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 think the prohibition of mountain biking on areas that "may" be future wilderness areas is discriminatory. Especially given the lack of certainty that anyone has on it. It sounds like a way for park and forestry service admins to make de facto wilderness areas, when that legal determination may never come.

That said, I've both hiked and mountain biked for a long time, and have my own short observations to add. From my experience:

- erosion issues with both types of trails are largely governed by trail management. Bike trails in areas that are monitored and closed when weather situations merit it (i.e., no riding on wet trails in areas where that degrades the trail) are as sustainable as hiking trails over most terrain. Both types of trail suffer from irresponsible users, and some users will be irresponsible - hence the need for proper management.

- Bike trails in general need a little more maintenance to prevent those erosion issues, all other things being equal. This is only true given relatively equal levels of traffic. Heavily traveled foot paths suffer more than less popular bike trails and vice versa. It is worth noting that biking trails here in the Nashville area are heavily used, but several still must be trimmed back annually. As another reviewer commented, wilderness will and does come back.

- Hiking trails in general suffer more from littering, particularly around camp sites - "primitive" or otherwise.

- Lastly, the one that is irrefutable: Horses destroy trail, create erosion, pollute with feces (that may harbor invasive plants), etc. etc. One might argue (and I might agree) that designated Wilderness areas should be closed to all users, period. Or open only under guided supervision, etc. Barring that though, if you allow horses, the arguments against bikers are null and void.

thanks.


The real tragedy is hikers and mountain bikers are both conversations and when they work together to preserve or protect a natural area they are an unstoppable force. Legislation and designations that prohibit hikers or mountain bikers from accessing our natural areas often split these users making conserving our natural areas more difficult.

Additionally, at least in my area, hiker only trails are falling into disrepair and are being reclaimed by the forest due to lack of maintenance and near non-use. This is largely a result of the inability of hikers, due to age (the average hiker volunteer is in their sixties), to continue to get out and maintain hiker only designated trails. While only a few miles away the shared-used trails constructed and maintained by mountain bikers are kept in top-notch condition because the volunteer base is larger and in better condition (average volunteer is in their early thirties) to preform trail maintenance. As a result, more hikers are ignoring the hiker only trails and using the much better maintained shared-use trails constructed and maintained by mountain bikers. It would seem the best way to preserve the current neglected hiker only trails would be to allow mountain bike access with the understanding that the local mountain bike club preform a set number of hours of trail maintenance each year to guarantee continued access.


Hi, Kurt,

I know I sometimes engage in strong rhetoric. But yes, alas, these very threads, and others on, e.g., New West, show that there exists a cadre of wildland worshipers (nothing wrong with that in principle) who are fervently convinced that their preferred travel method is the one true and righteous path and that a wheel in a national park or a federal Wilderness is a profanation of an outdoor cathedral (and that is bad). With exceedingly rare exceptions, none of these people ever offers to exclude himself/herself from wildlands; it's always the apostates and heretics who must be banned regardless of logic, science, and fairness.

The exclusionary and intolerant rhetoric of a number of antibike types does smack of other intolerant movements. In 1963 George Wallace proclaimed to the audience at his gubernatorial inauguration, "I say . . . segregation today . . . segregation tomorrow . . . segregation forever." (http://www.archives.state.al.us/govs_list/InauguralSpeech.html.) Figuratively, the antibike detractors stand at trailheads today and proclaim the same thing.

I assume that you and Rick B. would find such comparisons overblown. Certainly there's no comparison between a system of discrimination that at its worst reduced people to slavery and peonage and one whose effects are milder, i.e., one that keeps mountain bikers off trails where we have a right to be and would do no harm. But if the effects are unequal, it is worth considering whether there are similarities in the attitudes of those who are of a mind to discriminate.

As for "what you'd say to Native Americans, John Muir, David Brower, Ed Abbey, or even Jon Krakauer," I would thank John Muir for supporting mountain biking in national forest Wilderness and national parks. I would apologize to native Americans for the supreme conceit held by some today that such areas were always Arcadian idylls, when in fact many of them were acquired in blood and deportations. I'd ask Edward Abbey some questions about whether he endorses all of the tenets of the "deep ecology" movement, some of which I find misanthropic.

