a post I wrote three years ago (so perhaps IMBA's position has changed):
Also, for what it's worth, a mountain biker had his bike confiscated in a Midwestern national park unit last year for "poaching" an extreme ride in that park. And there was an instance at the Grand Canyon a year or so ago when two or three mountain bikers on a cross-country trip actually managed to ride rim to rim -- even though it's against the park regs. They were caught when they chronicled the ride on their website.
Do these instances/comments reflect the majority of mountain bikers? Maybe, maybe not. As we all know, it only takes one bad apple to spoil the bunch. But in the case of a speed sport like mountain biking, when compared to walking, it wouldn't take too many bad apples to create significant problems in a national park setting. I've never heard of one hiker running over another hiker, yet I've come very close while walking on a shared-use trail to being run over by a mountain biker a time or two. In fairness, I've also encountered some very considerate mountain bikers, and like to view myself as one.
And, to be sure, there are bad apples in the hiking community as well, those who trash backcountry campsites and fragment trails by going cross-country because they can't be bothered with negotiating the entire switchback.
Perceptions are tough to overcome. Just look at the bulk of the comments directed at equestrians. (For what it's worth, while horses are much larger and heavier than mountain bikes and do indeed exact a considerable toll on trails, I've never encountered a horse traveling as fast as a mountain bike on a trail and never had to dodge one to keep from being run over.)
I can't help but return to what I've pointed out many times before, and what others have also focused on: national park landscapes are managed with a much different intent than Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management landscapes. Those areas have an institutional multiple-use bent, whereas Park Service lands foremost are to be conserved for future generations to enjoy. Why that is so difficult for some to digest I don't know.
I think it would be an interesting experiment to follow the course of two landscapes -- one Forest Service or BLM, the other Park Service -- that share a common boundary, the first with mountain bike trails, the second with only hiking trails, and study the associated impacts over the course of ten or 20 years.
If anyone knows of such a present-day study, please forward it.
Here in Colorado, we have many real-world scenarios for observing the relative impacts of hiking and biking. Many trails that are popular with both groups have sections that are close to bikes because of Wilderness designations -- the Colorado trail is the best-known example. Get out in the woods and take a look -- you will see that the popular sections of the trail, where there are trailheads with with easy car access, are wide and eroded whether the trail is closed to bikes or not. The remote sections that are open to bikes (many of which are quite popular with mountain bikers) are generally in excellent shape. The real world scenarios clearly show that it's the total volume of traffic that determines the impacts on the trail, and the presence or absence of bicycles is usually not the determining factor for the condition of the trail.
As for the social interactions, here is a personal story that I think might still be instructive. My wife, a sometimes-mountain biker, was out for a mellow ride the other day. I work for IMBA, so she tries extra hard to be a shining example of courtesy on our local trails and often asks me for advice on how to avoid problems with other users. She returned from her recent ride nearly in tears. She had slowly approached two hikers from behind, and called out in her most polite tone for permission to pass. She received a verbal lashing from the foot travelers, who first jumped off the trail as if they were about to be assaulted. One of them called out in an angry and sarcastic tone -- as she rode slowly by -- "Sorry we got in your way!" She was at a loss on how she could have avoided the situation, short of aborting her ride or choosing a different trail. Had the hikers been buzzed by a irresponsible rider? Maybe (though doubtful because the encounter was quite close to the parking lot) but nonetheless it goes to show that it can be easy to group people and hard to treat individuals like individuals.
I've seen my share of trails destroyed by hiker bad behavior. Kurt, your basic argument is that preserving national parks for future generations and allowing mountain biking is somehow mutually exclusive but offer no good explanation for it, other than bringing the fact that some bikers don't know how to behave. BFD. It all comes down to a category of users not wanting to share with the newcomers.
Rational people could come with inventive solutions, odd/even trail usage, creating separate trail for the first couple miles from the trailhead when interactions are the most frequent. There are plenty of easy solutions to the perceived conflicts, but I have yet to see a non MTBer coming up with anything other than "let's keep them out of our playground". Sad.
Zebulon
That statement is frightening but true. And I believe that those who care about parks need to fight that trend. If people loose interest in parks, it could eventually translate into into additional funding problems, continued drops in visitation... and perhaps drastic changes in what a park is.
