Big Bend's Lone Mountain would be circled with a hiking and biking
trail under a proposed Centennial Initiative project. Photo by Jeff
Blaylock, used with permission.
The very purpose and role of national parks is being drawn into question over a proposal by Big Bend National Park officials to cut a dual-use mountain bike trail into a hillside near Panther Junction.
In some aspects, the proposal underscores the gist of a Traveler column from last month, one in which we broached the subject of the popularity of having a national park nearby but the often-resulting opposition to many of the rules and regulations -- and even restrictions -- that come with such an entity on the landscape.
At the heart of the issue, as opponents to the mountain bike trail note, is the role national parks were created and the mandate given the National Park Service to manage them. While public enjoyment and recreation are certainly key to the parks, resource management is foremost the role of the Park Service.
Against that mandate, questions are being raised over whether Big Bend officials are holding to that mandate, or bending over to placate a special interest group that already has more than 300 miles of mountain biking opportunities in the park.
Big Bend officials are preparing an environmental assessment into a roughly 10-mile-long network of trails that would be cut into an undeveloped part of the park. Part of the project would include parking for a trailhead and a picnic area near the Panther Junction Visitor Center, and a second trailhead near Grapevine Hills Road.
While the park describes this trail as an added recreational outlet for park visitors, members of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees see it as little more than a "promotion of the mountain bike industry" and a move that facilitates "the regrettable trend toward parks becoming venues for extreme sports."
This project did not arise overnight. Indeed, back in 2007 it was seen as a "centennial project" by Interior officials under the George W. Bush administration. Back then, the International Mountain Bicycling Association was a strong proponent, and had promised to come up with half of the $12,000 cost then estimated for the project.
The proposed loop trail would start near the visitor center at Panther Junction, cross the Chihuahuan desert and wrap Lone Mountain while providing sweeping views of the Chisos Mountains, the southern-most mountain range in the country.
While Big Bend officials say the trail is simply another recreational outlet for park visitors, they do note that it's part of a deal IMBA struck with the National Park Service years ago to explore more mountain biking in the park system.
The purpose of the proposed project is to provide park visitors a trail-based recreational opportunity in an area of the park where none currently exists. The proposed action is in keeping with a 2002 Memorandum of Agreement between NPS and the International Mountain Biking Association that encouraged identifying mountain biking opportunities in the national parks, including new trail construction in appropriate areas. The primary objectives of the proposal are to: 1) create new recreational opportunities for park visitors, and 2) provide a trail-based recreational opportunity in the vicinity of Panther Junction.
That arrangement with IMBA is part of the issue cited by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility in their objections.
"The project is a collaboration between the south Texas national park and a private mountain biking group, raising disturbing “pay-to-play” questions about user groups carving out park lands for special purposes," the group said in comments it filed with the Park Service.
Most of the backcountry trail would be single-track – approximately the width of a bike, with one-way traffic moving counter clockwise. Horses would be barred from the trail.
“Big Bend calls this a ‘multi-use’ trail but it is clearly designed for high-speed, high-thrill biking. Any hikers foolish enough to venture on this path risk tread marks across their backs,” said PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, noting that the EA dryly concedes “some visitors might not enjoy their experience sharing the proposed trail with mountain bikers.”
“We are not anti-mountain biking," said Mr. Ruch, "but are concerned that scarce public dollars may be diverted to promote exclusionary recreation scratched out of national park backcountry.”
In their comments on the proposal, members of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees said Big Bend officials seem to be "pursuing an agenda not supported by law, policy and common sense."
"The mountain bike trail construction proposal for Big Bend NP raises serious questions regarding the purpose of National Parks. Through law, Congress and the courts have clearly established that resource protection must always come before visitor enjoyment," Rick Smith, who chairs the coalition's executive committee, wrote to the park. "While there may often be a tug of war between those who place enjoyment first and those who place preservation first, the law clearly states which of the interests has priority.
"Further, NPS Policies articulate this legal precedence into coherent direction for the agency to place resource protection as the primary role of the agency in managing our parks," he added. "In the case of this EA we believe that single-track mountain biking may be enjoyable for the participants but we do not believe it is necessary or appropriate for experiencing the value and purposes for which national parks are set aside by Congress and construction of a single use trail certainly does not conform to the resource protection deference over public enjoyment the park must honor."
Carving this stretch of bike trail, wrote Mr. Smith, "provides no additional means of appreciating park wilderness beyond that available on existing backcountry roads, particularly on roads with very low speeds and levels of vehicular traffic."
"There is nothing about single-track mountain biking that adds a unique opportunity to appreciate the natural and cultural resources of this national park. On the contrary, the rough, rocky terrain combined with hazardous vegetation detracts from that opportunity. In addition there are hundreds of miles of single track opportunities on nearby private and state lands where mountain biking is being actively welcomed and promoted."
