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
Definitely not a lie. Boulder White Cloud used to be open to bikes, for decades, and magically that use became illegal when it was designated Wilderness. Same land, same trails, nothing's changed. It should be obvious that the land has always been compatible with cycling.
For the others on this thread who don't seem to be well versed with the issue, cycling was allowed for a time in Wilderness designated areas until it was reversed by the Feds reinterpretation of what mechanical conveyances mean. It was not banned by Congress. Congress intent was to ban engine powered, not bicycles. As a result, ebikes would remain banned anyway. All of this is really about one thing: hikers and equestrians (who absolutely destroy trails with non native animals, quite the irony) don't want to share a public good. Feel free to do your own research.
The best part: the Federal agencies representatives agreed that cycling was compatible with Wilderness during the hearing!!
Michael,
You should know that your hero Mike Vandeman was convicted of assaulting a mountain biker in Berkeley, CA. https://www.outsideonline.com/1808171/trial-mike-vandeman Mr. Vandeman has also no relevant education that would make him an expert in anything related to the issue at hand, except if you consider attacking cyclists with a handsaw relevant.
All you need to do is hike the Colorado Trail where mountain bikers abound except in the Wilderness areas to see the horrible effects of allowing bikes on hiking trails. It is a night and day experience. The peace and solitude of foot traffic is shattered whenever a bike races by. On one section, near Monarch Pass, on a Sunday morning I was passed by 120 bikers racing down the trail. Although pedestrians theoretically have right of way, they have to get off the trail to let bikes pass (think what all those bikes would do to the fragile verges alongside single track trails). The trail itself suffers as well as bikers bank on the curves and dig up the track (though horses dig up the tracks too).
I don't see why so many national park and forest trails are limited to sissy walkers, horsey riders and maybe people on bicycles. Anyone who hasn't felt the exhilaration of blasting down a trail on a dirt bike or atop an ATV won't understand until they do. They're just afraid of sharing a public good.
Thank you so much for saying it all.
Wow, why stop there? How about Razer races or tours. Let's open it all up to any use that comes to mind, now and in the future. Jeeps and Rock Crawlers are sure popular in various parts of the country, why not them? Electric MT bikes are just beginning to take off, them too, I suppose? They love blasting up and down the trail. Please tell me you were being sarcastic? If not, god help us!
During the last four years, the federal land agencies have been managed by industry appointees, who only see a profit to be made from public lands. I wouldn't hold up the present Federal Agencies leads, as the epitome of making proper land management deciscions. The Wilderness founders specifically stated Mt bikes and electric bikes were appropriate in the wilderness? Can't find that. I doubt that in the late 1950's and early 60's the bill writers had a clue to what was going to happen in the 70-80's and thereon, in regards to mechanization of trail toys. I have owned and rode a Mt Bike for 25+ years on USFS and NPS lands where permitted, but not in the wilderness. Not appropriate there and many other places to ride.
Brown Griz. Sorry, but your argument is illogical. Wilderness founders supported human powered access to Wilderness. Mechanized back then was meant to exclude access to motorized machines (i.e. cars and motorcycles). That's why bikes had legal access to Wilderness for 20 years. Feel free to research this for yourself, but those are facts.
While you have no desire to bike in Wilderness, I have owned and ridden mountain bikes for 20+ years and enjoy riding in Wilderness very much. The legislation is all about restoring the intent of the Act which is giving access to human powered mode of transport (it's in the title). And the best part is that Federal agencies, in charge of Wilderness, are on the record supporting it. Again, feel free to research it.
The crux of the issue is that hikers and equestrians (riding a non native animal that is well known to destroy trails and defecate on them...) don't want to share a public good and hide between fake philosophical (or darn near religious) arguments to keep it that way.