Freeze On New Regs Could Impact Efforts to Expand Mountain Biking in National Parks
Might the Obama administration spike the rule change involving mountain biking in the National Park System? NPS photo.
A freeze on new regulations proposed in the waning days of the Bush administration puts in limbo a number of rules and actions that affect national parks. One pending rule, for instance, could greatly expand mountain biking in the parks.
The Obama administration on Tuesday announced a freeze on publication of all proposed and final rules in the Federal Register until they are reviewed by an agency or department head appointed by the new administration.
Benefiting from this freeze are gray wolves in the Northern Rockies surrounding Yellowstone National Park and Grand Teton National Park. The Bush administration recently had lifted Endangered Species Act protection for the canids, saying they were sufficiently recovered. Conservation groups, however, have argued that there is not enough genetic diversity to maintain a healthy wolf population in the region.
The bid to make it easier for individual park superintendents to expand mountain bike opportunities was published December 18 in the Federal Register by the Interior Department. Since the change is open to 60 days of public comment, it has not yet been finalized and so possibly could be held up by the freeze.
Conservation groups maintain that the proposed rule could lead mountain bikers down hiking trails and into lands that are either proposed for or are eligible for wilderness designation. But International Mountain Bicycling Association officials have said the proposal merely makes it easier for parks where mountain bikes make sense to allow their use
At Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, though, officials interpret the proposed rule as much more egregious, saying it could open thousands of miles of existing national park trails to mountain bikes. And Wilderness Society officials said the proposed rule change would degrade the Park Service's conservation ethic by creating user conflicts on trails and eroding the landscape.
The current rule requires that designation of routes open to bicycles outside of developed (and special use) zones must be accomplished by promulgation of a special regulation for an individual park. IMBA wants to change this requirement, saying it's too cumbersome and requires a fair amount of redundancy when it comes to NPS officials signing off on the proposed change.
Under the Bush administration proposal, the promulgation of a special rule would no longer be necessary, except for as-yet-constructed trails. Thus, for thousands of miles of existing trails in what we call park "backcountry," a special rule would no longer be needed if the proposed rule took effect.
Now, to be fair, the NPS proposal does prescribe a process for designation of such trails as open to bicycles – although a less rigorous process than the one now in place.
Another concern of some groups is that the proposed rule appears to allow the designation of trails as open to bicycles even where they lie in areas formally recommended as wilderness by the president to Congress, or proposed by the NPS director to the Interior secretary, or the Interior secretary to the president. This class of lands, in the lower 48 States, amounts to approximately 8 million acres.
And yet, despite the current rule pertaining to mountain biking, which has been in effect since 1987, some parks have designated trails open to bicycles outside of developed zones -- such as in backcountry areas -- without a special rule.
Visitor Center
Copyright 2005-2011
National Park Advocates LLC
Follow the Traveler
Friends of the Traveler
Sign Up For Traveler's Weekly Newsletter
Recent comments
- Anonymous (not verified) on Keeping Things Quiet In The National...
- Yellowstone Ed (not verified) on Major Lodging Changes Coming To...
- Bob Janiskee on Grizzly Bear Shot and Killed By Hikers...
- Saltine (not verified) on Grizzly Bear Shot and Killed By Hikers...
- Anonymous (not verified) on Major Lodging Changes Coming To...
- RodF (not verified) on National Park Service's Handling...
- tahoma on National Park Service's Handling...
- Rick Smith on National Park Service's Handling...
- Bob Janiskee on Traveler’s Checklist: Hawaii Volcanoes...
- Kent Misegades (not verified) on NPS to Package Three Lodges on the Blue...
Comments
It'll be interesting to see what happens. Will Obama cater to the very liberal wing of the party (i.e. your typical Sierra Club bike hater) or will he be more centrist in his approach (i.e. recognize that the rule simply transfers decision making power to the local park)?
I hope they're banned. The damage done by mountain bikes is enormous. The decision will be political but hopefully with an environmental foundation.
Those of us who appreciate peace and quiet in natural surroundings are not always "liberals". We are just folks who love our great natural areas and will hike to great lengths to get away from it all so we can enjoy nature in its most natural setting. There are plenty of places outside our National Parks where people can enjoy their mountain bikes, snowmobiles etc in backcountry settings.
JD, you're misinformed and factually inaccurate. Multiple studies have shown that bicycles do no more damage than hiking and way less than horse riding.