PEER's other concerns include:
* This would be the first trail constructed from scratch on undeveloped park land to accommodate mountain bicycles. A pending rule change, also supported by IMBA would open millions of acres of national park backcountry, including recommended wilderness, to mountain bike trails;
* Big Bend already has 200 miles of trails and roads open to mountain biking and there are another 900 miles of bike-accessible trails and roads on state and private lands surrounding Big Bend;
* This trail would be expensive to maintain and vulnerable to high erosion. Yet Big Bend, like other national parks, has a sizeable backlog of maintenance needs on existing facilities, and;
* While the proposed trail is not in designated wilderness, the project would likely preclude the land from ever being designating as wilderness.
“The plan at Big Bend is without precedent in the national park system,” added Mr. Ruch, who is urging members of the public to send comments to Big Bend National Park before the comment period on the park's Environmental Assessment runs out April 2. “This is part of the steady degradation of our parks into settings for thrill sports rather than preserves for enjoyment of natural and cultural features.”
Currently, bicycles are allowed on park roads, dirt or paved, as well as on trails in developed areas, such as the South Rim Village at the Grand Canyon. Backcountry trails are generally reserved for hikers and horseback riders. IMBA began its campaign to gain access to national parks trails in 2002.
A copy of the park's environmental assessment is attached below. To voice your opinion on this project, head to this site.
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.
Comments
Recreation area has zero to do with this argument, it is a national park, not a national recreation area...and regardless, if it is an NPS unit it still all boils down to the Organic Act which states that preservation is just, if not more, important than providing recreation...feel like I am hitting my head against a wall here...
Hikers speak as if their hiking through national parks was not recreation. Come on, it is a form of recreation just like mountain biking. It's different, but neither better nor worse.
As for Ryan, the Act was reinterpreted in 84. Furthermore, if you read Mr. Stroll's research, notes from Congress had indeed contemplated having people riding their bicycles in wilderness. I and many others contend that the Wilderness act does not ban bicycles, anymore than it bans carbon fiber hiking poles, or pedal powered kayaks.
Back to Big Bend, all the criticism around that trail has little to do with the trail itself and is all based on fear mongering. Calling cyclists thrill seekers is really a lousy way of arguing. If the trail is indeed a moderate trail designed for beginners, there won't much thrill to be seeked.
It's always interesting to see what kind of argument people come up with to exclude cyclists.
Man what a read.
That Julie then Ryan Followed by Anon. Strong. But, you have to give Mr. Siglin due respect . Any opinion coming from the heart has merit.
I hope this is not going to be like those movies where you root for the good guys only to be left hanging at the end wondering what really happened. There comes a point that some of us wonder if we will be around to find out. I give this one about three years and 500 K in studies and Lawyers.
Kidding aside, how big is this park? Must be pretty small if there isn't enough room to accomodate different people with different interests. Need to make the park bigger. And I also wonder about this mechanized deal. Are we sure they were including bikes when they wrote this stuff. Big difference between a bicycle and motorized equipment. Read all the definitions on mechanical and mechanized, That will surely take a gang to figure out exactly what anyone intended when that stuff was written. And that thing about wheel barrows, I'm not believing that. If there is anything that belongs in the wilderness, its a wheelbarrow.
I thought this was going to be a good one. I make it 60 / 40 but not sure which side is winning. How about everyone standing up and saying at one time, " YOU WIN ".
Knowing Kurt, he's got another one waiting in the wing, soon as we finish this one.That's the only problem, we never get to finish one of these things. Never discover that perfect little answer. Just shut down the computor night after night in frustration that we arn't smart enough to cooperatively solve a single problem in our National Park. Oh well. hope everyone has a good night.
For those of you who don't know the actual site of the proposed trail: it's at the main visitor center, between the junction of two major roads. There are no maintained trails there but if you climbed the mountain the bike trail will circle, you'd be in sight of a road at all times.
If you were to hike cross-country and off-trail in Big Bend, as I have, you'd go somewhere else. So the site isn't quite "frontcountry" but it's close.
Like horseback riding, biking is clearly higher-impact than hiking or canoeing. It's lower-impact than ORVs or snowmobiling. The parks allow a lot of horses for historic reasons, and not so many bikes, also for historic reasons. It's hard to justify favoring horses over bikes for resource reasons.
At Big Bend, the big threat to wilderness is the huge dirt road network. Let's keep an eye on that.
I say all that as a way to put this trail in perspective. Of course we should avoid new impacts, and this would be a new impact. But as part of a package deal that reduced some other impact elsewhere in the park -- closing, say, the dirt road to Hot Springs, which is also accessible by a short trail from RGV -- I'd say it's a reasonable trade-off. The quasi-frontcountry location is well chosen to reduce the impact on other visitors.
