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
I'm a late comer here and I found this discussion after explicitly searching the issue. I am a mountain biker who would like to see certain wilderness trails opened to mountain bikes. My justification for this view is that everything we do as humans do affects wilderness areas and biking in wilderness areas may have fewer net adverse effects than activities that are already allowed.
I live in Albuquerque New Mexico, and we are fortunate to have a fair amount of open space and National Forest land for biking. I am grateful for that. I am not so grateful that almost all National Forest land that is open to biking is also open to motorized dirt bikes: they're loud, stinky, they don't always yield, and depending on how they're ridden, they cause a lot of trail damage. To get away from dirt bikes, we'd have to go to wilderness, which of course isn't currently allowed. Horse riding is allowed on both, and of course, horses are at the top of the right-of-way priority as they should be. However, allowing horses on trails but not allowing bikes makes no sense to me. Horeses are only affordable by a small segment of the population, while bikes are more accessible to broader forest-owning public. Transporting a horse to a trailhead typically takes a trailer and a large truck with its environmental impact, while two bikes and their riders can be transported to a trailhead in a Prius. Horses need to be continually fed, bikes are powered by humans when we have calories to be burned off and just take up space in our garages when not in use. Horses pock up trails, while mountain bike tires smooth them down. I used to live on a farm and ride a horse, now I live in a city and ride a mountain bike. My environmental impact is less, my fitness is better, and my anxiety is reduced.
America would benefit if a larger segment of our population mountain biked. We'd be fitter, calmer, kinder people. We'd be people who would work together to protect a precious resource that more of us would share. I regret that there are some bikers out there that are not deemed polite and do not adequately communicate with other trail users. In my experience, unless people are muttering obscenities under their breath after I ring my bell, say hi and thank them for giving me half the trail to pass, about 99 % of my interactions with other trail users are cordial. There are always a few people who bring an uncooperative attitude to trails and I hope that they don't divide us respectful trail users.
I think that it would be appropriate to limit mountain bike access in wilderness areas to certain trails. What I'm mainly looking for is access to trails that connect between two non-wilderness areas. Recently in our city open space, someone apparently recently discovered that a bit of arbitrarily designated wilderness juts into the open space and across a well established trail that has been used for mountain biking. Signs have gone up that say we're not supposed to bike there anymore, but it otherwise looks like every other portion of the open space with no delineating features. What I'd be looking for is a designation for "mountain bike accessible trails in wilderness areas" to make trails such as that one accessible without breaking the law.
To preserve our collective sanity, our society has a tremendous need for low-impact recreation in nature, including in wilderness areas. I believe that mountain biking should be part of the mix.
Not all MTB riders are out to thrash and destroy. Agree most areas and wilderness should remain unopened to MTB riding to preserve. Don't agree a blanket no bikes on trails policy is best. In appropriate areas that are not as sensitive to damage, and if appropriatly built, maintained, and add fee supported, biking trails can add significant enjoyment and access to a growing quiet sport. Black and white attitudes and policies don't help. If taken to extremes, no paved roads or access via vehicle would also be allowed and cut off or limit access to a vast majority of visitors including those who drive to access backcountry wilderness trails via roads. Living in balance and respect opens nps lands to more potential.
Wow. So many people here just have no idea what they are talking about. Mountain bikers neither want nor expect access to all wilderness areas - only informed decisions made on a case-by-case basis. Mountain bikes do no more damage than hikers and a lot less than horses. I get it that people fear change and grow conservative when the status quo is challenged, but come on - it is 2024 now and this is how young people get away from screens and get outside. Share! Equitable access! We can all be happy but I'm happiest outside on my bike in the land that belongs to ALL of us.