Betty, our parks belong to all of us and not to a favorite minority of users. Whether there are other places to bike is completely irrelevant to whether local parks should decide whether to let bicyclists on existing trails. Last and not least, lumping a human powered activity like cycling with snowmobiling is at the very least disingenuous.
This all boils down to the fact that entrenched users simply don't want to share a public good with other legitimate human powered recreational users.
Zebulon,
Nobody is banned when mountain bikes are restricted. You are still able to hike the trail along with the rest of us. It is only your mode of transportation that is restricted.
There is no reason to allow mechanized transportation, including mountain bikes or snowmobiles, on trails in the parks. They may be appropriate on dirt roads, but they totally destroy the experience for hikers on trails. And despite certain biased studies showing that they do no more damage than hikers, all you need to do is go to a heavily used mountain bike trail, and you will see incredible damage - way more than you ever would see from hikers.
Really Joan? Waaaaayyyy more damage than what I'd would see on the foot-travel-only section of popular hiking trails? Say, the Appalachian Trail? The Colorado Trail? The Wilderness sections of the Colorado trail? Come visit the later and take a good look at he sections that allow bikes and those that are restricted to foot travel. Then tell me if the bike sections are more degraded than the foot sections.
Try it and I think you'll sing different tune on the relative impacts of bike/foot travel. But then you'll likely say, "Well I just don't feel safe near/like to see/believe I can share trails with ... bicycles."
Joan, all great points. Let me address them if I may.
"I can still use the trails, I just need to walk them". How would you feel if we turned the argument around and banned hiking? You could still use the trails, you would just to ride a bike like the others. I don't believe it's the government role to decide for us how to use a trail, as long as said usage does not impact negatively the trail/environment.
Not allowing mechanized transportation. That good old reason to ban bikes from wilderness. Nobody sees any problem with other form of mechanized transportation such cross country skiing, kayaking, carbon fiber hiking poles. This is clearly not a solid reason to ban bikes. As for the difference between a gas powered machine and a bike, it should be self explanatory.
Destroy the experience of hikers on trails!!! Now, we get to the heart of the matter which is simply that a category of users refuses to share a public good. I can certainly understand how one would not want to share wonderful trails with another user group (personally, I'd love it if there were no hikers or equestrians), but then again, national parks are nobody's private Idaho either. :) This is especially silly since most trails more than 2 miles outside the trailhead are usually mostly empty.
As for the damage done to trails, I've seen trails torn to bits by horse riders, but that clearly does not bother anyone. I've also seen major damage inflicted by hikers shortcutting a hillside leading to major water erosion. Yet, I'm not asking that hikers be banned from all trails. Multiple scientific studies have simply shown that cyclists don't cause any damage to the trails. That's just a fact, unless of course all these people were out to get hikers. ;)
To get back to my initial posting, it'll be interesting to see whether Mr. Obama decides to cater to the Sierra Club wing of the democratic party or stick to a more moderate stance and let the rule stand.
@Zebulon: Of course it is the governments role to determine which kinds of use are allowed on which parts of the public lands. Bikes are permitted in National Forests, on BLM land and in more than 40 national parks including spectacular routes like the White Rim Trail in Canyonlands National Park. But other parks are closed to bikes - particularly on single trails. That's perfectly fine and in accordance with the mandate of national parks.
And regarding the detrimental effect on the experience of hikers: Please think about all your encounters between bikers and hikers on single trails. Who stops, steps aside and lets the other pass? Can you think of a single case in which the biker left the trail to let a hiker pass? I can't. It doesn't happen, not once. This infallible rule makes the hiker feel second rate and this ruins his or her experience.
MRC, I've stopped more than once to let a hiker pass, especially if I'm by myself going slowly uphill and big group of hikers is coming down. It makes more sense. Now, whether you feel second rate or not is frankly a non issue, a national park is not your own private Idaho. We just have to learn to share. Furthermore, there are plenty of ways to do it in ways that are fair. The odd/even day rule is a great one. It guarantees access to everyone and gives you the opportunity to hike on days when people are not riding their bikes if that's important to you.
Unfortunately it isn't that simple. This proposed rule takes away public input at the national level and leaves it up to local interests, who occasionally apply inappropriate influence on the park manager. Not sure why requiring rulemaking, which opens up comments to a national audience, allowing all interests to be heard, is so objectionable. What's up with transparency in government?
Questions for those who oppose this proposed rule:
1. Would it be acceptable to you to have alternate-day use of trails by cyclists in national parks, so that there would still be days on which you would encounter no bicycle riders?
