A Republican U.S. senator from Utah has introduced legislation that could open wilderness areas to mountain bikes. Sen. Mike Lee said his Human-Powered Travel in Wilderness Areas Act is needed to "enrich Americans’ enjoyment of the outdoors by expanding recreational opportunities in wilderness areas.”
Under the legislation introduced this week, federal land managers -- including the National Park Service -- would be given the authority to decide whether to allow and how to regulate non-motorized travel in wilderness areas within their jurisdictions.
The Wilderness Act of 1964 prohibits the use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment, motorboats, and other forms of mechanical transport in officially designated wilderness. Current Interior Department policy considers non-motorized mountain bikes to be “mechanical transport," the senator noted.
If enacted, the bill would insert language to the Wilderness Act to ensure that the rules restricting “mechanical transport” do not include forms of nonmotorized travel in which the sole propulsive power is one or more persons.
Through the years there have been many efforts to open officially designated wilderness to mountain bikes. Back in 2017 legislation was sponsored by U.S. Rep. Tom McClintock, R-California, to open wilderness to the bikes. Opposition came not only from the Appalachian Trail Conservancy, which worried that hikers on the iconic footpath that runs from northern Maine to Georgia could find themselves dodging bikers on some sections of trail, but also from the International Mountain Bicycling Association.
“Mountain bikers and the recreation community depend on public lands and thoughtful conservation. Public lands are being threatened at an unprecedented level right now, and it's imperative that public land users come together to protect these cherished places and offer our voices in this critical dialogue,” Dave Wiens, IMBA's executive director, said at the time. “We know Wilderness hits some mountain bikers’ backyards, and we understand why those riders support this legislation. To continue elevating mountain biking nationally, IMBA must remain focused on its long-term strategy for the bigger picture of our sport.”
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.
National parks and their natural resources belong to you. The National Parks Traveler works to ensure you know how these essential places are being cared for.
Sign Up For Our Weekly Newsletter
Unsubscribe at any time.
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
This is despicable, the Wilderness Act went through over 60 drafts to make sure the language was clear in eliminating all mechanized travel. The Act protects a very tiny amount of lands for wildlife, not humans. In 1964 when the Wilderness Bill was voted on it passed 374 to 1 in the House in favor of Wilderness. Don't let the recreation industry dictate the fate of our wildlands, we are lucky to have many million acres already open to bikes.
I agree. .. no mtn biking in protected areas.. disruptive to wildlife and dangerous for hikers in secluded areas. Leave it as it was designated.
NO, NO, NO
This is so wrong on so many levels. Wilderness areas are not playgrounds they are preserves for clean water and wildlife. The few humans who rely on their feet to get there enjoy the peace and solitude they find specifically because it is difficult to get there. Mike Lee should be ashamed. No wonder the Outdoor Rec Show left Utah.
The Few? Did you know that over 50,000 people go down the Middle Fork of the Salmon river in Idaho in the Frank Church Wilderness. They avearge 6 nights each. So, the few?
Kim Springer, were you part of the Congressional negotiation process when the Wilderness Act went through it's 60 iterations? I'm guessing not, because if you had been, then you would have known that bicycles were permitted for upwards of 20 years after the initial Act was passed and were intended to be included from the get-go. It was only after behind-the-scenes lobbying by Sirra Club that thrust fear into land managers when bikes became excluded. There are historical records on this to show this is the case.
The Act lists purposes of use of the land and the very first word listed is RECREATION. The policy makers at that time feared commercial development and concrete jungles would over run our public lands. The Wilderness Act stopped that, to which many of us are grateful. National Parks with popular trails won't change as a result of this bill, because land managers would never allow bike use in such areas. This bill simply gives land managers the option of opening some the trails that are rarely used and quickly becoming overgrown. And, cyclists are the among the most active trail maintainers of all trail user groups.
The RECREATION referenced in the Act is "Primitive and Unconfined Recreation" in wilderness that is characterized by being "untrammeled." (Untrammeled meaning "unhindered and free from modern human control or manipulation; wild.") Also, it's begging the claim to say that managers would never allow bikes in wilderness areas; we're assuming they would have the power to stop it at their level.
Here's a great [FREE!] online training about the Wilderness Act in case anybody is interested in more info: http://provalenslearning.com/carhart-interagency-wilderness-training-the...
