When it comes to managing the National Park System, the example before us is clearly not the right way. In this case, we're referring to Interior Secretary David Bernhardt and de facto National Park Service Director P. Dan Smith on, most recently, the topic of eBikes in the parks.
Bernhardt seems to treat the parks as his fiefdom to manage to the benefit of his industry friends. For Smith, well, he follows the secretary's lead.
Evidence of that arose at the end of 2018, when the partial government shutdown arrived. While the National Park System was closed during past government shutdowns, Bernhardt wanted it kept open, and Smith agreed. They even agreed, after piles of garbage arose and restrooms turned disgusting, to divert Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act dollars to pay for custodial staff.
We know, of course, that keeping the parks open wasn't the best decision. One of Joshua Tree National Park's iconic trees was cut down, a backcountry traveler in Big Bend National Park broke his leg and was extremely fortunate to encounter an off-duty ranger, who carried him on his back for two miles, and off-roaders went where they shouldn't in Death Valley National Park. How many other issues arose during the partial shutdown is hard to know, as Interior is dragging its feet on responding to Freedom of Information Act requests.
That the Interior secretary would open the gates to allow eBikes to motor down park trails where traditional bicycles can roll shouldn't be surprising. Back in November 2018, during a meeting of the “Made in America” Outdoor Recreation Advisory Committee, one committee member, Phil Morlock, a vice president at Shimano North America Holdings, pointed out that Interior policy at the time banned eBikes from some areas of public lands because they were considered to be motorized vehicles.
"He suggested that this specific case be used as an example to review existing DOI policy issues which prevent outdoor recreationists from using new technology on public lands," draft minutes from the meeting noted.
While it isn't surprising that Bernhardt issued a secretarial order last week to allow greater eBike access (will privately owned drones get clearance next?), how he did, and how Smith responded in a press release for the public and a directive to his superintendents, are examples of how not to manage the parks. Or any business.
There had been an agreement to issue the policy this coming Thursday, but Bernhardt surprised more than a few folks, including some in the National Park Service, by releasing it last Thursday evening. In his secretarial order, Bernhardt said that within two weeks from last Thursday all three classes of eBikes must be exempted from being considered motorized vehicles within the park system.
Within 30 days, Bernhardt went on, he wanted to see summaries of any policy changes needed to increase eBike access to the parks, of any laws or regulations that stand in the way of such access, and a timeline for seeking public comment on changing any regulations to allow greater eBike access. At that time, as well, he wanted the National Park Service to provide visitors with guidance on where they could ride their eBikes.
In other words, first grant eBike access to park visitors and then explain how to make it neat and legal. Even though, Bernhardt should have engaged the public, the various trail groups, communities around parks, and other park users before he released the policy. Oh, and maybe evaluated potential visitor conflicts, impacts to wildlife and cultural resources, cost of enforcement—but that would have made his decision informed rather than seemingly haphazard.
As for Smith, he sent out a press release Friday stating that the Park Service has "a new electric bicycle policy for national parks..." Nevermind that under 36 CFR Section 1.5 the Park Service needs to go through rulemaking steps before it can adopt such a policy.
But there's more that's baffling when you read Smith's press release and his directive to superintendents. For instance:
* "The operator of an e-bike may only use the motor to assist pedal propulsion," stated Smith's release. "The motor may not be used to propel an e-bike without the rider also pedaling, except in locations open to public motor vehicle traffic."
So, how many park rangers will be needed to monitor whether eBikers are pedaling or not?
* "Park superintendents will retain the right to limit, restrict, or impose conditions of bicycle use and e-bike use in order to ensure visitor safety and resource protection," the release added. "Over the coming month, superintendents will work with their local communities, staff, and partners to determine best practices and guidance for e-bike use in their parks."
So, on one hand Bernhardt is calling for more eBike access, as is Smith ... unless superintendents disagree. And while Bernhardt is calling for 30 days to pass before a public comment period is scheduled, Smith expects superintendents to get that done over the next 30 days. A tight schedule to say the least, if all the steps are followed.
But Smith is making it easy for superintendents to get by without much, if any, public comment. In a memorandum sent to them Friday the acting NPS director said superintendents "must" add language to their compendia (the on-the-ground rulebook used in individual parks for managing uses) to allow eBikes where "traditional bikes are allowed," and he even provided a fill-in-the-blank form for getting the job done.
