Would allowing mountain bikes on sections of the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail create problems on National Park Service landscapes? Logo via Continental Divide Trail Alliance.
Along its 3,100 miles that wind from the Canadian border down to Mexico, the Continental Divide Trail is one of the most rugged, and in parts one of the most visually spectacular, hiking trails in the country. Now the U.S. Forest Service says the route could be opened in places to mountain bikes, a move that raises a question or two regarding possible impacts to national parks.
From north to south the trail runs through portions of Glacier, Yellowstone, and Rocky Mountain national parks, as well as El Malpais National Monument in New Mexico. In places you need the skills of a mountain goat to negotiate the route, which, by the way, is not entirely in place.
Early in October the Forest Service published its proposed rule changes to the trail's comprehensive management plan in the Federal Register. They took effect November 4. The updated management plan does not magically open the entire Continental Divide National Scenic Trail to mountain biking, but rather provides "that bicycle use may be allowed on the CDNST if the use is consistent with the applicable land and resource management plan and will not substantially interfere with the nature and purposes of the CDNST."
Nevertheless, some fear that decision could result in pressure being placed on National Park Service land managers to permit the bikes into wilderness areas as this development potentially opens one more door for mountain bikes to public lands that have long been set aside for hikers and horseback riders.
From the beginning, "one of the primary purposes for establishing the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail (was) to provide hiking and horseback access to those lands where man's impact on the environment has not been adverse to a substantial degree and where the environment remains relatively unaltered," the Forest Service notes in its Federal Register notice. "The basic goal of the trail is to provide the hiker and rider an entree to the diverse country along the Continental Divide in a manner, which will assure a high quality recreation experience while maintaining a constant respect for the natural environment. ... The Continental Divide Trail would be a simple facility for foot and horseback use in keeping with the National Scenic Trail concept as seen in the Appalachian and Pacific Crest Trails."
While the Forest Service notes that hiking and horseback use are the "primary purposes" for the trail's existence, they are not the trail's exclusive uses, said Janelle Smith, a spokeswoman for the agency's Rocky Mountain Region. Mountain biking could be permissible as long as it doesn't degrade the trail, she said.
“We just wanted to make sure that we’ve got a trail that is sustainable over time. The original intent of the trail was for hiking and horseback riding. That is designated by Congress," Ms. Smith said Monday from her Denver office. "So we needed to clarify that, and as these other uses are compatible with that, those initial uses, then it's really up to those local land managers to either designate a certain area of the trail that would only be for those uses of the trail or make some modification for those multiple uses
“Some trails lend themselves to being able to mountain bike on them," she said.
The Forest Service was lobbied somewhat heavily by mountain bikers to give them access to the trail. Back in 2007 the International Mountain Bicycling Association mounted a campaign among its membership to urge the Forest Service not to close off the trail to their use.
IMBA believes a shared-use philosophy that includes bicycling is compatible with the intent and purpose of the CDT, and that mountain bikers can help overcome these significant hurdles impeding the trail's completion. With 40 million participants, mountain biking is the second most popular trail activity in the country (Outdoor Industry Foundation, 2007). This large constituency helps lobby for public lands funding and donates nearly one million volunteer hours each year to trail construction and maintenance. Mountain bikers can be valuable partners for the CDT.
Among long-distance trails, the CDT is unique in that has generally allowed mountain biking. Unlike the Pacific Crest Trail or Appalachian Trail, mountain bikes are largely welcome on non-Wilderness sections of the CDT. IMBA isn't asking for access to all 3,100 miles, but there are many non-Wilderness sections where non-motorized users can get along and mountain biking should continue.
The group's call was heard. During the public comment period on the updated management plan, a bit more than 8,000 comments were received, according to the Federal Register note. Approximately 7,200 of those comments were received "principally (from) mountain biking enthusiasts, who submitted comments in the form of the same electronic mail," the agency said.
While National Park Service officials working on Yellowstone's winter-use plan, which has drawn hundreds of thousands of public comments, with a strong majority supporting the phase-out of snowmobiles, say public comment does not equate with a vote on the issue at hand, at the Forest Service Ms. Smith said the large number of comments backing mountain biking couldn't be overlooked.