OK, OK... I admit that my definition of mechanized is idealistic (but so is the concept of Wilderness). Further, I am also confused at times by the difference between the use of technology and mechanization. And I have gotten into some very heated arguments about things like hang-gliding. No wheels, no power, and designed by Leonardo da Vinci in the 1500's hang gliders predate some of the earliest description of protecting wilderness... and I have no intention of ever hang gliding anywhere.
However, I completely disagree with your assessment that I don't want others to visit "my parks". I do want people to visits. The more people the better (to a point). However, I want them to come knowing that these places are special and have different rules than the rest of society. I wish that people could acknowledge that different rules for different places it ok (and good).
It seems that in our personal lives we have are comfortable with that statement. We often set rules about what can be done in our own yards (not just for impact reasons, but also for reasons related to the appropriateness of certain behaviors).
When the term public lands is used to describe parks I feel like people make the claim "it is part mine and I should be able to do what I like to do on it." That naturally leads to "tragedy of the commons" situations. If every special interest group is given the right to carryout their activities in parks and wilderness we loose some of the things that make them special.
And I sure someone will fire back at me a saying "you may believe that now, but just wait until the park service makes something you like to do illegal!" Maybe you're right. But right now I am happy that the parks are fighting to maintain an identity of their own instead of mutating into whatever the current special interest group wants.
Finally, to your bottom line. Specifically when you comment that it is an established user group's selfishness that is restricting others from being able to enjoy National Parks. It is easy to oversimplify the problems in parks and their causes.
I think this is an excellent dialogue. I wish we could all meet sometime and hash these issues out in a way that might bring about change in trail management in the national parks. There's a lot of wisdom in these posts.
I must say respectfully to Kurt, however, that I perceive from your most recent post that you won't give an inch on the issues we're discussing here. Am I incorrect about that? I was willing to acknowledge in an earlier post that mountain biking can have on-the-trail social impacts that hiking doesn't. But I don't feel any similar give-and-take coming from you, e.g., an acknowledgment that, as Zebulon points out, many concerns can be addressed by well-established management techniques like alternate-day usage, uphill-only, or segregated trails for the first couple of miles. Zebulon has accused you of basically wanting national park trails for yourself as a hiker and you haven't disagreed with him—a state of affairs that evidence law calls an "adoptive admission" (i.e., silence in the face of an accusation is the same as admitting it). What alteration of the national parks' trail rules, if any, would be acceptable to you? Or do you rest firmly on a desire to continue the status quo or restrict mountain biking even more in the national parks?
IMTN, I'm certainly willing to keep an open mind, and have readily pointed to many parks where there already are mountain bike opportunities, and even shared trail efforts (Mammoth Cave).
But I've yet to be convinced that we should just lump national parks along with other public lands and treat them as such.
Is there no place else to ride? Hardly. I've made this point many times over the past three-plus years: The national park landscape is roughly 84 million acres, that of the BLM and U.S. Forest Service hundreds of millions. There are countless miles of trails already open to mountain bikes on the public landscape. It's not that bikers are going without.
Are mountain bikers being denied access to national park lands? No.
Odd-even? Have you ever ridden the slick-rock trail near Moab? Think an odd-even program would work there? Doubtful.
If the Congress in 1916 didn't think national parks should be special places, why didn't they just place the lands under the Forest Service?
Bottom line: Come up with a compelling argument and perhaps I'll agree.
So, if I understand well, national parks are special and therefore bikes should be kept out (same argument for wilderness). There is obviously no logical link whatsoever. Lee, I admire your wishful thinking, but one has to be realistic. If we want the future generation to come back to the parks, we are going to have to adapt to them. Young kids aren't hiking, but they sure are biking. So, simply wishing that things go back to the way they were won't make them so. It'd be like me wishing to turn back the clock, grow some hairs again and lose 25#. It'd be nice but is very unlikely to happen. :)
As I said, we could come up with inventive ways to share the public land in a way that we can all enjoy it in our own responsible human powered manner. That would bring new users back to the park, so that they don't become irrelevant to future generations.