Spend time poking around the International Mountain Bicycling Association’s website and you might start to wonder about the group’s thoughts regarding pedaling in proposed wilderness and officially designated wilderness. After all, head over to their “frequently asked questions’ and you’ll find the following position regarding “Wild Places.”
Are Bicycles Appropriate in Wild Places?
Yes, bicycling is a human-powered, low-impact, quiet form of travel compatible with wild places and the intent of the Wilderness Act. There are instances where bicycling may not be feasible or appropriate. Some trails in proposed Wilderness areas are too rugged or steep for our use. On some national trails, such as the Appalachian Trail, IMBA respects the prohibition of bicycles. In other cases, trails should be closed to all forms of recreation (hiking, bicycling, horse use, etc.) when sensitive plants, wildlife or weather-related seasonal conditions are present.
In light of IMBA’s desire to see more mountain biking opportunities in national parks and in seeing that more than a few national parks – such as Yellowstone and Great Smoky Mountains – have thousands and thousands of acres they treat as wilderness, but which are not officially designated wilderness – I decided some clarification was needed. So I contacted Mark Eller, IMBA’s communications director.
The bottom line, Mr. Eller assured me, was that IMBA has no designs on lobbying for bike trails into proposed wilderness in the parks and would probably support official wilderness designation of those landscapes.
“If we’re looking at an area where there are no existing bike trails, chances are very good we would support that wilderness designation,” he told me Friday. “We really just want to look at it on a case-by-case basis.”
That said, IMBA wouldn’t mind a change in the language pertaining to what type of equipment can be taken into a wilderness area. For instance, rather than the current prohibition against “mechanical” devices, Mr. Eller said his organization would prefer official wilderness and wilderness study areas be off-limits to “motorized” vehicles, something a mountain bike decidedly is not.
For now IMBA is not, however, lobbying for such a change.
“We’re willing to discuss it with our partners. But as far as wilderness goes, there’s no campaign to change that in wilderness right now,” said Mr. Eller.
Specifically regarding mountain bike access in the parks, the spokesman said that where the National Park Service believes mountain bike trails likely would be inappropriate, IMBA probably would not push to see biking trails. Yellowstone, he said, is one park where the organization “would not be pursuing a bike system.”
Overall, Mr. Eller said it’s important to the organization that biking be a good fit with a park.
“We don’t think that one size fits all works very well for us,” he said. “We work with the park staff and with local mountain bike advocates and look for areas that would be good opportunities to add mountain bike trails.”
Comments
Key words: fire truck.
I can understand your point of view if it was a truck randomly driving around...but it's a fire truck. I'll take whatever damage fire trucks cause instead of a giant fire.
Both bikes and horses definitely can be more damaging per user to trail tread and adjacent vegetation than hikers. Bike damage is usually incision on steeper grades. Strings of pack animals can also do this in weak soils, but their specialty is churning the flatter riparian sections to mud holes. At least bikes don't defecate, so they spread fewer weed seeds, especially with conscientious tire washing.
Parks that allow extensive stock use end up subsidizing that very small user group with higher trail standards and more expensive bridges. Decades ago, Mount Rainier concession pack strings avoiding lingering snow banks caused most of the trail/meadow damage now blamed on hikers and skiers at Paradise. I'm not arguing for bike use, just agreeing with Beamis that the NPS has been inconsistent at best on access for various recreation types.
Beamis correctly points out the broader context and political meddling in many access issues. See http://www.powdermag.com/onlineexclusives/crystal_110504/ for another example of the questionable NPS manipulation of "pristine" & "Wilderness" along the NE boundary of MRNP. Some in the skiing community saw this as an attempt to shakedown the USFS or its ski concessionaire to obtain a NPS concession license,
Sometimes excluding the public or restricting an activity is just the easiest and most convenient arrow in management's quiver. Accident statistics don't rise, and there’s less chance of a hard-working Ranger having some pesky visitor emergency make him late for dinner.
Bikes don't cause more damage than hikers. It's been scientifically proven. On the other hand, horses do. Well designed trails last for a long time, especially, if they're closed to all use for a reasonable period of time after a rain.
Perhaps you could point out where those studies can be found, Zebulon.