"Primitive and unconfined recreation" in "untrammeled" land is recreation without much more than a human created trail and some signs. No bathrooms, no picnic tables, no cabins, no metal fire rings, no ranger stations, no roads, no convenience stores, no electricity, etc. Whether you walk, run, pedal or horsback ride in a primitive roadless area or a Wilderness area, you are enjoying primitive and unconfined recreation on largely untrammeled lands, where it is up to you and your skills, muscles, equipment and decisions that help you survive and enjoy the solitude and experience.
Diana, I asked my good friend Stewart Brandborg, who died a year ago and who carried the W Act over the finish line after Howard Zahnizer died, about bikes in Wilderness. He said the intent was clearly to prohibit mechanized transport in W. It is the biker revisionists who claim otherwise. I don't think you were at the table either. Yes, the FS failed to enforce the W Act in this regard for 20 years. Not surprising, given that the FS opposed the W Act from the get go. The FS has likewise failed to enforce the Montana Wilderness Study Act for 40 years up until recently and is now actively trying to rewind that enforcement due to political pressure from the bike industry.
Larry Campbell, I don’t believe Stuart Brandborg (or Zahniser) was ever a member of Congress or worked for a federal agency. He was part of a special interest group that did help make the Wilderness Act a law (after much compromise, by the way), but his 1960’s or 2010’s feelings about bicycles have no more weight on what congress enacted and what the USFS implemented than what you and anyone else prefers. I suggest folks stop living in the past and pretending that bicycling is not a legitimate form of backcountry exploration.
Actually, this is not correct at all and is based on a popular myth. Forest Service regulations did not address bicycles for 20 years. There's a huge difference between what the law requires or prohibits and what agencies address in regulations. The law, naturally, is the controlling language and clearly prohibits all forms of "mechanical transport." Recreation is definitely part of wilderness and is even included in the definition of wilderness in Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act. BUT, the type of recreation opportunity to be provided was also specified: "outstanding opportunties for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation." This has never been interpreted to include bicycles, nor could it be given the prohibitions of Section 4(c) of the Act.
"land managers would never allow bike use in such areas" - Except those land managers who are also mountain bikers, or friendly to mountain bikers. Trails quickly being overgrown due to lack of use? Awesome! Let nature have it. Cyclists are most active trail maintainers - no doubt! They LOVE to dig more than ride, and make new trails too. The proud fact that MTBs are good trail maintainers is not germane to the policy of excluding mechanical trasnport.
Diana Boyer, Read the Wilderness Act. Read the legislative history. It doesn’t just say “no motorized transport.” It also says “no mechanical transport.” Bikes are mechanical transport. Part of the careful crafeting of the law was eliminating all unnecessary words. If they meant to exclude motorized transport but allow bikes, they would not have put in those words “no mechanical transport.” The authors of the Act knew that technology is always evolving and that new forms of transport would be invented over time. There were road bikes in 1964, but mountain bikes didn’t even exist in 1964 (yes, I was around then). Even by the early 1980s there were very few mountain bikers entering the backcountry. The authors of the Wilderness Act didn’t say bikes were fine, they didn’t say bikes were permitted, they didn’t say bikes “were intended to be included from the get-go.” This is pure fabrication. They didn’t specifically name bikes as a prohibited use because mountain bikes weren’t a thing yet. What they said is “no mechanical transport,” which obviously includes bikes.
The first and primary mandate for management of Wilderness is not recreation. It’s PROTECTING WILDERNESS CHARACTER. Recreation and other uses may occur only to the extent they do not destroy wilderness character. Since by definition, Wilderness is free of motorized and mechanized transport, filling it with bikes or other machines destroys its wilderness character. Wilderness makes up a mere 2.7% of the land base in the lower 48 states—why can’t this tiny remnant remain free of machines? Why do you have to have it all? There are millions of acres of public land already open to mountain bikes. Let wildlife have a little bit too, undisturbed by racing machines and dense networks of habitat-destroying trails.