“Certainly, any time we get that kind of response it helps inform our decision," she said. "When it comes to changing some direction that we provide to our land-management agencies, we wanted to make sure that mountain bikers, any user, has access to the public process when final decisions are made on granting access to any part of the Continental Divide Trail.”
Interestingly, a bike route already parallels the Continental Divide Trail.
"The Great Divide Mountain Bike Route is our premier off-pavement route, crisscrossing the Continental Divide north to south," say the folks at Adventure Cycling, a non-profit cycling association. "This route is defined by the word "remote." Its remoteness equates with spectacular terrain and scenery. The entire route is basically dirt-road and mountain-pass riding every day. In total, it has over 200,000 feet of elevation gain. All of this climbing gets the rider into visually spectacular places and incredibly fit shape."
While it remains to be seen which, if any, sections of the trail are opened to mountain bikes, officials in Glacier and Yellowstone are not concerned about riders venturing into their parks.
"We don't have much, if any, concern that visitors might try poaching rides on the CD trail in Glacier National Park," park spokeswoman Amy Vanderbilt said. "Glacier does allow the use of bikes in a few locations in the park (Apgar bike path between West Glacier and Apgar Village as well as all park roads). We even allow bikes on the Sun Road except for two sections west of Logan Pass from June 15 (when pass is accessible) to Labor Day, between 11 a.m. and 4 p.m. (due to heavy traffic and narrow, windy sections).
"Very infrequently, we do have visitors biking where they shouldn't, but our Visitor and Resource Protection staff out on the ground do a pretty good job of making sure that such illegal park use doesn't happen," she said.
While the American Hiking Society generally opposes bikes on hiking trails, officials there did not respond to a request for comment on the Forest Service's new stance on mountain bikes on the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail.
Story Categories:
A copy of National Parks Traveler's financial statements may be obtained by sending a stamped, self-addressed envelope to: National Parks Traveler, P.O. Box 980452, Park City, Utah 84098. National Parks Traveler was formed in the state of Utah for the purpose of informing and educating about national parks and protected areas.
Residents of the following states may obtain a copy of our financial and additional information as stated below:
- Florida: A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARKS TRAVELER, (REGISTRATION NO. CH 51659), MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING 800-435-7352 OR VISITING THEIR WEBSITE. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.
- Georgia: A full and fair description of the programs and financial statement summary of National Parks Traveler is available upon request at the office and phone number indicated above.
- Maryland: Documents and information submitted under the Maryland Solicitations Act are also available, for the cost of postage and copies, from the Secretary of State, State House, Annapolis, MD 21401 (410-974-5534).
- North Carolina: Financial information about this organization and a copy of its license are available from the State Solicitation Licensing Branch at 888-830-4989 or 919-807-2214. The license is not an endorsement by the State.
- Pennsylvania: The official registration and financial information of National Parks Traveler may be obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State by calling 800-732-0999. Registration does not imply endorsement.
- Virginia: Financial statements are available from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 102 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
- Washington: National Parks Traveler is registered with Washington State’s Charities Program as required by law and additional information is available by calling 800-332-4483 or visiting www.sos.wa.gov/charities, or on file at Charities Division, Office of the Secretary of State, State of Washington, Olympia, WA 98504.
INN Member
The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.
Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.
Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.
You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.
Comments
During our most recent vacation to the Desert SW, we stopped for a night in Grants, NM and decided to dine in a local Chinese restaurant. Sitting in the both next to us we noticed a tall, weathered but good-looking European couple who were frequenting the buffet over and over again. They spoke a language we could not immediately identify.
Being curious, we asked what language they were speaking.
"Dutch," came the reply.
"Where did you guys get a tan like that?" I inquired.
"It's a long story."
"Please tell me?" I asked inquisitively.
We soon learned that this couple from the Netherlands were enroute on a massive long distance mountain bike adventure. Their trip had begun in Alaska. Their route was the Continental Divide Trail. Their ulitmate goal was South America. They said that in general it was difficult to do more than 10 miles per day, and that their bikes often had to be pushed and carried when sections of the trail became extremely difficult. I began to appreciate why it was that they seemed to return to the buffet bar for yet another serving.