So: open a bike trail but close something else so there's no net impact. Again, I'd vote for the Hot Springs Road.
The national parks could use some biking opportunities, and I think trade-offs are the way to go. In Yellowstone, for example, how about converting the old stagecoach road from Mammoth to Gardiner to a bike trail too? Maintaining it as a road is silly.
We can fight over the use of our public lands, then when there are so few users the mining companies can come in and say; look at all that unused land , let us strip mine it, it's not being used for anything else. United we can all enjoy nature, divided we can walk up and down the sidewalk.
Peer also opposed a project for a Rails to Trails project in the Merced River Canyon. That trail would have opened a corridor to Yosemite Valley without riding on the dangerous and crowded highways. There are no bike lanes on these roads. The other two highways to Yosemite Valley have tunnels which substantially increase the risks to cyclists. PEER does oppose mountain biking and Rail Trails. They have an agenda to regulate bike use to roads.
How many members of our National Parks Staffs belong to PEER?
How many retired Parks Staffers are responsible for the National Parks defacto policy of Wilderness or Winabegos?
How about a factual statement about the the trail opportunities for bikes available in Big Bend if this trail is derailed by PEER just as they killed the Merced River Rails to Trails proposal. PEER threatened lawsuits in that case. I predict they will again. Their objections sound too familiar; almost like a formula printout. It is a repeat of the objections to a bike path to Yosemite Valley.
I see prejudice and inflamatory misrepresentations. I want to know what park Jeff works/worked in and whether he is also part of the Retirees group. The pretended representation of all National Parks employees is a sham. The objections to bike use in the National Parks is a personal opinion backed by irrational assumptions with an agenda that all trails in National Parks should be in wilderness for JEFF AND HIS FRIENDS.
This proposal has taken the better part of a decade to reach a point of action. The real question which needs to be answered honestly by Jeff, a federal public employee, is: where can we have any bike trails in any National Parks? I suspect the real exclusive use is the hikers and Equestrian use in Our Parks. It is time to broaden the trail franchise. I also expect Jeff to come clean and admit he wants no bike trails in any National Park.
Matt and several of the Cape Hatteras ORV crew like to point to some documents that refer to their favorite place as "Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreation Area" (or something similar, and use that as justification for why there should be increased off-road vehicle access. In any case, I'm thinking that the Organic Act still applies, and when there's an issue with the Endangered Species Act it will probably take precedence. Most "National Recreation Areas" are either urban lands with historic resources (Golden Gate, Gateway) or areas with dammed lakes and primarily water-based recreation (Lake Mead, Lake Powell, etc). At Golden Gate NRA there are access issues with regards to a threatened species.
VPW "Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreation Area" is this not the real name? I use it for ACCESS. Not one over the other but simply ACCESS! Me using the name for that is like you ignoring it for the elimination of its true meaning.
"National Recreation Areas" are either urban lands with historic resources...
It really does not matter as the name is "Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreation Area" look it up and it means that the rules are...
" Within National Recreation
Areas, outdoor recreation shall be recognized as the dominant or primary
resource management purpose. If additional natural resource utilization
is carried on, such additional use shall be compatible with fulfilling
the recreation mission, and none will be carried on that is
significantly detrimental to it. "
And that is why we are still going to be recreating on the beach not matter how many closures you erect! So keep banging your head against the wall and touting your Organic act and EPA I will be on the beach!
here iis the article from 2007 on the same area from the same author and the same old arguements. We will never learn.
/2007/11/mountain-bikers-encouraged-seek-access-rocky-mountain-national-parks
The National Park Service disagrees with Matt. Cape Hatteras might, due to an oversight, have 'recreational area' tacked to the legal name of the park. The NPS includes CHNS as one of the 10 national seashores not one of the 18 recreational parks.
Even if Matt might choose to ignore the Organic Act and the General Authorities Act, which require all parks to adhere to the Organic Act the enabling legislation for CHNS is specific about how recreation is to be conducted. There is recreation, and ORV access in CHNS right now.
CHNS enabling legislation:
”except for certain portions of the area, deemed to be especially adaptable for recreational uses, particularly swimming, boating, sailing, fishing, and other recreational activities of similar nature, which shall be developed for such uses as needed, the said area shall be permanently reserved as a primitive wilderness and no development of the project or plan for the convenience of visitors shall be undertaken which would be incompatible with the preservation of the unique flora and fauna or
the physiographic conditions now prevailing in this area . . .”
Matt, WHY? ...the Organic Act is not perfect, but it's what grounds any NPS unit, recreation area or otherwise...it may suck, but those are the facts! Touting the organic act is why you have a National Recreation Area, or national parks at all...