Furthermore, Smith directed superintendents to adopt existing state laws pertaining to eBikes where their park is found. They also must comply with 36 CFR Section 1.7, which pertains to public notice, he added (if only, perhaps, to say he wanted public comment). He also told them to adhere to the National Environmental Policy Act, though Smith also pointed out that to meet Bernhardt's directive superintendents will resort to making a "categorial exclusion" that shortcuts the process.
What will be interesting to see is whether those parks that have blocked eBike use on trails now will be forced to do a 180.
You can argue whether eBikes have a place on hiking trails in the parks, but if you want to go through the rulemaking channels established under the Code of Federal Regulations and be circumspect with your decision-making, the approach Bernhardt and Smith took is not the handbook to follow.
The end result is not only a poor, disjointed example of how to manage "America's best idea," but it does a disservice to all recreational users of the parks, including eBikers. Instead of having a well-thought-out policy for recreation, this just muddies the waters, poses a threat to resources and other park users, and could end up in court.
Comments
Kurt- Thank you for that list. Much appreciated.
vested or not its about fairness and obviously if you can read at all.... he is not interest or supportive of ebikes. He compares them to "drones".... Look at the other articles hes written even before the change and you will see the same attitude. Lets just be real and honest, he doesnt like ebikes, weather it was handled corretly or not....
Now to be honest I am not sure it was handled correctly currently, but as was pointed out I think its a reaction to the fact that it wasnt handled correctly to begin with. A non-self propelled bicycle doesnt violate the rules in many peoples opinions as its stated in the rules. Although the rules are somewhat contradictory because the werent written for ebikes but rather for motorcycles etc. If they wouldnt have handed out expensive tickets for something they dont understand it probably wouldnt have created such an issue to begin with.
Doug, I really haven't taken a stand one way or the other on eBikes. But I've noticed that quite a few government entities in the U.S. and abroad have taken a close look at them and come up with regulations.
For instance, in California Class 3 eBikes are prohibited on multi-use bike paths unless a local ordinance allows them. And the state mandated that riders be at least 16 and must wear helmets.
And as we previously noted, in Missouri eBikes were banned from Johnson County park trails.
The Park Service is required to do its due diligence on where eBikes can travel. The NPS states on its Electric Bike page that: "Superintendents are encouraged to engage with the public prior to implementing the policy memorandum so that superintendents and park staff can better understand potential impacts to resources and visitors, support for, and controversy associated with, allowing e-bikes where traditional bicycles are allowed."
While Cape Cod National Seashore has allowed for a week-long public education period, none of the other parks that have announced eBike access (Bryce Canyon, Glacer, Grand Teton, Yellowstone) have, to the best of our knowledge, "engaged with the public prior to implementing the policy memorandum...
Interestingly, on the Electric Bike page NPS also acknowledges that "(R)esearch on the likelihood and severity of e-bike crashes is limited at this time. There is recognition that more research is required to gain a clearer understanding of the differences, if any, between the use of e-bikes and traditional bicycles."
I believe we are at the point where we have to acknowledge that this discussion is degenerating into low, school playground level, bullying on the part of electric motorbike advocates. The need for a full analysis of the impacts of and regulatory requirements needed before the NPS can proceed to allow further use of these devices on and on parklands, due dilignence to use Repanshek's words, has been fully explained in language that any fully adult citizen should be able to understand. The tone of this discussion, the level of bullying, and the inability of electric motorbike advocates to comprehend even the most fundamental concepts of functional governance have now driven me out of the category of neutral, even disinterested as long as some formality of operations can be followed in the rulemaking process, and into the catgegory of opposed to any motorbike use anywhere. If electric motorbike advocates cannot act in a mature and dignified manner just discussing the process of how to open the trails to their use, then I don't want to be bothered by them in the field and they can crawl across the landscape on their stinking knees as far as I now care; they've put on a disgusting display here.
