You are here

Forest Service Drawing Line On Mountain Bikers in Potential Wilderness, National Park Service Agrees

Share

U.S. Forest Service managers in parts of Montana and Idaho are working to ban mountain bikes on landscapes that some day could merit wilderness designation, a move that isn't sitting well with the International Mountain Bicycling Association. Over at the National Park Service, meanwhile, officials have no intention of letting mountain bikers access lands eligible for wilderness designation.

“Existing lands that have been determined to be eligible for wilderness, they should not be considered for potential mountain bike trails at this point," says Garry Oye, the Park Service's wilderness and recreation chief. "We wouldn’t want to authorize a use if we’ve already determined that the lands should be considered for wilderness. We wouldn’t want to allow a use that would compromise that future designation. That’s consistent with our policies.”

Since 2005 at least IMBA has been working to expand mountain bike use in national parks. That year saw the organization and the Park Service sign off on a Memorandum of Understanding calling for a five-year pilot program that would explore mountain bike possibilities in the National Park System via pilot projects in three parks. Initially that MOU was aimed at opening more dirt roads and administrative roads to the cyclists, but not long afterward IMBA officials began talking of the need for single-track routes in the parks.

While those efforts led to a study in Big Bend National Park to create a "shared use" trail, one designed primarily with mountain bikers in mind, IMBA officials began working to change Park Service regulations that must be negotiated before a park superintendent can open park terrain beyond developed areas to mountain bikes. As the clock was running out on the Bush administration the Interior Department published a proposed rule to "streamline" the regulatory landscape regarding mountain bikes in national parks, but it quickly drew criticism from groups that feared how much Park Service landscape its passage could affect.

There are places for mountain bikers to ride in the National Park System. Hundreds of miles of mountain biking opportunities exist in the parks, ranging from the classic, 100-mile-long White Rim Trail in Canyonlands National Park to routes through the woods at Mammoth Cave National Park, the carriage paths in Acadia National Park, and even the rail trails in Cape Cod National Seashore. In all, more than 40 national park units off mountain biking opportunities in some form.

But not all public land landscapes are open to mountain bikers. This past Sunday's New York Times ran a story about Forest Service efforts to institute regulations that would ban mountain bikers from hundreds or even thousands of miles of trail that weave through lands that one day could be designated as official wilderness. While many mountain bike enthusiasts maintain that they should be able to enjoy their favored form of recreation on public lands, included those designated wilderness, land managers who oversee lands with wilderness characteristics are trying to prevent compromising those characteristics. And since officially designated wilderness is off-limits to mechanized travel -- even if that mode of transportation is a bike -- the forest managers are perhaps erring on the side of caution by moving to limit where mountain bikers can ride.

"There's no comparison between bikes made 20 years ago and those made today," Dave Bull, the Forest Service's director for recreation, minerals, lands, heritage and wilderness in Montana told the Times. "People are better able to get to places they couldn't reach before without hiking. They're pushing further and further."

Not only are the latest generation of bikes capable of taking their riders farther and farther into the backcountry, but their arrival, some believe, is out of sync with the wilderness concept.

“There is a wilderness experience, a truly backcountry experience, that is part of the idea and the concept behind wilderness," says Michael Carroll, associate director of The Wilderness Society's Wilderness Support Center. "It's preserving a landscape that is similar to the landscape that our fathers and their fathers before them were able to experience. It’s hard to argue that that experience has been preserved when you have heavy traffic zipping by on mountain bikes after you’ve spent two days hiking in.”

IMBA's communications director, Mark Eller, believes that sentiment can flow in two directions.

"Let’s reverse the hypothetical and say you’re in a remote area and you’re a solo mountain biker and you come across a gaggle of hikers," he offers. "Is that going to disrupt your quiet, the solitude on your mountain bike? Probably.”

Beyond that, says Mr. Eller, the debate over appropriateness, and righteousness, of trail use seems to be getting skewed.

“There seems to be the perception of conflict and the realities that people see on the trails are totally out of whack with each other," he said, adding a moment later that, "I have a hard time just categorizing one trail mode as always more pristine and contemplative than other.”