It is unfortunate that many hikers seem so adverse to sharing their trails with mountain bikers. The vast majority of mountain bikers are considerate to pedestrian traffic and equestrian traffic on mixed use trails. Then there is the mistaken perception that mountain biking is an "extreme" sport. Some of us can't hike that far and prefer to ride. Horse traffic has way more environmental impact than mountain bike traffic on these trails. The comments by the Retired National Park Service Employees merely show that they are quite misinformed regarding the majority of mountain bike use on mixed use trails.
Per the organic act section 3
"SEC. 3. That the Secretary of the Interior shall make and publish such rules and
regulations as he may deem necessary or proper for he use and management of the parks, monuments, and reservations under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service"
here is his letter to the director of the nps...
http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/anps/anps_1j.htm
Some pertinent excerpts area as follows...
SECRETARY LANE'S LETTER ON NATIONAL PARK MANAGEMENT
May 13, 1918(which was written before items we contest now were even invented)
"Every activity of the Service is subordinate to the duties imposed upon it to faithfully preserve the parks for posterity in essentially heir natural state. The commercial use of these reservations, except is specially authorized by law, or such as may be incidental to the accommodation and entertainment of visitors, will not be permitted under any
circumstances."
and...
Every opportunity should be afforded the public, wherever possible to enjoy the national parks in the manner that best satisfies the individual taste. Automobiles and motorcycles will be permitted in all of the national parks; in fact, the parks will be kept accessible by any means practicable.
All outdoor sports which may be maintained consistently with the observation of the safeguards thrown around the national parks by law will be heartily endorsed and aided wherever possible. Mountain climbing, horseback riding, walking, motoring, swimming, boating, and fishing will ever be the favorite sports. Winter sports will be developed in the parks that are accessible throughout the year. Hunting will not be permitted in any national park.
The educational, as well as the recreational, use of the national parks should be encouraged in every practicable way.
Automobile fees in the park should be reduced as the volume of motor travel increases.
Matt,
I honestly do not know what you are getting at with the previous post...but is cetainly easy to cherry pick things to meet your needs, so let me give it a try...from the Organic Act of 1916:
"Federal areas known as national parks, monuments, and reservations hereinafter specified by such means and measures as conform to the fundamental purpose of the said parks, monuments, and reservations, which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations."
Gerald,
I'm not sure that many hikers are adverse to sharing trails with mountain bikes. (I do both.) I think most hikers are more than happy to share America's vast public lands with mountain bikes (National Recreation Areas, National Forests, BLM, and even the frontcountry of National Parks). But with respect to backcountry wilderness, is it still backcountry wilderness with mountain bikes going through it? If not, then there's no question of sharing, because that place no longer exists. I like the experience of mountian biking, which some places provide, but I also like the serenity and solitude of backpacking provided by other places.
Ryan, There is not a single document out there that cannot be cherry picked to represent both sides of the fence.
This article from 1997 has some good input on the reasoning I use about the Organic Act.
/2007/12/robin-winks-evolution-and-meaning-organic-act
Justin,
One flaw in your argument is that it implies that wilderness designation is there to provide backpackers serenity and solitude. Clearly it's not, otherwise horse packs would not be allowed. The other flaw is that bicycling in the back country can provide serenity and solitude as well. This is inherent to backpacking.
Frankly, what you're saying is that you don't want to share because increasing access to the backcountry would mean that you would have less of a public good to yourself.
Zebulon,
Part of the motivation behind pushing for widerness designation in the National Parks is exactly to provide backpackers with serenity and solitude. Which is why parks are not the same as National Wildlife Refuges, for instance. It's also part of the motivation to limit things like airplane tours over the Grand Canyon.
I'm not sure I follow your point that "bicycling in the back country can provide serenity and solitude as well. This is inherent to backpacking." You seem to be blurring whose serenity we're talking about. If I'm backpacking in the wilderness, and a bunch of mountain bikers fly past me on the trail, are you arguing that this isn't disturbing my sense of serenity and solitude? It's like telling me I'm wrong when I say I don't like grape soda.
This also strikes me as an odd statement: "what you're saying is that you don't want to share because increasing access to the backcountry would mean that you would have less of a public good to yourself." If what makes the backcountry "good," as I've been discussing it, is serenity and solitude, how does one share or not share solitude or serenity? You seem to be confusing the physical space with the qualities of that space.
i would add that hunting and target shooting are allowed in designated wilderness outside of NPS jurisdictions. Now there's nothing like gunfire to ruin peace and solitude.
Where in any document Justin does it give you the right to hike in the parks. I see nothing that would allow such behavior. We must stop it as it ruins my solitude. Technically just two of you ruins it as it is no longer solitude.
Go ahead and show me where it not only says hiking is allowed, but I want to see where it is the only way to enjoy the parks.
matt stubbs,
You seem to be objecting to an argument noone has made.
Justin,
I meant to say that serenity and solitude was NOT inherent to backpacking only. Users can choose to ride in groups or by themselves, not much difference between cycling and backpacking. The silly part of this argument is that most backcountry trails are pretty much empty anyway.