I didn't ask how they negotiated officially designated wilderness areas along the continental divide, which of course included sections that traverse the national parks, but I assume that the Continental Divide Trail comes through Glacier National Park, Yellowstone National Park, and Rocky Mountain National Park. Mountain biking routes called the "Great Divide" part somewhat from the continental divide itself and often use paved roads instead of trails.
My understanding is that mountain bike use is avidly encouraged in the backcountry of the Canadian National Parks. While proposals by organized mountain biking groups to increase mountain bike access into the backcountry of US national parks, these proposals are receiving quite vigorous resistance from those concerned about keeping designated wilderness free from any form of mechanized recreational use. It will be interesting to see just how this issue plays out over time.
I'm personally partial to any mode of muscle-powered transportation.
Owen Hoffman
Oak Ridge, TN 37830
Glad to see the coverage of mountain biking on the CDT in the Traveler.
However, this passage seems over the top to me:
"Nevertheless, some fear that decision could result in pressure being placed on National Park Service land managers to permit the bikes into wilderness areas as this development potentially opens one more door for mountain bikes to public lands that have long been set aside for hikers and horseback riders."
Does the Traveler really think that Forest Service's position on bikes access for the CDT threatens a change in the NPS position on Wilderness? Even though the FS clearly states in the CDT announcement that they will not alter their position on bike travel in Wilderness?
Neither IMBA nor Adventure Cycling asks that mountain biking be allowed in Wilderness, whether it is administered by the NPS or the USFS. So from where is this speculation about pressure to allow bikes in NPS Wilderness coming? There's no source attributed to the accusation, other than the vague "some fear that ..."
Is the Traveler simply hoping to stir the pot of anti-bike sentiment with a bit of hyperbole?
Mark, no hyperbole.
There are actually folks -- former NPS staffers and park advocates -- out there who are concerned that steps such as the Forest Service is taking could eventually find their way to the Park Service's doorstep. Those concerns might be even more realistic when you appreciate that the four land-management agencies -- Forest Service, Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service -- are trying to work closer than in the past on land-management issues. And when you consider that there's a proposal in Congress to expand Oregon Caves National Monument by adding some 4,000 acres of Forest Service lands -- but the Forest Services wants to co-manage the addition through a memorandum of understanding -- then it's not too hard to see how regs between the two agencies could get blurred.
As for IMBA not asking for access to wilderness, let's be candid. Has your organization in the past not tried to convince the Forest Service to change the wilderness prohibition against "mechanized" travel to "motorized" travel so mountain bikes could gain access to wilderness areas? Here's a snippet of a release you yourself wrote a year ago:
And, until that day arrives, is it not also true that IMBA has targeted talks with the Park Service and Forest Service on proposed wilderness boundaries so as not to block some trail access to mountain bikes? Is that not actually what's been ongoing in Colorado with the Hidden Gems effort to gain more officially designated wilderness? Here's a page devoted to that effort, and there's IMBA's logo on the bottom: http://www.rfmba.org/mtb/Advocacy.aspx
No, I don't think this is a case of hyperbole at all. I think IMBA's track record speaks for itself.
Finally, this is not "anti-bike sentiment," a phrase intended to foment controversy and rally the troops. It's just a belief that there should be some places where your feet on the ground provide the locomotion.
And from IMBA's Bicycling and Wilderness: A Mountain Biker's Guide to Negotiating Wilderness Politics
"Wilderness often presents a dilemma to the environmentally conscious mountain biker. While most of us applaud the intentions of the Wilderness Act, we also believe that bicycles are an appropriate, muscle-powered activity that belongs in Wilderness alongside hiking and horseback riding."
Kurt wrote:
As for IMBA not asking for access to wilderness, let's be candid. Has your organization in the past not tried to convince the Forest Service to change the wilderness prohibition against "mechanized" travel to "motorized" travel so mountain bikes could gain access to wilderness areas?
Candidly, Kurt, the impetus behind that request is that the term "mechanized" does more to muddy the waters than to aid management agencies. As you know, there are all sorts of mechanized devices that are allowed in Wilderness (ski bindings, oarlocks, etc.).
Furthermore, it's demonstrably true that the impacts of non-motorized uses are on the same scale, and the impacts of motorized recreation are of a greater magnitude.