Thanks for the links. Definitely some interesting reading. As to some of your other questions/points:
>>...why does NPT challenge only certain "recreation activities"? Why not challenge driving and lodges since those high-impact activities are provided elsewhere?<<
Well, for starters, it'd be pretty hard -- fiscally, politically, and socially -- to tear out the lodges and roads. I think one needs to look at realistic possibilities, and to lobby for the removal of these facilities would be tilting at windmills. That said, at the Traveler we have had internal discussions about how one would design the perfect national park and there was mention of locating all the lodging facilities outside the boundaries and using public transportation to minimize that footprint. We're still evolving this idea and hope to have something relatively soon.
>>I don't think allowing mountain bikes on old fire roads in the backcountry is inappropriate; I don't think anyone's asking for new trails to be cut.<<
We agree on that point, of opening old dirt roads, administrative roads, to mountain bikes. And considering Traveler's stance on that, I think it's unfair -- or, to use a word that seems to have caught on with some on these pages, "disingenuous" -- to say the Traveler is entirely "challenging" mountain bike use in the parks.
As for new trails being cut, well, that's what's transpiring at Big Bend.
Beamis,
Thanks for coming to my aid. Your quote below said it far more eloquently than my initial attempt:
A move is afoot in the CHNSRA to assign a "Wilderness Study Area" designation to some of the most beautiful and family oriented beaches on the island. These same stretches of beach have historically dismal bird nesting statistics, and the statistics are no better under the imposed Consent Decree of April 2008 and the removal of ORV’s and people for much of the summer. Such a designation will close these beaches to all humans, probably forever. These designated areas will almost certainly not decrease in size over time, and reasons for expanding them will crop up at every turn.
This statement mirrors my greatest fear about public land access. Once the banning gets started, it tends to gain momentum. As I have stated before, hiking could be eradicated for the exact same reasons people site for banning mountain bikes. If your chosen mode of access becomes unpopular with the wrong group, look out. A lawsuit to end it is generally the next step.
I pray that you folks never have to hear the words “Buffer Zones” and “Wilderness Study Areas” in context to your chosen mode of access, or your favorite access sights. However, I fear we shall all hear these words and phrases ad nauseum in the years to come. These designations simply mean that humans are not welcome, for any reason, under any mode of transport.
Well, we're really starting to stray off-topic, but in a substantive way that begs a separate post of its own.
Wilderness and wilderness study areas (WSAs) are interesting units. Some see them as protecting the last vestiges of true "wild lands" in this country, others see them as tools to thwart recreation, as Dapster fears is the case at Cape Hatteras.
In Utah there are WSAs that seem to exist only in name, as ORVs run rampant across parts of them and county officials ignore travel restrictions, some of which were imposed to protect endangered and threatened species.
Now, if you believe Wikipedia, "(A)pproximately 100 million acres (400,000 km²) are designated as wilderness in the United States. This accounts for 4.71% of the total land of the country; however, 54% of wilderness is in Alaska, although recreation and development in Alaskan wilderness is often less restrictive, and only 2.58% of the lower continental United States is designated as wilderness."
So, when you talk about 2.58 percent of the lower 48 being designated as wilderness, is that so threatening?
And really, let's be truthful, wilderness areas are not off-limits to humans. They are off-limits to motorized and mechanical vehicles and devices, but open to those on foot, cross-country skis, canoes, kayaks, snowshoes and probably some other non-mechanical means that don't come immediately to mind.
I think the key is to keep things in perspective. I don't think wilderness designation or WSAs are going to lock humanity out of its recreational pursuits. And if they save some truly spectacular places for future generations to enjoy or simply take comfort in knowing they exist, what's wrong with that?
Sorry for straying, but it's still in context, sorta...
Not at all, when you look at just the percentages against the entire landmass. If that 2.58% includes 90% of your favorite area, then it makes a difference.
I can't speak for the WSA situation in Utah, as I've never been there. I will take your word at face value on that.
What I can speak about are the signs that I now see in my favorite areas. If these areas are designated WSA’s, I’m certain the text on the signage closing them off will be strikingly similar to these:
“No Entry”. Period.
I don’t wish this on anyone.
I won’t digress any further. My apologies.