The Wilderness act is a land management/preservation tool. It is not meant to put land aside specifically for hiking. I understand that many want to see it that way because it suits their personal form of recreation, but that's not the goal of the Act.
The whole thing about cyclists flying around you is just completely silly. My average speed over longer distances (say 20 miles +) is somewhere around 6-8 mph. That's hardly flying around anything. I sure have more fun on the downhill than the average hiker, but that's besides the point.
At the end of the day, PEER and others are simply not willing to share what they see as their private playground. It's shameful.
JustinH, your reply to Matt Stubbs is funny. It seems that you have no sense of irony. The lack of one causes you to miss his ironic point. I'm sorry about that; I don't know where one goes to acquire an understanding of irony in prose. I guess just lots and lots of reading.
Also, in economics, a public good is (to oversimplify) one for which there's no private market. Zebulon obviously assumed that you knew that, but apparently you don't.
Not that I expect myself to know everything either. This isn't a criticism.
I will say, however, that those with training in economics tend to have a much more flexible approach in disputes like these. It's because they, unlike almost everyone who doesn't have such training, understand that life is all about tradeoffs. Want fewer bikes in the backcountry? Fine, then accept more obese children at the margin. That's one example.
I believe no one should be allowed to graduate from college without a couple of semesters of basic economics. If that happens, in one generation the argumentation in threads like this will improve.
Mark Davis's comment about PEER opposing a rail trail in the Merced River Canyon is most interesting. It sounds like PEER is the Jesse Helms of the conservation movement: no, no, and no again.
I wonder what it's like to go to work at the PEER offices every morning. Must be kind of depressing, unless one has whipped out a cognitive dissonance-neutralizing inhaler a few minutes beforehand. Or unless one drank the Kool-Aid years ago, in which case one might aspire to a leadership post.
Peer also opposed the Rail Trail in Merced river canyon. Yosemite National Park closed the door to bikes as a means to access the valley. They did so to relocate the Parks' Stables from the Valley to Foresta. The greater public good was set aside for a country club asset for the Park Management. The two golf courses seem far more out of line than bike trails in Yosemite. I imagine these decision makers see personal pack stations and golf courses as the wise use of limited dollars.
Zebulon,
"The silly part of this argument is that most backcountry trails are pretty much empty anyway." Then why not turn them into bowling lanes? I imagine bowlers are pretty angry that we're not sharing.
"The Wilderness act is a land management/preservation tool. It is not meant to put land
aside specifically for hiking." I didn't suggest that it was. Take another look at my post.
"The whole thing about cyclists flying around you is just completely silly. My average speed over longer distances (say 20 miles +) is somewhere around 6-8 mph. That's hardly flying around anything. I sure have more fun on the downhill than the average hiker, but that's besides the point." I go downhill pretty fast, too. I'm not sure what point you're making here. Are you still trying to convince me of something I like here? (Another analogy: It's like a hiker trying to convince me that I don't like going fast when I'm mountain biking.)
"and others are simply not willing to share what they see as their private playground. It's shameful." I don't know who these "others" are.
Want fewer bikes in the backcountry? Fine, then accept more obese children at the margin. That's one example.
I'd like to see the cause-and-effect study for that statement, imtnbke;-)
More seriously, this has been one of the most interesting, and diverging, threads on the Traveler in a long, long time. It's refreshing to see all the interested parties with their various viewpoints. Not sure anyone convinced anyone else to alter their positions, but it's been interesting nevertheless.
Here's a somewhat recent factoid I stumbled across in doing a little research on imtnbke's statement above, from the Outdoor Industry Association's 2010 Outdoor Recreation Participation Report:
It didn't break out the numbers between road biking, mountain biking, and BMX, so it's hard to tell if there are more mountain bikers out there than hikers, although some might understandably surmise there are more hikers. But that's besides the point in this discussion.
Whichever side you're on, I think you'll agree that this is an issue that won't go away overnight, and when it reappears the same arguments will be put forth, as Matt noted earlier when he discovered a 2007 post on this very same subject (Big Bend and mountain bikes).
While mountain bike trails in the parks are at the heart of this debate, it's much bigger than just that, encompassing everything from the healthy benefits of recreation in general and getting more folks out to the parks to preserving the parks for future generations. And how we as a society decide those questions will certainly go a long way to how the parks will appear to future generations.
As an aside, I can't help but wonder why most mountain bike proponents just weigh in on the Traveler when the issue at hand is mountain biking in the national parks and not other issues that confront the parks? That could be interpreted as a general indifferent feeling about the parks other than as merely a new place to ride. Any insights?
Oh, and Ron, I hope I don't find another hot topic such as this one soon. Moderating comments ain't for the faint-hearted.