Yes, absolutely we will continue to suggest adjustments to Wilderness boundaries to preserve bike access. If the goal is to protect public lands (rather than block bike access) why wouldn't a bike organization suggest other designations that allow for biking?
The NPS, USFS and other agencies are not likely to become confused about what their policies and goals are simply because IMBA suggests boundary adjustments or clarifications of administrative language. We will continue working with our federal partners to find mutually beneficial agreements and improved understanding of how recreation can best be managed on public lands.
(Since I enjoyed the captcha sharing game last time ... mine is "109 doubts" for this post.)
Whenever I read a story about biking here, I can't help but detect some anti biking sentiment in Kurt. It's not rabid like some of the folks we have in the SF bay area, but it's there. There's really no good reason why all these wonderful backcountry trails should be closed to cyclists other than to appease the few hikers and equestrians who make it there and just don't want to share.
" It's just a belief that there should be some places where your feet on the ground provide the locomotion." Does that belief encompass hooves as well?
The issue with this belief is that it's vague and provides the background for resisting allowing bikes anywhere without any kind of reason. Personnally, I have a belief that horse riders should be kicked out of all narrow trails. Does it mean that we should kick out all equestrians. :)
Mark, wish I could take credit for the captcha, but it really is random. Really.
Zeb, the four bikes in my garage say it's not an "anti-bike" sentiment.
Kurt
The Continental Divide National Scenic Trail through Glacier and Yellowstone National Parks, as well as some BLM and U S Forest Service wild lands traversed by the trail are recommended for wilderness designation by the land managing agencies.
In recommended wilderness areas the CDNST plan requires that potential for future designation be fully maintained (“unimpaired”) So some parts of CDT --wilderness and rec'd wilderness -- will not be available for mechanized travel (mountain bikes).
However cyclists have the opportunity to partner up with hikers, back country horsemen and conservationists on hundreds and hundreds of miles of the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail outside designated and recommended wilderness.
In Montana local mountain bike clubs have proven to be terrific partners, working shoulder to shoulder on the Continental Divide Trail with back country horsemen and women, hikers and volunteers of the Montana Wilderness Association.
Last year we helped the U S Forest Service complete a brand new 7.5 mile section of the Continental Divide Trail between Butte and Helena.
Check out “Continental Collaboration” in Helena Independent Record:
http://www.helenair.com/lifestyles/recreation/article_94afc46c-ee60-5d93...
Several years ago nine outdoor and conservation groups representing local mountain bike clubs, back country horsemen, hikers and conservationists crafted a pledge of agreement to protect future wilderness and motorfree back country areas offering quiet trails for mountain bikers, hikers and horsemen.
The agreement covers 240 miles along the rugged Montana Divide and Flints, with unified recommendations for completing and managing the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail.
This unique new quiet trails and wilderness partnership is known as Montana High Divide Trails. http://www.wildmontana.org/programs/quiettrails2.php
Thank you
Bicycles should not be allowed in any natural area. They are inanimate objects and have no rights. There is also no right to mountain bike. That was settled in federal court in 1994:
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtb10 . It's dishonest of mountain bikers to say that they don't have access to trails closed to bikes.
They have EXACTLY the same access as everyone else -- ON FOOT! Why isn't that good enough for mountain bikers? They are all capable of walking....
A favorite myth of mountain bikers is that mountain biking is no more harmful to wildlife, people, and the environment than hiking, and that science supports that view. Of course, it's not true. To settle the matter once and for all, I read all of the research they cited, and wrote a review of the research on mountain biking impacts (see
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7 ). I found that of the seven studies they cited, (1) all were written by mountain bikers, and (2) in every case, the authors misinterpreted their own data, in order to come to the conclusion that they favored. They also studiously avoided mentioning another scientific study (Wisdom et al) which did not favor mountain biking, and came to the opposite conclusions.
Those were all experimental studies. Two other studies (by White et al and by Jeff Marion) used a survey design, which is inherently incapable of answering that question (comparing hiking with mountain biking). I only mention them because mountain bikers often cite them, but scientifically, they are worthless.