IMBA has worked to build alliances with the land-management agencies, from meeting around the country with officials to sending trail crews out to both repair trails and demonstrate how to build trails that will stand up to bike use. The group has not talked about cutting trails in national park wilderness areas -- though IMBA officials have talked in theory about realigning proposed wilderness boundaries to benefit mountain bikers -- but rather has focused on creating more riding opportunities elsewhere in the parks. With word that the New River Gorge National River is in line for $2 million to expand its network of bike trails, the group hopes to show that shared-use trails can be well-designed and used cooperatively by hikers and bikers.

“That’s what we’re hoping will be a great place for people to look to and see how it can work in a national park," said Mr. Eller, who agrees that not all national parks are suitable for backcountry mountain bike trails. "We think we’re going to be able to show how it can be done when it’s done right.”

While IMBA also has argued that the ban against "mechanized" travel in official wilderness should be reworded to one against "motorized" travel, that might create more of a battle than the group wants to enter in light of the longevity of that provision in the Wilderness Act, which was passed in 1964

“Any time you go back and modify the parent law, or parent legislation, you better do it with some good public debate, and I think that’s what needs to happen if we do need to go back and look at those things that were legislated in 1964," said the Park Service's Mr. Oye. "It’s not our intent to change the Wilderness Act to allow for mountain bikes, and it’s not our intent to compromise future wilderness designations by promoting mountain bike use in areas that” have potential to be designated wilderness.

At the Wilderness Society, Mr. Carroll adds that, “This is the camel’s nose under the tent. That’s been our argument for a long time. There’s no way you can say that they’re not mechanized. They say themselves that they want to see these big loop systems developed, and they say they want to be allowed in wilderenss. For us those things don’t add up.”

A mountain biker himself who enjoys riding the trails around Durango, Colorado, Mr. Carroll said the issue over mountain bikes in wilderness is personally a tough one -- "I've got tons of friends who are mountain bikers. It's a conundrum for me." -- but in the end he believes wilderness lands need the highest level of protection from impacts. With mountain bikes getting bigger and bigger, their impacts are getting larger, as well, said Mr. Carroll, referring to the Surley bike company's "Pugsley" model with its huge, 4-inch-wide tires.

“Protecting the resource, protecting it for what it represents, for the clean air and water, the wildlife, protecting it for future generations ... is the first priority of wilderness areas," he said. "We want to preserve that as a piece of the puzzle in terms of the management of our public lands. It’s not about 'our' use. ... I think it’s (the debate) unfortunate. There are so many people, if they could take a step back from their use and look at the larger resource issues, and the larger context, I wish they could see that this is about the greater good, not just about your specific use.”

Comments

I can't see why everybody always has to find something inane to argue about. Focus your energy on bigger issues like outlawing tobacco products, something that actually kills people every minute of every day. Riding bikes either on or off road promotes health and decreases depression. Bikers are all very cool people, and the only reason we are loud on the trails when approaching other users is to get your attention. Other users only experience a mere 5 seconds of yield time to bikers when we pass. Some people like the faster pace activities and we have energy to burn so respect that.


@ Kurt commented: "Regarding horses and pack stock, that's a wobbly argument. They've been going into these landscapes longer than they've been designated wilderness, so long that it rightfully could be argued a traditional use. Do I like walking around the piles they leave behind? Nope. Do I like the massive camps they erect? Nope."

Your attempt to explain away this example of trail-use hypocracy is what's wobbly. I hear that running cattle, mining and logging were common "traditional" uses, too, in many of these areas. Shall we grandfather them back in?

I have never EVER seen more overall trail damage, sediment loss, animal burrow collapse (under the trail bed), and trail entrenchment than those used by individual equestrain groups and pack trains, this after 45 years of hiking/backpacking, and 24 years of mountain biking. I'm astonished that this use is perpetuated. Yet, it speaks clearly of the western "cowboy ethic" being equally entrenched in land use politics to this day. It's not at all about environmental impacts with bike use. Give me a break. If it were, there would be no more equestrian/pack train use. Period. End of story. It's about exclusion under guise of environmental concerns.


Nothing worse than spending two days hiking in to a wilderness area and on arrival the second night encountering the group of people on horseback who started on the trail head that morning and passed you that afternoon, setting up their wall tents right where you were planning to camp. Not much difference between that and a mountain bike accept for the amount of erosion, and not to mention that mountain bikes don't poop out noxious weed seeds.
If the rule is gonna stand let it stand. But banning mountain biking on an area based upon speculating future wilderness areas that may be 10 years in the future. Sounds to me like a an opportunity to create an amendment to the memorandum of understanding specific to the respective area and a test out what progress feels like.