Hi Ann Harvey, can you explain why the code of federal regulations that outlined "the rules" of Wilderness defined mechanical transport like this in 1966? "(a) Mechanical transport, as herein used, shall include any contrivance which travels over ground, snow, or water on wheels, tracks, skids, or by floatation and is propelled by a nonliving power source contained or carried on or within the device." [https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2002-title36-vol2/pdf/CFR-2002-t... Clearly a bicycle is powered by a living power source. Do you think maybe congress and federal agencies were imagining ski lifts, trams, gondolas, and other non-traditional forms of (motorized) mechanical transport... and not bicycles, wheelbarrows, game carts and jogging strollers?
Congress has never banned human powered bicycling in Wilderness. Federal agencies discussed prohibiting bicycles in 1966 but elected to NOT prohibit them under their definition of what "mechanical transport" meant back then. This is all documented, by the way. 10 years later in 1977, the USFS decided to prohibit bikes before changing their minds in 1982 and allowing them once again. Then, under heavy pressure from the Sierra Club, they finally said No Bikes in 1984... and that's how we arrived here, 35 years later and Wilderness acres continuing to grow. Senator Lee and other members of congress are trying to restore the recreation component of the Wilderness Act back to its original intent: Activities powered by a living power source. It will make Wilderness larger and stronger by being more inclusive of a valid form of Wilderness recreation. All versions of this legislation over the past few years has not touched the Appalachian Trail, due to how it was officially designated by congress as a footpath (horses are not even allowed on much of it). The many people who chime in on these comment sections in favor of keeping 100% of our Wilderness areas off limits to bicycles 100% of the time would just as soon vote to ban horses, hunters, rock climbers, cattle and loud talkers if given the opportunity. But that's not how public land management works.
"no mechanical transport of any kind"
OK so no oarlocks and no ski bindings either?
In the past 15 years mountain bikers in Montana have lost over 1000 miles of trail access to Wilderness and areas that are recomended wilderness and wilderness study areas.
I have been riding here for 30 years. We never see anyone on the back country trails and many are dissapearing due to lack of maintanence. The USFS doesn't have the $$$ for maintanence so we end up doing irt We are not asking for access to every trail or even the trails in wilderness that we have never been allowed on. We simply want to stop losing access and regain access to trails that have a history of past use. And FWIW we do not want to ride in National Parks either.
Wilderness.
I don't know what the misunderstanding is. Don't bring your boom boxes, don't bring your chainsaws, don't bring your bikes.
Wilderness areas in the Lower 48 occupy 2% of the total land base. Is it too much to ask that we leave some wild places for the next generations?
Diane Boyer, mountain bikes have never been allowed in Wilderness Areas. The 1984 ruling was a clarification of the Wilderness Act, it didn't change the Wilderness Act. It's obvious that mountain biking is mechanical transport and has always been banned
Todd McMahon, that is a categorically false claim and there is no shortage of historical documentation that shows you are incorrect with your wishful thinking.
HMMM, if "that is a categorically false claim and there is no shortage of historical documentation that shows you are incorrect" then bring it on. I'd like to see this documentation. It probably is the same old false crap that STC has been dishing out for years
Hi Tman, are you saying these are fabricated USDA memorandums? https://www.facebook.com/SustainableTrailsCoalition/posts/1420202288088565
https://www.backcountryhunters.org/colorado_bha_report_impacts_of_off_ro...
I believe most mountain bikers agree that there are places — such as wilderness — where mountain bikes do not belong. It is sad that there are a few mountain bikers who either do not understand this or simply do not care. Their claims that the plain language of The Wilderness Act does not ban mountain bikes, that Congress did not really mean to ban mountain bikes, or that agency regulations legitimately allowed mountain bikes in wilderness for 20 years are completely baseless.
These claims are thoroughly debunked in these pieces by Doug Scott http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/elist/eListRead/wildly_sill... Tim Lydon https://therevelator.org/mountain-bikes-federal-wilderness/ and George Wuerthner https://www.thewildlifenews.com/2018/02/08/mountain-biking-threat-to-wil...
The opposition to Senator Lee's bill is not coming from a few ultra purists. Here is a letter signed by 150 conservation organizations, both big and small, from across the country — including mine, RESTORE: The North Woods — strongly opposing the 2018 version of this harmful bill. https://wildernesswatch.org/images/wild-issues/2018/06-05-2018-Mtn-bike-...