Mountain biking accelerates erosion, creates V-shaped ruts, kills small animals and plants on and next to the trail, drives wildlife and other trail users out of the area, and (worst of all) teaches kids that the rough treatment of nature is okay (it's NOT!). What's good about THAT?
For more information: http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtbfaq .
Mike V, what's that phrase you like to invoke ... bicycles are "wheeled locusts"? Good stuff.
Fortunately, reasonable people on both sides of this debate have little difficulty identifying your self-proclaimed science and anti-bike views as incoherent and off-kilter.
"Mountain biking accelerates erosion, creates V-shaped ruts, kills small animals and plants on and next to the trail, drives wildlife and other trail users out of the area, and (worst of all) teaches kids that the rough treatment of nature is okay (it's NOT!). What's good about THAT?"
Wow! More mountain-biker hating rhetoric. Kills small animals on the trail? I've done two long distance, self contained thru-bikes and I'm certain, unless you count tiny insects and microscopic critters, I've never killed a small animal on the trail. I did accidently STEP on a lizard once when I was hiking. And I, unfortunately, hit a rabbit the other night while driving home after dark.
Mike, please, take a deep breath. This is not a black and white issue.
Hey Owen, self-contained, thru-biking is fabulous. I ought to take you on one someday.
MVD has lost credibility a long time ago. At least his posts are always a good laugh.
This comment was edited to remove unnecessary gratuitous attacks. Let's play nice, folks. -- The editors.
Clipped from http://www.imba.com/resources/land_protection/wilderness_faq.html :
"What is Wilderness?
The 1964 Wilderness Act protects more than 106 million acres from road construction, development, motorized travel and most forms of resource extraction and manmade structures. Unfortunately, many people do not realize that bicycles are not allowed in Wilderness. Federal land agencies in the 1980's interpreted the Wilderness Act to prohibit bicycles, though previously they had been allowed."
What this FAQ item conveniently omits is that until commercially made mountain bikes became available around 1980, bicycling single-track was almost unheard of and was not on anyone's horizon as a potential wilderness issue in 1964. It seems a bit disingenuous now to imply that an activity that essentially didn't exist 45 years ago at the signing of the Wilderness Act and that didn't have any significant presence anywhere for another 8-10 years was "allowed" by the Act. It is a bit challenging to write laws and regulations to address activities and issues that don't exist at the time of their drafting.
Hikers and mountain bikers at speed do not co-exist well on single-track trails. Hikers don't enjoy being buzzed or swarmed on "their" trails and the bikers don't enjoy dodging clue-less hikers on "their" trails. Similarly, horseman don't like hikers spooking the horses and the hikers don't like walking around horse crap and being forced to "Please, step aside" to allow the horsemen to pass by. Yes, this is a regulation, at least in Yellowstone; see Regulations on page 5 of http://www.nps.gov/yell/planyourvisit/upload/bc_tripplanner9-08.pdf : "Impeding or disturbing horses or pack animals is prohibited." My impression is that this is both to limit the greater damage that the steel-shod horses do to trails and adjacent areas and to limit the risk to both riders and hikers from poorly trained horses and/or riders.
It is fairly well established that both bikes and horses have great demands on trail building requirements and trail maintenance, especially in steeper areas. Both need shallower grades, more turning room at switchbacks, more rock removal, etc. and both have more impact per human user than hikers. In this current age of nearly non-existant yearly budgets for trail construction and maintenance in many National Parks and other areas, it seems reasonable to me to not add new trail usage demands that will not be funded to cover the increased impact. To me, this means not allowing mountain bikes in wilderness areas and like areas in National Parks.
Least any "neo-cycle zealots" care to accuse me of being "anti-bicycle", my wife and I have three bikes each. Also, I bought my first mountain bike in 1983, when I lived and worked in Yellowstone. I rode it on paved and gravel roads in the park and trails *outside* the park when I worked there and later in Sequoia and Mt Rainer. I was ok with that then and I still am now.
As a trail maintenance volunteer, who helps maintain dozens of miles of trails (some designated for bikes, some not), the above discussion of trail damage seems to me disconnected from reality. I spend hundreds of hours each year clearing trails and repairing tread damage. Most from windfall tree rootballs, floods and slides. Wildlife, particularly elk, cause more damage than trail use by stock, hikers or mountain bikers.