2. Would you accept a permit system so that the number of people you could expect to encounter on a given day, whether on a bicycle, on foot, or on a horse or packstock, would be predictably limited?
3. Would you accept a system under which cyclists would use service roads in national parks to proceed downhill and would be limited to riding trails in the uphill direction? (Assume for purposes of this question that cyclists would be proceeding at walking speed in the uphill direction.)
4. Do you believe it is never acceptable for a bicycle to be ridden on a narrow trail on public land, no matter what conditions are imposed?
5. What, if anything, do you find most objectionable about seeing or encountering a cyclist on a trail? (E.g., loss of sense of solitude, fear of collision, revival of memories of past unpleasant encounters (including road cyclists in this), a feeling that the presence of any mechanical device sullies the nature of a wild area, the typical age cohorts of cyclists, and/or fears of erosion or other environmental consequences?)
These are not rhetorical questions. I am interested in your answers. This might begin a dialogue by which people could come to some sort of understanding of one another's complaints and objections, and begin to try to resolve them. Thanks.
You know it's my opinion that our national parks belong to us all and I can see no reason why it's not possible for responsible use of the parks for literally all of us. Isn't this really about respect of each other and the park? To me, this is a great opportunity for literally everyone to come together and join in that endeavor of mutual gratification and mutual respect. My favorite mode of transportation is hiking and I am always so happy with the congeniality of those I encounter on the trails. Additionally I love the peace and quiet. Yet I support a place for everyone especially in our parks.
At the risk of sounding elitist, I must take exception with the above. The fact that parks are the common property of the American people does not necessarily mean that all must be equally accommodated when it comes to access preferences. Cycling is generally permitted on established roads in the parks but may be excluded from less developed areas. There are other public lands, including national forests and BLM managed areas, where access is more liberal, and mountain biking may be allowed. Parks are special. That is why they are called parks.
Ray, I ride my local parks on a regular basis. I had no idea that the term "park" automatically banned bikes... :) Just be honest, and tell us that you don't want to share these taxpayer funded trails with other users. That would make more sense than making up illogical arguments.
BTW, the proposed rule does not take away public input. It simply delegates the decision making power to the people closest to the field, and hence most likely to know what's going on. The indirect consequence of this will probably to see more trails opening to mountain bikers where parks supervisors support cyclists. Parks headed by bike hating management will see the status quo remain. Simple as that.
A very reasonable comment, Ray. National Parks are special places. And full recreational use, mountain biking for instance, just isn't appropriate for all NPS lands.
But some folks just aren't used to hearing "please wait", or "no" in response to their wishes, no matter how reasonable or harmless they think they are.
While I do agree that some of the opposition to expanded mountain bike access is based on a bias against non-walkers, this is not an issue of special rights for some, as the IMBA would have one believe.
Neither is the current assessment and approval process too cumbersome; sometimes redundancy is a good thing. Why not be absolutely sure a trail (and the surrounding landscape) can handle the additional usage? Why doesn't that seem reasonable? Because one might have to wait a little longer before they can add a new trail to their biking score card?
I think the real motivation for a quicker, easier approval process is financial.
A direct quote from a "Sample Letter" IMBA website visitors are encouraged to use:
"Improving opportunities for bicycling and promoting trails tourism could benefit economic conditions for nearby communities."
There's money to be made by the bikers themselves if they can market and sell bike tours in National Parks for which their communities happen to be a gateway... how dare the NPS stand in the way of their pursuit of commerce.
Well I'll tell you why the NPS should keep a thorough, redundant process: read the Organic Act for your answer.
@ Warren Z: Is your preferred mode of travel in the national parks "appropriate," as you put it? If so, why it is so and mountain biking not?
I emphasize Warren Z's use of "appropriate" with quotation marks because it and "inappropriate" are, as the writer J.M. Coetzee has alluded to (and I will argue directly) the ultimate obfuscatory adjectives. They are often invoked when the writer wishes to make a value judgment but is uninterested in defending it, or unable to do so, with more precise language. So whenever someone invokes either adjective my linguistic brain module sounds an alarm.
Careful, imtnbike, lest you draw the ire of horse-packers...;-)
And yet....that's one camp that's been missing in this discussion. Much has been made in similar discussions on the Traveler that horses cause more erosional problems than mountain bikers. Is that so? Is there a horse outfitter out there who can weigh in on this?