I agree with that. And Kurt, even though we have a fundamentally different vision, I appreciate the time you take to maintain this website and provide a forum for debate.
Kurt, it would be almost impossible to prove a causal relationship. But somewhere, some kid is not riding her bicycle on a local trail because of some rule that prevents it, has turned her attention to Facebook or Lady Gaga instead, and is getting out of shape. That's why I included the crucial economic term "at the margin." It could be only a handful of kids. In that case, if mountain biking is so extremely objectionable, maybe more overweight kids are an acceptable price to pay for limiting it. We must all decide.
In this sense, economic theory is a bit like calculus. It's a set of tools that allows one to understand the effects of policies without the need to go out and locate that out-of-shape kid. Similarly, calculus allows you to (for example) calculate the area under a curve without doing it by hand, pixel by pixel (which would be inaccurate anyway).
I've posted on other issues and I think Zebulon and other mountain bikers have too.
Justin,
Others = mountain biking opponents, usually hikers and equestrians, or PEER.
The point I was trying to make about flying around is that statistically, you're more likely to encounter a cyclist going slowly than fast, since a cyclist will spend 3/4 of the ride going uphill at slow speeds.
Kurt,
I can't comment on other subjects where I feel less knowledgeable. The subject of mountain biking in wilderness, national parks (or local parks in my case) always seems to elicit virulent opposition from a very vocal minority. It always puzzles me. It's almost as if the apparition of bicycles on a trail would lead to the end of civilization as we know it (I'm guessing that it won't :)).
1) I don't think we have a greatly different vision. As you know, I mountain bike, I enjoy mountain biking, and we've written about mountain biking opportunities in the parks, most recently about the work at New River Gorge National River to create two mountain biking loops.
2) I don't think rules against mountain biking in some areas of the national park system is leading to overweights kids. That'd be like saying rules against roller blading or skateboarding is leading to obesity. I'd put my odds on electronic, and other, diversions and parents who for whatever reason don't get their kids involved in healthier pursuits. And not even simply parents. How many school systems have cut back, or cut out, phys-ed?
3). I said "most" proponents. You and Zeb have indeed from time to time, though not on a regular basis or in a long time before this issue arose. It's just something I noticed and got me wondering...
Zeb,
There's more than one "vocal minority" out there;-)
Civilization won't end with more bikes on more trails. But it certainly is unsettling to more than a few folks who are walking and finding bikes rushing down on them. Here in Park City the issue seems to get crazier by the month.
The latest is in an area where there's a multi-use trail for winter use, and you've got cross-country skiers, hikers, and even mountain bikers trying to share the same space, with more than a few dogs tossed in. I'm sure you can imagine the problems: skiers are complaining about dogs and bikes, hikers are complaining about dogs, bikes, and skiers, etc. Not sure if bikers are complaining.
The problem with solutions seems to be enforcement. You can go to odd-even days, but unless it's stringently policed, that doesn't work. And when you have to stringently police things...
But back to mountain bikes on public lands. Have you ever gone on a multi-day trek into the backcountry where it is currently allowed? I'd love to hear about those opportunities.
"But back to mountain bikes on public lands. Have you ever gone on a
multi-day trek into the backcountry where it is currently allowed? I'd
love to hear about those opportunities."
You might check out this possibility: http://www.mdhta.com/
I've hiked parts of it, and didn't see other hikers, bikers, or horsemen. Seems like a good opportunity for anyone seeking solitude, if they're willing to haul a lot of water.
Kurt, I have to agree that the Park City trail system seems overused, based on my admittedly very limited experience with it (I mostly rode the part north of I-80 during the couple of days I was there). Are you referring to what I recall may be called the Mid-Mountain Trail? I never got to that one, but I hear it's popular.
I have never gone on multi day trips. A) I doubt my better half would be pleased. B) If I have to haul 30# of gear around, it would ruin my riding enjoyment. One can do anywhere from 20 to 40 miles in one day, depending on terrain and fitness. That's plenty enough for me to go enjoy the backcountry and then come back to a hot shower and warm bed.
Actually, I don't know too many cyclists who are up for multi day excursions, except for the Great Divide racers. http://www.greatdividerace.com/pages/home.html
Imtnbke, not the mid-mountain. That's only usable in summer months. It's another area of open space on the other side of town. It started out only as a hiking and occasional biking area, but as more space was added and the local foundation got more money, it became more popular.
As for the section north of 80, that's my backyard and it can be over-used. Never ride it on a weekend or holiday;-)
The only multi-day treks I was aware of, until Bob pointed out the Maah Daah Hey Trail in North Dakota, was the White Rim ride at Canyonlands and Kokopelli's Trail in southwestern Colorado/eastern Utah. Both employ sag wagons to haul your gear. I wouldn't mind added either or all to my bucket list...
Wow, this topic sure touched a lot of nerves!
