A coalition of groups is opposing legislation that would allow mountain bikers to access trails in wilderness areas/Kurt Repanshek file
A coalition of groups is pushing to stop legislation in the U.S. Senate that would open wilderness areas to mountain bike use.
The coalition, which includes the American Hiking Society, Appalachian Trails Conservancy, National Wilderness Stewardship Alliance, and Pacific Crest Trail Association, maintains that there are enough trails open to mountain bikers without the need to allow them access to official wilderness.
"We strongly oppose S. 1695, and encourage subcommittee members to oppose this legislation as well," the group said in a letter to U.S. Sens. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, of the Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests and Mining, which has been considering the measure. "S. 1695 seeks to open federal wilderness areas to mountain biking, a clear violation of the 1964 Wilderness Act, the nation’s seminal conservation law. Most importantly, S. 1695 would threaten the character of the entire National Wilderness Preservation System by undermining our nation’s bedrock landscape conservation tool."
Introduced by Lee in 2019, the Human-Powered Travel in Wilderness Areas Act would redefine "human travel" in official wilderness as that which does not involve a "propulsive internal or external motor with a nonliving power source." When Lee introduced the measure, he said the access was needed to "enrich Americans’ enjoyment of the outdoors by expanding recreational opportunities in wilderness areas.”
Under the legislation, 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.
In arguing againt the bill, the groups said the Wilderness Act "is more relevant today than ever before."
"Our nation's wilderness areas include only 5 percent of our nation’s public lands. In the lower 48 states, it’s merely 3 percent," they noted. "The remaining 97 percent is open to motorized and mechanized recreation. Designated wilderness areas have a fundamentally different purpose than providing for motorized and mechanized access. In fact, that is the very purpose of the Wilderness Act – to provide for a few remote, pristine areas where nature prevails."
They also pointed out that "(T)here remains a nearly inexhaustible supply of non-wilderness federal lands that are open to mountain biking and where additional mountain bike trails and opportunities continue to be created. In the last decade, new mountain biking trails have been developed at a historically rapid rate."
Allowing today's mountain bikes into wilderness would transform those areas, the letter claimed.
"Proponents of S. 1695 argue that bikes are human powered and should be allowed to go everywhere a hiker can go. That is no reason to amend the Wilderness Act. A closer look at the capability of these machines says otherwise," they wrote. "Today’s mountain bikes, with their disc brakes, shock absorbers and climbing-gear-oriented drive trains are technical machines designed to take their riders further and faster than ever before.
"Where a backpacker or horseback rider might take an entire day to climb 10 miles into the wilderness, a mountain biker can do it in two hours. Simply put, S. 1695 would open a Pandora’s box to other forms of mechanized travel by future Congresses. It would forever change the primitive, backcountry experience enjoyed by millions of Americans each year."
You can read the entire letter here.
With few weeks left in the current session of Congress, it's questionable whether the bill will be acted on.
The International Mountain Bicycling Association's position is that it "will continue to respect both the Wilderness Act and the federal land agencies' regulations that bicycles are not allowed in existing Wilderness areas. This 2016 position strategically aligns with our well-established and relevant mission to create, enhance and preserve great mountain biking experiences.
"When proposed Wilderness areas include mountain biking assets and opportunities, IMBA advocates for and vigorously negotiates using a variety of legislative tools, including boundary adjustments, trail corridors and alternative land designations that protect natural areas while preserving bicycle access," the group adds in a position statement on its website. "IMBA can support new Wilderness designations only where they don't adversely impact singletrack trail access for mountain biking."
Comments
Matt - why is "nature, quiet, and solace from the modern world" necessarily superior to "the desire for thrills,"? Isn't that a value judgement - one which people can disagree? You know like chocolate vs vanilla ice cream? After all, both are building trails, legal and illegal, through the wilderness. I have hiked thousands of miles of trails, some hiker only, some allowing bikes and some allowing horses. I rarely saw any trail that had incremental damage from bikes. Horses? That is a whole other level of destruction.
Back room deals? You mean the "wilderness act"? I mountain bike, and can say that there are places that bikes should not be.
Because value of the "thrills" is a hell of a lot more invasive than value of silence and solace.
Allowing a mechanized conveyance inside a wilderness area is a slippery slope. Then what? E bikes since they are "green"? Maybe the fat lazy slobs of the world decide to makea fuss and say that they deserve a right to use the area even though they are unwilling to walk or pedal it, and they do no more damage that a regular mtn bike?
More invasive? How is a bike more invasive than a human walking or someone riding a horse?
Zebulon -- your statement "...the Boulder Cloud Wilderness used to be open to MTBs" is a lie at worst, disingenuous at best. The Boulder-White Clouds Wilderness has NEVER been open to bikers; the area was only open to bikers BEFORE it became Wilderness. Big difference.
Mike - thank you for your statement and all the research you conducted. I try to advocate bans on mountain biking in my neck of the woods, which happens to be Germany right now, and, partially, Switzerland. In both countries, mountain biking is seen as an energy-friendly, economically viable means of transportation. Only recently has that stance experienced some criticism, interestingly so since the Corona pandemic forced folks into various stages of lockdowns. For many, one of the few opportunities to leave the house were strolls in the woods with or without their dogs. It was then and there that many people saw the damage caused by mountain bikers for the first time. In addition, mountain bikers tend to carry themselves in a rather ruthless, self-absorbed manner, often paired with aggressive behavior - particularly on remote trails deep in the woods with no authorities in the vicinity. In both Germany and Switzerland, there are reports of fistfights between bikers and hikers when interests collide. Friends in other parts of Europe, particularly the UK and Austria, report similar occurances. There must be a better way to bring different interests under one hat. It'll be difficult, since we all know: Following the money will reveal that mountain bike makers and their support industry (gear and helmet makers, event organizers, sponsors etc) have established quite a lobby. I sure hope that some powerful NGO's will push these people back.
I am an outdoor, non-motorized enthusiast - hiker, flat water paddler, road and mountain biker, XC skier, and snowshoer. I will not recreate on a motorized trail unless I can help it, and I'm also not crazy about hiking on heavily used equestrian trails due to deep dust and excrement. Mountain biking and hiking (or MTB and horseback riding) do not mix well at all. Many MTB folks are curteous when approaching hikers, but many are not. For example, when I was out hiking on portions of the Colorado Trail this past summer (where mulitple uses are alllowed) I had cyslists say nothing as they barreled down the trail making me jump out of the way. If I am on a dedicated mountain bike trail and there is a hiker or trail runner ahead of me, I let them know I'm coming and will slow down and stop if needed. The increasing pressure on outdoor recreation calls for kindness, and tolerance, not belligerent attitudes.