Are horseback travelers generally given a pass in this trails discussion because America grew up with horses? Because horses were the original locomotion (aside from foot travel, of course) into the wilderness?
If one feels slighted because they have to step to the side of the trail, or off the trail, when mountain bikes come through, how does it feel when you have to do the same with horses coming at you?
Kurt, very good points indeed. IMHO, horses are tolerated because 1) they're part of the history, 2) they're pretty animals, 3) they usually travel slowly and 4) they are so few of them that it's not a big deal (I read somewhere that in CA there are 30+ mountain bikers for every horse rider).
Warren Z, I'd love to know how it is that some bureaucrat in DC will come to a better answer than somebody in the field as to why a trail should be opened to bikers. I fail to see the logical reasoning. What I do see is that the current system is set up to make any changes impossible due to the bureaucratic red tape. Trails are staying off limits not because it is somehow the right decision, but because nobody wants/can fight the built in bureaucratic inertia. Anti bike crusaders are fully aware of this and want to fight to preserve the status quo simply to keep cyclists out. It always boils down to not sharing a public trail, no matter how you try to rationalize it. I don't see how not sharing a public good among human powered users is fair.
Zebulon,
Re Washington bureaucrats making decisions, that's not the point. Rather, why should the rest of the nation be shut out of commenting on a rule change to a "national" park? The current process allows for that national debate and discussion.
Did you have a position on the Yellowstone snowmobiling matter? Would you be satisfied if you were locked out of commenting on the park's winter-use plan?
As for the horses, I must admit I don't like the evidence that they've been around;-) Plus, if you've been to the South Rim of the Grand Canyon and tried hiking down some of those trails, the way the steps have been cut to accommodate the mules wrecks havoc on a good hiking stride....
Zebulon, I have nothing against bikers. Indeed, just the opposite. I am an avid cyclist and have biked through a number of national parks. Most of my riding is on a road bike I have also mountain biked, although not in a national park. I have a physical condition that makes it easier for me to ride a bike than it is to walk, so my position is not based on a desire to have the park trails to myself. Insofar as leaving it up to the individual park manager to make the decision as to whether or not to permit mountain bikes in back country areas, I consider that to be a bad idea. Major changes in park policy are best accomplished through the planning process which then are implemented by park management. I have seen the results of park management making informal decisions to permit otherwise prohibited park uses. When the uses prove to be destructive to park resources and values it becomes almost impossible to reverse the action, even when it is legitimately prohibited. It is not a question of park managers either loving or hating bikers.
Kurt, Ray,
All good points. My take on it: we don't live in BC Greece and have a direct democracy where we get to vote on every decision our government makes. Furthermore, we are not talking about some kind of fundamental change in how parks are run. At any rate, there will be public input solicitation, which will end up being a forum for all the bike haters and supporters to yell and complain about each other (speaking from experience in my local parks). The current system is deliberately set up so that no change can happen, and this is exactly what's going on. We all understand this, cyclists and non cyclists alike. This is the exact reason why people opposed to cycling in our public parks are fundamentally opposed to the rule change. Again to be clear, the decision won't be up to the local park management to decide without getting public input, although to be quite fair (and again speaking from experience in my local park), if the local park management is opposed to bicycling, you can bet that trails will never be opened to bikes (see below).
As an aside, I don't road bike as 1) it hurts my back too much and 2) I don't get the same kick out of it. :)
Here is the IMBA take on it:
A rule change will not diminish protections that ensure appropriate trail use. All regular NPS regulations, General Management Planning (GMP) processes, and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) still applies. Absolutely no environmental processes will be shortchanged. The public will still have ample opportunity to comment both locally and nationally. The parks that have existing mountain biking have gone through the GMP and NEPA processes and the trails are signed, actively managed and documented in the superintendent's compendium.
The proposed rule requires NEPA compliance through, at a minimum, an Environmental Assessment (EA), if not an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIS).
The current system is not working. Most NPS units are unwilling to undertake the time-consuming special regulations process, and thus bicycling opportunities are in this state of limbo and can't be fully embraced. Mountain biking needs to be managed better and the process to incorporate cycling needs to be clear.
Mountain biking can and does succeed in national parks. Many parks have successfully managed mountain biking for more than a decade on roads and trails. Families and community members have successfully enjoyed these parks on their bikes for years and are not controversial.
Changing 36 CFR 4.30(b) won't change Wilderness or Wilderness Study Area regulations in any way. Mountain bikes will continue to be banned from these areas.