Now I guess I know why our Congresscritters are so averse to trying to work out any compromises. It would take valuable time away from their campaign fundraising efforts.
Much easier to just say, "No"
But I've learned a lot by reading comments here from both sides -- and some other hot-button items such as beach driving in CAHA, mules in GRCA, and a host of others.
So thank you for your courage and the enormous amounts of time you must spend on this whole thing, Kurt.
Kurt,
There are lots of folks doing backcountry bike touring. And the Great Divide route is only one of many routes where it is legal to do so. Check out the link below Adventure Cycling's Top Ten Mountain Bike Tours. Of course I'm partial to the multi-use Arizona Trail for a superlative "bike-backing" experience, but then I'm biased. Did a three-day bike pack in Big Ben by the way, and loved it. The rangers issued me a backcountry camping permit and didn't balk when I told them I was bike-packing.
http://www.adventurecycling.org/landing_mtbrides.cfm
Here is the kind of riding that skilled cross-country mountain bikers live for (this is said to be in Slovenia). Sorry about the slow download.
http://video.mpora.com/watch/5qeKuG5MV/
There are, thankfully, still some places in the U.S. that offer something similar. But alas, much terrain like this has been walled off as Wilderness or off-limits National Parks System trails. Hiking in it is just not the same as riding in it. Not that there's anything wrong with hiking or backpacking; it's just different. Notice the flow that these guys are enjoying. And I can assure you they're taking in the landscape as much as any hiker or backpacker would.
Great soundtrack!
Those are some incredibly skilled riders. The way that guy hopped his bike around the switchbacks was amazing.
Although, judging from some of those dropoffs, I wonder if they were really able to take in the landscape as a hiker/backpacker would be able to or were more focused on the 8+ inches of trail right in front of their tire?
I've heard there are some mountain bike trails in Slovenia that lead you through old mines....
Thanks, Kurt. I agree about the soundtrack. The second piece, the classic "Ghost Riders in the Sky," I believe is the version by The Outlaws (available on iTunes). I should buy it. Does anyone know what the first piece is? I thought it was great.
Those guys' technical skills are way better than mine, but I still think that would be a great ride. It looks 90% rideable. I think that they concentrated their filming on the more difficult
sections, but it seems that there were miles of the stuff throughout the ride that we saw at the beginning.
Of course when they're dropping down some of those rugged drops they'd be looking only six feet in front of them. (Either that or it'd be a costly helicopter ride out to the hospital.) It looked like they were also stopping regularly even on the tough descents, however, and presumably they were looking around.
The main point about that video, I think, is that these highly skilled and very physically fit cyclists weren't bombing around in a way that would startle, scare, or injure a hiker. It shows what cross-country riding is really like. I'd be the first to admit that the bicycle industry's downhill mountain biking porn constitutes a continuing setback for bicycle trail access. To conflate that footage with actual bicycle riding is about the same as conflating pornography with dating. Because so many people have little or no experience with bicycles on trails (whereas presumably everyone has dated someone), they see it as what trail cyclists want. Whereas 99.9% of us don't, and for those who do, there are private lands and low-conservation-quality public areas they can head to, just like OHV drivers.
I am confident that the antiquated no-bikes rules in NPS and federal Wilderness will someday be repealed (which won't require any congressional action, just agency decisions) and we'll be able to ride areas like this in the U.S. In fact already we can. There is some incredible legal riding along the Continental Divide Nat'l Scenic Trail, and the Forest Service gave mountain bikers an effective access victory on the CDNST a year or two ago, while giving the traditionalists a rhetorical nod (formally, the trail continues to be primarily intended for packstock, horse, and foot use).
I hope people will take a look at the video and post comments. The download is slow. I recommend starting it, then immediately pausing it, waiting 10 minutes for the file to load, then starting it again so you can watch without interruption.
Kurt,
Your comment was interesting. It's very true that when riding a tight trail, especially one with so much exposure, a cyclist does not take in the landscape as much as a hiker would, but I don't see how that's relevant to the access discussion. I see it as an issue of personal choice. Presumably a hiker would rather have a slow pace that would let him/her enjoy the landscape whereas a cyclist would rather forego some of the landscape experience for a more rewarding ride experience. Neither one's better than the other. Furthermore, during a ride, there are plenty of opportunities to slow down, stop and enjoy the surroundings.
I have to admit that this looks like an amazing ride. Adding to bucket list...
I have read and participated in this and several other articles as many of you know. I think Kurt has probably come to know me to some extent as have some of you. I want to ask you this.
With few exceptions, can we all agree that Both sides of every issue have valid points of view. There are millions of acres in the national parks and therefore should be ample space for everyone to recreate in a manner suitable for them. Everyone is interested in preserving the integrity of our parks. Everyone has the best interests of Gods creatures at heart. Everyone wants to insure that future generations are insured of enjoying the parks as we have. I could go on but you get my point.