Most of America is crisscrossed by roads and trails. Our public lands have thousands of miles of trails and back roads open to mountain bikes. Only a tiny percentage of our nation is protected as wilderness. We cannot allow a small minority of recreational users to gut one of our most important environmental laws so they can ride mountain bikes on a few more miles of trail at the expense of wild nature and those of us who care about it.
Mountain bikes have always been banned from Wilderness Areas. The Wilderness Act clearly says "no other form of mechanical transport." The 1984 ruling by the Forest Service was just a clarification of the Wilderness Act, not a change of the Wilderness Act. so Hmm is totally wrong on this one.
Although, I don’t like Senator Lee’s Bill a compromise needs to be made with Mountain Bikers and wilderness enthusiasts in the years ahead. I’m a mountain biker and I have seen the good, bad, and ugly when bikers don’t stay on designated trails. Yet, bikers love the wilderness and wilderness ideals as well. Bikers are avid conservationists as well. Grandfather some trails into the wilderness areas and keep other trails off limits to mountain bikers. The Frank Church wilderness in Idaho has designated air strips that were grandfathered in by Senator Church from Idaho long ago. Compromise, compromise.
Joshua, here's the compromise. Leave your bike home and hike in Wilderness Areas.
Wilderness Areas are less than 3% of the Land Area in the Lower 48 States and Mountain bikers
are less than 3% of the population. Having mountain bikes in Wilderness Areas is really
not needed.
And, what will happen if you do get to ride in Wilderness Areas? Every time you ride in a
Wilderness Area you will not be visiting a trail system developed by a local town. These
towns have spent valuable time and resources developing trails and becoming
bike friendly, and you want to dump them to go biking in a Wilderness Area.
Some thanks you are giving them.
The Airstrips were grandfathered in because they were there before the Wilderness
Act was created in 1964. Mountain biking started in the late 1970's and the first
commercially made mountain bike rolle out of the factory in 1981. Mountain bikes
really can't be grandfathered in because they were not present before the
Wilderness Act.
If you are really an avid conservationist you would support having some areas
without mechanical transport.
Todd....
I agree with you. I was just reading earlier posters muse on how they too love the wilderness, and I thought that is great. Please come and hike into the wilderness like everyone else! You are not deprived of the wilderness any more than I am deprived of interstate transport when they tell me not to hike on the freeways, but instead to drive a car. Time and place, that's all.
Hmm.., I'm not saying those Documents were fabricate, I'm saying they are irrelevant. The Forest Service was in the process of deciding what their policy would be. The one memo even discusses two different interpretations of the Act. Again, if the current ruling is wrong, all STC would have to do is sue the Forest Service. They are not doing so. Sueing the Forest Service would cost far less than the $250,000 they are wasting on lobbying.
No for all of the above reasons! Mike Lee's motivations are always for profit and never for protecting wilderness.
I have back packed into wilderness ares. I have horse packed into wilderness area. For those of you who say that wilderness areas were designatedprimarily for the natural preservation of the wild life. first of all I say bull. Hunting has always been permitted in wilderness area. Teddy Roosevelt hunted in the very areas he wanted designated as wilderness. If we are to ban anything that is mechanical that transports people then we must ban snow shoes and cross country skis. If we are to ban any being that has a detrimental impact on the wilderness than all humans have to be banned. Those that use forest wood to build fires, those who build trails and tramp across country. Human use is not possible without leaving a mark or a scar. I have a friend that was trail riding on a wilderness area trail when he met a hiker with a shoulder pack approaching from the other direction. Since the hiker was not giving way my friend moved his horse off the trail. The hiker stoppedand said, "I just wanted to thank you for moving off the trail." My friend replied, "If you had been the one to move off my horse would not be standing here disturbing the forest floor." This person thought that he was so entitled to the trail, so superior inj his attitude, so selfish and so ignorant, clueless and blind that he had no conception of what was environmentally beneficial to that wilderness. I am just a passerby in this forum but I would be willing to bet that too many of you suffer from the same dificiency syndrom. Too many Sierra Club members suffer from it. The wilderness does not belong exclusively to you. What I have seen in Oregon's Fremont National Forest is that the public is being systematically locked out of our public lands. When I first moved to Oregon our timber resources were being raped. It was the public users that stopped it. When a fence with No Trespassing signs are built around our wilderness areas then there will be no accountability. Our public lands belong to everybody.