Even on heavily-used, designated bike trails, I just don't see much damage from bikes. Its rare because most designated bike trails are former roadbeds or stock trails (have solid tread).
As both a hiker and stock rider, I encounter mountain bikes many times each year, both on designated mtn bike trails and occasionally in wilderness (where yes its illegal, but I'm not a law enforcement ranger), and have never experienced any problem with this "mixed use". I've heard of it, but it must be rare.
I'm not a mtn biker, but view the polarization and emotion here about bikes as disconnected from reality I experience on the trails.
I maintain trails so people can use them! Hike, bike, ride, I don't care. Let's work together. Let's allow USFS and NPS land managers some flexibility. One nation wide policy does not fit all trails.
RodF,
My experience has been similar. I frequently run in to stock and hikers and bikers while hiking and biking on trails and I don't recall ever having any conflicts.
And amen to your conclusion:
"Let's allow USFS and NPS land managers some flexibility. One nation wide policy does not fit all trails."
Kurt,
It is good to see National Park Traveler addressing bicycle access to the CDNST.
The recent Forest Service directive for the CDNST management, while vague when it comes to bicycles, does clearly state that continued bicycle access is allowed where not prohibited by Wilderness or National Park. The wording of Primary use for foot and horse traffic is in no way exclusionary to bicycles. To suggest that this means that the cycling community now would want access to the CDNST sections in National Parks or Wilderness areas is needlessly fanning the anti-bicycle flames.
What does need to be addressed is the non-Wilderness / National Park sections of this iconic trail. Just because the Appalachian and Pacific Crest Trails bans bicycles doesn’t mean we need to go down that misguided rabbit hole. It is a national travesty and embarrassment that the ability to ride a bicycle on the open sections of CDNST is not already permanently protected by Congress.
In reading through the related blogs and watching the national trends, I believe that the cycling proponents have made a compelling case of the appropriateness of continued bicycle use on our wild PUBLIC, backcountry trails including the CDNST. The presence of bicycles on the CDNST does not interfere with nature any more that hikers or equestrians. Using the argument of potential conflict between user groups to ban one group is no way to manage our public lands. If the trail is designed to support horses, it will support bicycles. Education, respect and the ability to share are the democratic answer. If it comes down to individual users not wanting to share their (w)ilderness experience with bicycles, might I recommend a trip to any of our National Parks or Wilderness areas that offer thousands of miles of trails leading to millions of acres of bicycle-free opportunities. Bring bicyclists into the fold and we all benefit from an expanded, invested and motivated conservation constituency. Together we can share for the good of all!
Concerning the Great Divide Mountain Bike route - The GDMBR is a mapped route that roughly follows the path of the Continental Divide from Canada to Mexico. This route is mostly dirt roads, some pavement and very little of the actual Continental Divide National Scenic Trail. Too often the conservation community has stated that being excluded from the CDNST because we have the GDMBR should not upset bicyclists. The “route” is in no way, shape or form a substitute for continued bicycle access to the CDNST. It is not even close to the same experience. It is similar to suggest to the hiking community that they should be happy to enjoy the paved path because it is the same experience as the remote, alpine trail. No issues – right?
I read Mr. Gatchell’s post and perused the attached links. It would seem that the Montana High Divide Trails did a good job of highlighting the importance of the CDNST to bicyclists and provided adequate protection of bicycle access to a portion of Montana’s CD trail.
What is concerning is the remaining bicycle access to the CDNST between the Pintlar Wilderness and Yellowstone National Park where the trail passes through the spectacular landscapes of the West Big Hole, Italian Peaks, Lima Peaks, the Centennials Mountains and the Henry Mountains. Most of these sections of CDNST will be closed to bicycles under the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act introduced by Montana’s Senator Tester unless the conservation and bicycle community can do the right thing, like the Montana High Divide Trails, and make adjustments through companion designations, boundary adjustments and corridors to offer permanent protection and continued bicycle access. Since Tester’s bill is a work in progress, there is no reason that bicycle friendly adjustments can’t be made in the Recommended Wilderness Areas.
CAPTCHA - furthest bull...