I started out with a chip on my shoulder. I could not understand why some people took the attitude that they did. It has taken a while, a lot of reading and writing and a whole lot of thought but I have learned a lot. The first thing I learned is that there are a lot of people involved. All kinds of people from all walks of life. There are people involved for different reasons. There are those involved because they like to do things in the parks and love the parks. These people, for the most part, love sharing the parks and love seeing others enjoying the parks as they themselves do. But some are involved for the wrong reasons. They possibly don't enjoy anything other than the feeling associated with power. The feeling that a dictator might thirst for. I'm not sure but, something must drive these people. For they do not look for ways to share and get along with others. They easily find fault instead of seeking out the good in their fellow man. They use excuses but we know what is really behind their actions. You know what I am saying or you don't want to know.
Kurt, you are in a difficult possition. You are trying to run a business. That can be tough but you are doing a good job. If I were you I would have to ask myself every morning, Who are my main supporters. I would have to give that consideration all day long. That could be tough at times. I don't envy you in that respect. I do respect you in that you do not let that dominate you as a person or in your work. You remain objective (wish I could sway that objectivity a bit more than I have been able to).
I think most of your readers and commentors are much like you. It seems that the more people comment and read others comments, the more they seem to get to know each other and many seem to start to understand where the other is coming from. Though they don't completely agree, they start to become tolerant and maybe even comprimising in their feelings.
Since participating, I think I have become a better person. At least, I hope so. I do believe there are some bad people out there that don't care about the parks as much as they do accumulating power and wielding it over others for self gratification. Please keep writing to the good people and provide them with a place to commune with those like themselves. You can sense something happening in the comments and one day good will come from it and the parks as well as the world will be better for it.
Ron (obxguys)
Good job, Ron! It IS interesting when you care about something and stay in the conversation. Everyone has a different learning curve. Hopefully, that curve is ongoing for us all, LOL! Rock On,K
I would think there would be miles of established suitable trails in Big Bend where the view for bikers and hikers affords dramatic vistas and plenty of leeway for each group to avoid
endangering each other in a park this size. I think Mt Biking can be a great way to view/access many national Parks for many reasons and I would like to thank all who commented for increasing my understanding of Mt Biking in this way. I would hope that some more Mt Biking/hiking trails could be identified and approved for Big Bend.
There are many national park supporters that view parks as masterpieces that should be altered only by natural process. When I was visiting St Peter’s Basilica in Vatican City and was viewing Michelangelo’s incredible masterpieces I had the overwhelming desire to
reach out and touch the cold marble. The works breathe life. One can believe there is a pulse under the skin of the sculptures.
I could even see the artist approving my touching his work. However I can understand why I’m not allowed to touch these works of art. Likewise I can understand some peoples desire to keep new lines from being drawn in certain national parks.
CAHA is a very different situation than Big Bend. Even ORV groups do not consider ORV access as recreation. Recreation is a key component of CAHA as was primitive wilderness. The failure of the NPS to regulate ORV access has had a profound affect on the wilderness aspect of CAHA.
No matter what side of the issue you are on, either MT Biking in Big Bend or gaining ORV access in CAHA, civility is the first step in finding a solution.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42306970/ns/travel-active_travel/
Yellowstone opens for spring bicycling
YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK, Wyo. — Bicycle riders have a few weeks to enjoy Yellowstone National Park before it opens to motorized, wheeled vehicles next month.
Crews at Yellowstone are clearing snow off the roads and the park is scheduled to open to motorists on April 15. Until then, bicyclists who are willing to brave the elements can tour the park under their own power.
The road between West Yellowstone, Madison, Norris and Mammoth Hot Springs will be open to bicycle travel for the next three weeks. Park officials say the northwest section of Yellowstone typically receives less snowfall than the rest of the park. There is no spring season bicycle-only access to Old Faithful or Canyon.
Riders must be prepared to encounter bears and other wildlife and should expect winter weather conditions.
Please notice no mention of Hikers.
In response to boiling everything down to economics...just my thoughts, but I really hope we do not boils things like wilderness and national parks down to economics, seems to rob them of what little purity they may have to begin with, but maybe that is just to romantic of a vision.
I'll take REALITY! Anyone think the Senior Executive Service isn't driven by economics is still watching Disney"s Bambi!
Allan,
Why would the trail be mediocre?
The one argument that comes back over and over is that there are plenty of trails outside the park that cater to cyclists, and therefore, the NPS should keep cyclists off trails in the park. I don't get the logic in the argument and does not address why bikes are kept off trails in the parks themselves.
My guess is that the park service and IMBA figure that it'd be "easier" to get a new trail approved than trying to turn existing trails into multi use. If this message board is any indication, grown ups really don't want to share, and would be quite vocal about sharing an existing trail with cyclists.
Pages