Nothing like a dignified manner of discussion
This is absolutley true and I love the regulations. Of course federal law classifies ebikes with all other bikes and are allowed on all areas that noramal bikes are allowed. So if your state hasnt passed any laws they are the same as bikes. California has actually went one step further in support by recognizing class 3 ebikes on curb to curb infastructure. This is because they see the benfits to pollution and traffic and huge amount of money spent on infastructure and see ebikes as a massive benefit to that problem. So the federal government believes they should be allowed on bike paths and most states believe the same but we should hand out tickets if they are on a cairrage road because they are totally different??? I honestly have no gripe with you Kurt although I do think you have had a bias towards not allowing ebikes the same freedoms as regular bikes in the beginning, you seem to be trying to be more open in your last article when you noted the large reation from people who benefit from them. But I honestly believe you still dont have a full understanding of the truth about the different classes of ebikes. I think the DOI doesnt either or they would realize that class 3 ebikes represent a moderately elevated risk compared to Class 1 and 2 ebikes. However it has been you and the people on this site that have lumped them together from the begining basically saying they are all "motorized" and they cant be allowed on non motorized places. You honestly have no idea of the limits you are putting on ebike riders.
Rumple is one of your biggest defenders and has done nothing but spout ignorance about ebikes, what does that say about your percieved stand? Most ebike riders have commented as to just how insulting and biased your articles have been, what does that say about your stand?
Rumple and many non ebike people's largest complaint is only "MOTOR" yet the rules being discussed have clearly stated self-propelled (although I agree with you that this is for an old understanding and new vehicles should still be looked at), but where do you draw the line??? a 2 mph lark for people who cant walk shouldnt be allowed on a bike path? Its clearly MOTORIZED? Infact is self-propelled.... Or would maybe some reasonableness be in order from some people who clearly have zero understanding of the benefits or nonbenefits of an ebike, rather than just spouting that they have been labeled the "silent Killer" by someone else who clearly has no Idea what they are talking about. Ignorance begetts ignorance, and for the most part I believe the commenters on here and even partially you have only uneducated people and honestly I think those parks that handed out fines for class one ebikes didnt apply the rules that we are talking about. The one conversation that is easy to have is that the argument is about SPEED. But all ebike riders have said they have no issue with speed caps and ebikes are not faster than regular bikes, and all people like rumple say they are motorized and cant go on trails and dont want to discuss speed. Lets be honest its pretty clear bias. E mountain bike riders dont care about motorized trails!!! the bike is the exact same bike designed for single track with a small peddle assist mainly for going uphills and has absolutely no affect going down hills. If you have ever rode one you would understand this. Most people who buy ebikes comment something like this " my wife/husband and I like to ride together but my wife/husband had a hard time keeping up with me, So I bought my wife/husband an ebike and now we can ride together again. All bike riders want to ride togehter. it sucks riding alone.
Think about some of these facts you can put in your next article:
1. Class 1 and 2 Ebikes are not classified any differently than normal bikes in the majority of areas in the united states.
2. you cant even register them as a motorcyle in almost all locations
3. in arizona, where I live, all motorized vehicles are required to travel in automobile lanes and cant travel in bike lanes or bike paths or sidewalks, even if they qualified as a moped, which they dont, mopeds are not allowed on any road with a speed limit over 25mph. Want to know why? SPEED they hold up traffic and SAFETY they are to slow to be safe.
4. Mopeds arent motorcyles either. you dont even need a motorcycles license
5. Try to take a motorcyles test on an ebike. Your not allowed....
6. so if there not mopeds and not bikes and not motorcyles that means you cant ride them?
Why would we treat them like every other bike in all locations EXCEPT the national parks?
Rumple, the only disgusting display has been you, and your rhetoric has honestly been the least reasonable or mature.
You still cant even say "ebike" or "peddle assist" lol, you have to enforce your electric "motorbike" opinion so you can somehow prove that they are only allowed on "motorized" trails. So the federal government says they are bikes at your local park but that doesnt have any bearing on the national park? or maybe you should have a moderate amount of reasonableness and be open to the fact that maybe they are more equal to standard bikes?
What law (or regulation) is that? The only thing I've seen in the United States Code or the Code of Federal Regulations is that as a product they are to be regulated as a consumer product - I suppose like pedal powered bicycles, skateboards, hoverboards, Segways, etc. I've seen no federal law/regulation that requires them to be treated the same as non-assisted bicycles as a form of transportation.