First , Let me leave no doubt that I AM ANTI-CYCLIST! It has been my experince that the cycling community is on the majority the RUDIST of outdoor users. Their bikes destroy more habitat the any horse or hiker ever could . They are a menace that should be regulated to using only ATV trails or roads. They have no buisness in ANY WILDERNESS AREA! I for one will do all I can to see them removed from any use on National Forest Property.
The major harm that mountain biking does is that it greatly extends the human footprint (distance that one can travel) in wildlife habitat. E-bikes multiply that footprint even more. Neither should be allowed on any unpaved trail. Wildlife, if they are to survive, MUST receive top priority!
What were you thinking??? Mountain biking and trail-building destroy wildlife habitat! Mountain biking is environmentally, socially, and medically destructive! There is no good reason to allow bicycles on any unpaved trail!
Bicycles should not be allowed in any natural area. They are inanimate objects and have no rights. There is also no right to mountain bike. That was settled in federal court in 1996: https://mjvande.info/mtb10.htm . It's dishonest of mountain bikers to say that they don't have access to trails closed to bikes. They have EXACTLY the same access as everyone else -- ON FOOT! Why isn't that good enough for mountain bikers? They are all capable of walking....
Why do mountain bikers always insist on creating illegal trails? It's simple: they ride so fast that they see almost nothing of what they are passing. Therefore, they quickly get bored with any given trail and want another and another, endlessly! (In other words, mountain biking is inherently boring!)
A favorite myth of mountain bikers is that mountain biking is no more harmful to wildlife, people, and the environment than hiking, and that science supports that view. Of course, it's not true. To settle the matter once and for all, I read all of the research they cited, and wrote a review of the research on mountain biking impacts (see https://mjvande.info/scb7.htm ). I found that of the seven studies they cited, (1) all were written by mountain bikers, and (2) in every case, the authors misinterpreted their own data, in order to come to the conclusion that they favored. They also studiously avoided mentioning another scientific study (Wisdom et al) which did not favor mountain biking, and came to the opposite conclusions.
Mountain bikers also love to build new trails - legally or illegally. Of course, trail-building destroys wildlife habitat - not just in the trail bed, but in a wide swath to both sides of the trail! E.g. grizzlies can hear a human from one mile away, and smell us from 5 miles away. Thus, a 10-mile trail represents 100 square miles of destroyed or degraded habitat, that animals are inhibited from using. Mountain biking, trail building, and trail maintenance all increase the number of people in the park, thereby preventing the animals' full use of their habitat. See https://mjvande.info/scb9.htm for details.
Mountain biking accelerates erosion, creates V-shaped ruts, kills small animals and plants on and next to the trail, drives wildlife and other trail users out of the area, and, worst of all, teaches kids that the rough treatment of nature is okay (it's NOT!). What's good about THAT?
To see exactly what harm mountain biking does to the land, watch this 5-minute video: http://vimeo.com/48784297.
In addition to all of this, it is extremely dangerous: https://mjvande.info/mtb_dangerous.htm .
The latest craze among mountain bikers is the creation of "pump tracks" (bike parks). They are alleged to teach bicycling skills, but what they actually teach are "skills" (skidding, jumping ("getting air"), racing, etc.) that are appropriate nowhere! If you believe that these "skills" won't be practiced throughout the rest of the park and in all other parks, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you! ...
For more information: https://mjvande.info/mtbfaq.htm .
The common thread among those who want more recreation in our parks is total ignorance about and disinterest in the wildlife whose homes these parks are. Yes, if humans are the only beings that matter, it is simply a conflict among humans (but even then, allowing bikes on trails harms the MAJORITY of park users -- hikers and equestrians -- who can no longer safely and peacefully enjoy their parks).
The parks aren't gymnasiums or racetracks or even human playgrounds. They are WILDLIFE HABITAT, which is precisely why they are attractive to humans. Activities such as mountain biking, that destroy habitat, violate the charter of the parks.
Even kayaking and rafting, which give humans access to the entirety of a water body, prevent the wildlife that live there from making full use of their habitat, and should not be allowed. Of course those who think that only humans matter won't understand what I am talking about -- an indication of the sad state of our culture and educational system.