NPS units that are not interested in expanding opportunities for bicycling will not be affected. Changing the rule will not force mountain biking on any park unit, and superintendents that do not see opportunities for mountain biking in their parks will not be asked to adopt it.
The use of special regulations is time-consuming, costly, and duplicative. Special regulations are largely directed at motorized users, such as personal watercraft; motorboats; snowmobiles; ORVs; seaplanes; amphibious aircraft; and commercial fishing, trucking, mining, and aircraft. Once everything is done at the park level it can take-years to emerge from the Washington-based regulatory process.
In addition to the public hearings and comment involved in an EA or EIS, the rule requires another 30 comment period after it is published in the Federal Register. Before the trail is opened, one final posting is required in the Federal Register, with 30 days for public comment.
The NPS policy stands in stark contrast with that of the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, which allow all non-Wilderness trails to be managed as "open unless designated closed." Even with a rule change, NPS policy would remain "closed unless designated open" and would still be a deliberate, public, lengthy multi-year process to open a trail to bicycles.
Independent scientific studies, including those conducted by the National Park Service, have shown the environmental impacts of mountain biking are similar to those of hiking and far less than other uses.
Treating mountain bicyclists similarly to equestrians will streamline one rule, not amend all NPS rules.
Special regulations would still apply if building new trails or opening existing trails is: 1) a significant alteration in the public use pattern of the park area, 2) adversely affects the park's natural, aesthetic, scenic or cultural values, 3) requires a long-term or significant modification in the resource management objectives of the unit, 4) or is of a highly controversial nature (36 CFR, Chapter 1, Part 1, Section 1.5).
For those interested in reading biased studies, including some completed by the bike biased NPS (j/k):
http://www.imba.com/resources/science/marion_wimpey_2007.html
In general, parks are not multiple use areas; they are effectively outdoor museums created to preserve a particular value: scenery, history, etc. The issue with bicycles is not that they are non- motorized, it is that they are "mechanical" modes of transportation. Parks that have any "wilderness" should also prohibit mechanized transportation. The spirit and intent of the Wilderness Act should be applied whether or not the land is an officially designated Wilderness. Parks need to be managed more by science and law rather than some manager simply sitting in an office counting political marbles.
With regard to the prior post, succeeding in defining national parks solely as outdoor museums is precisely what will doom political support for them in the not-so-long run. The decline in public support is already happening, which is why the National Park Service has wisely proposed making it easier for people to engage in the popular, healthy, environmentally sound, but also fun activity of mountain biking in them.
Kurt, you asked:
Here's what one backpacker wrote in 2006:
Source: http://www.idahohotsprings.com/destinations/stanley/index.htm
Now, take a look at how the professional horse outfitters advertise their Wilderness trips, keeping in mind that their activities are allowed in Wilderness whereas a solitary cyclist on a 25-pound bicycle is not:
(I found these items about two or three years ago, so I can't guarantee that the links still are good.)
Feather beds and pillows; wood-burning stoves in tents; gourmet meals; bring liquor. This is primitive and rugged wilderness travel? And I would think that wood-burning stoves would be too heavy to lug around and they and their surrounding structures must also be set up semipermanently, which is a dubious practice under the Wilderness Act of 1964.
Just in: Bill Schneider reports in New West that neither the guns-in-parks rule or the mountain bikes-in-parks rule is being affected by the freeze on implementing the previous administration's regulations:
http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/national_park_gun_and_mountain_bike_rules_unaffected_by_freeze/C41/L41/
Schneider, by the way, is an astute commentator on controversial issues like these and one of the few truly neutral voices of reason out there. Reading his various reports and discussions on the New West website will prove valuable.
As I understand things, while the bike rule is not directly affected by the freeze placed on new rules and regs, the NPS isn't obligated to place it into effect once the comment period runs its course, so it could wind up facing the same outcome as rules that are directly affected by the freeze and which the new administration finds serve no good purpose.
And let's not forget, administrations don't always pay much attention to what the public does, or doesn't, want. Remember the Yellowstone snowmobile saga? During its public comment period(s), public comment overwhelmingly favored a phase-out of the machines, and yet the Bush administration turned a deaf ear.
I think that's correct. Schneider's point is a narrow one: the freeze itself isn't going to block the regulation, but the fact that a new administration will be evaluating the comments and writing the final rule, if there is to be one, could stop any change in NPS policy on mountain bike access.