I slowed down and realized that Betty wrote, "Once wilderness is gone, it is gone forever..." Sounds poetic but it isn't true. Many locations inside current and proposed wilderness areas were mined and logged and grazed and inhabited by humans in the past and yet, they are now beautiful peaceful places providing rich habitat for flora and fauna.

Perhaps I was too sensitive, but the tone of this sentence came across as mtn biker hating."There are plenty of places where people can play with their toys (mountain bikes, snowmobiles, off road vehicles), there needs to be places where nature can just be nature at its best."

Regardless, I disagree with the implied argument that hikers allow nature to be "at its best" but mountain bikers and other users do not.

If y'all really want to get riled about something, consider this. Near where I live, inside Carson Iceberg and the Emigrant, the USFS allows cattle grazing inside designated wilderness areas.


At a time when we are fighting obesity and threats to the environment, why is the "Old Guard" so excited about alienating a whole new generation of outdoor enthusiasts?

No scientific fact behind the erosion arguments. The truth is, some people don't want to share. And those that say "there are plenty of other trails to ride" have not had their favorite trail closed to them. Not all trails are created equal; a dirt road is not the same as a trail, a trail 100 miles away is not a trail in your own backyard.

If we really believe Wilderness needs to be pristine, then let's ban all human impacts in these areas -- seriously.

I am a hiker, equestrian, and cyclist, so I see this from all sides. As environmentalists, we should spend our limited energy on protecting our public lands from development, clear cutting, and mining rather than fighting each other!


As a wilderness user as a hiker and a backpacker and an avid mountain biker and a beginning equestrian I have these few words to say. Firstly, as a mountain biker of 15 years I have had only one negative experience coming across another trail user, besides that most trail users I come across, be they bikers, or hikers, or horseback riders, we usually nod and say hi and smile. I slow down if I am on the bike, and that is that. The last time I was in a wilderness parcel of national forest land, in the Ruby Mountains in Nevada, there were cows in the "wilderness" area, shitting in the stream that was the water source for a hiker, so how "pure" is that? In Yosemite National park, mules and horses are allowed that shit directly in the streams, or on bridges that are directly above streams. How is a bike worse than that? If you are going to allow a horse on a trail, you should allow a bike. And really I see no reason not to allow a bike on any trail that a human can walk on either. Most bikers don't have the skills to ride on such trails, and for those of us that do, it is a wonderful treat (and there aren't that many of us).


In my neck of the woods all the trails are built and maintained almost exclusively by the mountain biking community. If it wasn't for the MTB community there would be very few hiking/running/biking trail systems. Because of the MTB community free trails are built and maintained with no cost to the taxpayers. Most people think that the trails were built by the "state", "county" or "city" with no idea that it is 100% volunteer effort by people that ride bikes and love the outdoors. The MTB community is full of environmentally minded people that are far more concerned about the impact of what they build than just creating trail.

Too many people don't have their facts straight and are uneducated about bikes in the wilderness. When people lump bikes in with motorcycles, snowmobiles, jet skis, etc. it just shows their ignorance. They also don't understand the different types of cycling and the impacts of each. Most folks have driven by Winter Park or visited Whistler and assume that that is modern day mountain biking. It is for the downhill scene. That isn't what back country cycling is about. Saying that a Pugsley is mainstream and that is what the current and future bike is like is also showing supreme ignorance. What is seen in magazines, on TV, and on YouTube isn't what you are going to see in a back country "wilderness" area. The "Mountain Dew" crew won't be showing up in the wilderness. Just like you won't see a Pugsley doing a downhill run at Whistler.

People need to educate themselves before they make statements justifying the limitations of specific user groups.


I realize this thread is geared towards the western parks, but we have lots of bikers on the trails in the east too. Generally my attitude is live and let live, I'm willing to share the trail with whoever comes. The ruts I can deal with, they'll fill back in in time, but I wish some of these bikers would use common sense and not run over the delicate herbs on the side of the path. A ladyslipper might be beneath their notice, but it's no less rare. Have a little care, I say.


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.