And, in keeping with the amusing nature of the captchas, this one contains "bullhorn." Seriously, Kurt, I thank you for writing these columns and allowing free debate of them. It's a worthwhile public service.


Jeffrey, what areas are you referring to were you bike? It appears to me the younger generation has lost it's vigor, stamina and endurance to achieve the physical merits of a good days hike. And, we're not talking about a piddling affair of a small hike either, but something like a good twenty or thirty mile hike in a day. I love the quest and the challenge of a good days hike, or even a three day backpack trip with a fifty pound pack. I love biking but in the wilderness...where's your sense of closeness and keen eye for nature? Especially when you're biking and watching the crazy switchbacks on the trail. I think you're losing something in response to the real wilderness experience when it comes to trail biking...and it's called the inability to absorb mother nature and all it's holistic gifts that it has to offer. I don't see how mountain biking offers this kind of quality wilderness experience but only a temporary adrenalin rush.


Graham G. and Jeffrey, thank you for making those points. Jeffrey, you mentioned that "the average hiker volunteer is in their sixties." I have to agree about the age-related issue. I'm a veteran in our local park district's volunteer organization, which consists of a trail safety patrol and docents. Judging from the last organizational assembly I attended, the average age in this perhaps 150-member group has got to be mid-60s, and many are in their 70s and 80s. I saw only a handful of people who might be younger than 50. Therein lies the problem. If we're going to preserve wildlands for healthy recreation, that's too narrow a base on which to do it.

Rick B., I agree with you that "We need more figuring out common solutions, rather than trying to be right or to 'win.' " But if we're going to do that, we have to be candid with one another about our differences and try to work them out. I am as open-minded as anyone I know and am always interested in hearing opposing viewpoints. I disagree with some of the set ideas of mountain bike activists as well as some of those put forth by conservation purists and traditionalists and am always reevaluating my own views as well, testing them against others' assertions.


Imtnbke,

>>who are fervently convinced that their preferred travel method is the one true and righteous path<<

Ah, my friend, as the saying goes, that blade cuts two ways;-)


Also, be sure to check back Sunday for more data on age groups and participation. I think you'll be surprised by the numbers and the trends.

Again, as for trail maintenance, I think the Student Conservation Association and American Hiking Society would beg to differ that only the retired seem to participate in this vital work.

And this from the AHS:

Created in 1998, American Hiking Society's National Trails Fund is the only privately supported national grants program providing funding to grassroots organizations working toward establishing, protecting and maintaining foot trails in America.

Many of our favorite trails need major repairs due to an enormous backlog of badly needed maintenance. National Trails Fund grants help give local organizations the resources they need to secure access, volunteers, tools, and materials to protect America's cherished hiking trails.


Our individual relationship with our wild places is PERSONAL and can certainly be described as spiritual. Writers and advocates such as John Muir, David Brower, Ed Abbey and et al were/are eloquent, passionate and forceful in their presentation of their PERSONAL relationship with our PUBLIC LANDS.

A Wilderness designation is not, however, a First Amendment Right to freedom of religion. It is a land protection tool that prevents logging, mining, new roads and structures, motorized use and, unfortunately, bicycles from our public lands. Separation of Church and State?

While I do not have the desire, time or energy to fight to get bicycles into existing Wilderness areas, I do believe that this land protection dialog needs to embrace the concept that bicycles do belong in the wild, backcountry places we have ridden for decades without degradation of the area's wilderness characteristics. Companion designations, boundary adjustments and corridors need to become part of the new conservation lexicon when considering permanent Congressional protection of our roadless lands, including designating new, socially responsible Wilderness areas. As I stated above, the bicycling community is a huge conservation constituency that wants our landscapes protected. Bringing us to the table and allowing us to advocate for our important trails just might be the key to getting more Wilderness designated. What could we collectively accomplish if bicyclists were not put in an adversarial position of the bicycle banning Wilderness-or-nothing choice?

Your spiritual PUBLIC LAND wilderness experience is ruined by the color of my skin - er - I mean my mode of quiet, non-motorized travel? Whatever!


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.