The International Mountain Bicycling Association is running a campaign to gain access to National Scenic Trails, such as the Appalachian National Scenic Trail and the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail, and is being opposed by the American Hiking Society and watched by other groups.
While IMBA touts the campaign as a way to allow mountain bikers to "continue to enjoy our nation's best trails and open bike access on more," the American Hiking Society counters by stating that it "believes that trails that allow hikers to explore the outdoors without competing with bicyclists are in some instances entirely appropriate."
Across the country there are a number of national scenic trails -- the Appalachian National Scenic Trail, the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail, the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail, the Ice Age National Scenic Trail, and the Natchez Trace National Scenic Trail, just to name a few. While many of the trails are managed by the National Park Service, others are managed by the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. As might be expected, these different entities have different regulations when it comes to mountain bikes on national scenic trails.
The Continental Divide National Scenic Trail, which is managed by the Forest Service, permits mountain bike use "along those segments that are outside of designated and recommended wilderness areas, and have been approved by the federal land managers. However, these activities may only occur as long as they do not 'substantially interfere' with the nature and purposes for which the trail was created- namely foot and stock use."
The Park Service, meanwhile, prohibits mountain bikes on the Appalachian Trail. Bikes also are prohibited on the Pacific Crest Trail, which is managed by the Forest Service.
IMBA Communications Director Mark Eller did not respond to a Traveler inquiry as to which national scenic trails his group wants access to. However, in a blog post on IMBA's site in August he wrote that there obviously are some trails too rugged for bikers.
"The Appalachian Trail is specifically designated as a foot-travel route, and as someone who spent many years leading backpacking trips on the AT in Virginia, Maryland and Pennsylvania I can tell you that it ... would not make an appealing venue for mountain biking. Other trails traverse wilderness parcels where biking isn't an option," he wrote.
"IMBA is not being absolutist in our approach. We are more than willing to discuss how to advance more opportunities for long-distance trails, and where bikes will, and will not, be a welcome addition," he added. "It's a discussion we hope to have with many groups, and land managers, in upcoming weeks. Ideally, we could all talk while enjoying a nice hike, or bike ride, together."
IMBA's efforts to expand biking access onto national scenic trails is being watched by a number of groups, including the Appalachian Trail Conservancy.
"The National Scenic Trails community, as well as the American Hiking Society, is aware of IMBA's push for biking access on some portions of National Scenic Trails. ATC has seen recent rhetoric and we are working collectively with the Partnership for the National Scenic Trails and the AHS to address concerns with IMBA's initiative," Laura Belleville, director of conservation for the Conservancy, said in an email.
"The A.T. is designated 'footpath only' by Congress, and we have not had any specific proposals for bike access on the A.T. Thus far we have not made any organizational statements about IMBA's 'campaign,' but we fully support PNTS and AHS," she added. "We are carefully watching the campaign and will offer a statement at the appropriate time if necessary."
Support Essential Coverage of Essential Places
Comments
Hi, ecbuck,
Thanks for replying. I did overgeneralize. One risk of writing quickly is that of reducing things to stereotypes. I'm extrapolating from a few sections I've seen in Mass. and Vt., which were fall-line, steep, muddy, mosquito-ridden, rooty, and/or eroded. (And that was in the 1970s.) For all I know 90% of the AT could be fine! However, I would suspect that the AT's age gives it problems in areas other than those I've seen.
I think that mountain bikers generally, and the International Mountain Bicycling Association specifically, have brought trail design and construction into a golden age that has long escaped a number of public land managers (although the NPS trails I've seen seem to be well-designed and -built). Obviously I've seen only a tiny amount of the National Forest and BLM Wilderness trails, but in my experience many have been either (a) semiabandoned or (b) loved to death, particularly by horses and packstock, and never designed for the use they're getting. The miles (so far just a handful, maybe in the hundreds) of IMBA Trail Solutions-designed trails are, by contrast, marvels of engineering. I think Kurt disagrees with me on this, though.
I've been to Harper's Ferry, W.Va., but never hiked the AT there. It sounds idyllic, because the area around Harper's Ferry is beautiful. (Again, I may be oversimplifying, but that's my recollection of it, which also dates back to the 1970s.)
Ec, I'm just stating the facts. Furthermore, many sections the PCT, like most backcountry trails, are mostly empty outside of the through hiker season, and could benefit from a bit more use. Whether cyclists use it or not is not going to impact the decision of the USFS.
I don't know that if that is true. If the USFS, or the general public whose support you are trying to garner views you as "outlaws", you aren't going to win their support regardless of the merits.
I don't know that if that is true. If the USFS, or the general public whose support you are trying to garner views you as "outlaws", you aren't going to win their support regardless of the merits.
EC, I think it's harmless. HOHAs would not support cycling regardless of whether cyclists follow that inane closure order or not. The rest of the population does not care. So, in the eye of Joe Public, following or not following the closure order will make zero difference. LIfe is short, might as well enjoy while one can.
As for the USFS, they clearly have been dragging their feet on this one. The reason is pretty obvious, reviewing the closure order has no upside for them. It's a lot more work, and regardless of the outcome, some vocal minority will be upset. One just needs to look at the PCT-L posts to see the hatred that came out when the initiative was announced. I'm guessing that the USFS would rather try to wiggle its way out of doing anything.
Zebulon is referring to the Pacific Crest Trail Association-affiliated listserv PCT_L, on which one or more people have threatened to lay maiming or lethal mantraps for any cyclists who might ride the PCT if multiuse is restored, to sabotage the trail to try to thwart cyclists' use, and/or to try to block cyclists bodily.
It's a disgrace to the PCTA that it hasn't censured the fanatics in its midst. (It's an interesting cultural question what gives rise to such fanaticism in the first place.) Moreover, the violence-minded are foolish to vent on PCT_L, since their statements can be used against them in any eventual prosecutions for murder, manslaughter, aggravated assault, simple assault, battery, and/or false imprisonment.
See, e.g., the discussion for October 2012 on PCT_L:
http://mailman.backcountry.net/pipermail/pct-l/2012-October/subject.html
National Parks Traveler and IMBA aren't honest enough to admit that mountain bikers ALREADY have access to all of these trails: ON FOOT, just like everyone else. They are just too lazy to walk. But that's no reason to change the rule.
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: [color=#0066cc]http://mjvande.nfshost.com/mtb10.htm[/color] . 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 [color=#0066cc]http://mjvande.nfshost.com/scb7.htm[/color] ). 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?
To see exactly what harm mountain biking does to the land, watch this 5-minute video: [color=#0066cc]http://vimeo.com/48784297[/color].
For more information: [color=#0066cc]http://mjvande.nfshost.com/mtbfaq.htm[/color] .
Why should we allow horses on trails but not mountain bikes?
I'd like to expand the scope of this discussion to include National Parks like the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. There is a great need for a complete reassessment of all hiking trails in the Smokies for purposes of determining their suitability for use as horse trails. Presently, nearly 80% of the hiking trails in the Smokies are dual-use (horse and hiker). Many of those trails are clearly well-suited for use by mountain bikes, however, with a few exceptions, all trails in the Smokies are off-limits to bicycle usage. My view has always been that horses do far more damage and, in the minds of hikers, are much less welcome on trails than mountain bikes. With proper selection, many hiking trails in most national parks could be multi-use (hike, bike & horse), especially for those parks allowing horse travel on the same trails.