We've come full circle. :) What the administration does with this proposed rule will tell a lot about what groups it listens to the most. If I had to bet, I'd guess that the rule will be a bit more restrictive to cater to the liberal side of the party (Sierra Club, etc.) while still leaving some elements intacts to please the others.
Is it just me or is anyone else getting tired of all these special interests raising a ruckus crying out, "What about me!?!” Whether it be natural resource extraction (oil & gas, coal, etc.), snowmobiling, or in this case mountain biking, in and around our National Parks, it appears that no one will be happy until they all have their short-sighted wants & needs met. When did this country become such a bunch of whiners?
Before I go any farther, let me just go on record that I am a staunch Republican and a member of the Sierra Club. I am a hiker, a road cyclist, and a mountain biker. And I am a firm believer that OUR National Parks are not some playground that needs to open themselves up further to the type of destruction that mountain biking can cause----I've seen it on other lands, and I've admittedly helped contribute to it.
The key distinction is that I did this where it was permitted or at least not restricted by law. I, unlike some other commenters in this post, appear to have no problem adhering to the status quo and biking in any of the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of acres where it is currently allowed. "But I can't mountain bike where I WANT to." I have just two words---Boo Hoo!
Zebulon, I'll give you credit for articulate arguments, but let me address some of the problems I had with them here:
- "Betty, our parks belong to all of us and not to a favorite minority of users. Whether there are other places to bike is completely irrelevant to whether local parks should decide whether to let bicyclists on existing trails." Well, you got it half right. The parks do belong to all of us, not just those of us that mountain bike (the minority of users). Whether there are other places to bike is not irrelevant, it is precisely the point because that is what the LAW tells us it is okay. Don't like it?---BOO HOO!
- "Joan, all great points. Let me address them if I may. "I can still use the trails; I just need to walk them". How would you feel if we turned the argument around and banned hiking? You could still use the trails; you would just to ride a bike like the others."" If that is what the LAW states then that is what you do. If the hikers didn't like it, then --- you guessed it! Bad argument.
- As for not want to road bike in a National Park because it "1) it hurts my back too much and 2) I don't get the same kick out of it. :)" You don't get the same kick out of it---wait I feel a single tear welling up. Wait. No. Sorry, my mistake.
- And lastly, the biased study that you referred to (http://www.imba.com/resources/science/marion_wimpey_2007.html), is only biased because you don't like what it said. As a mountain biker, I saw nothing wrong with the science.
OUR country's National Parks were set aside in perpetuity for the enjoyment of ALL of its people, and the best way to accomplish this and still enjoy them once the pavement ends is by going forward on foot. Don't like it, go somewhere else and bike. But by all means, stop your whining.
Toothdoctor: you must be a one of a kind. ;) Frankly, I'll summarize your arguments: it's the law, deal with it... I'm sure you can do better. Just because the law discriminates against a category of users does not make the law right. I have yet to see anybody come up with a logical argument as to why bikes should be banned. It's always some kind of contrived argument with a bunch of shortcuts that basically amounts to nonsense.
Ah, Tooth Doctor . . . know ye not our country's social history? For your sniping at Zebulon has a long and unfortunate pedigree in the context of excluding social groups.
Many were the people who told Rosa Parks to accept her place at the back of the bus. A few of them even were black.
And many are the people who tell mountain bikers like Zebulon to stop whining and accept their place on dusty wide ranch roads and pavement. A few of them even are mountain bikers (or at least claim to be).
The way you think ignores the way excluded people react to unfairness and you're not going to get anywhere by preaching unjust laws and rules to them. As a recent Harvard Environmental Law Review article that discussed mountain biking and Wilderness access observed, "Studies of persons who have been excluded from a benefit suggest that those excluded harbor deep resentment for the seeming special treatment afforded the included class. As a result, the excluded class tends to resist the creation of more systems that might further exclude them." (Source: Laitos & Gamble, "The Problem With Wilderness" (2008) 32 Harv. Envtl. L. Rev. 504, 531, fn. 156.) The same applies to the national parks, of course.
imtnbke,
I hear and completely agree with your point of view, that when the current law perpetuates some social injustice or in some way inures a group of people then it is our responsibility as a people of this country to rise up and speak out until said law is changed. That being said, comparing mountain bikers to Rosa Parks is a bit of a stretch. As a mountain biker, I do not feel like a second class citizen or that I have had any of my inalienable rights infringed upon. Not being able to mountain bike in a National Park is not going to keep me from living my life one day to the next. Those that do, need to grow the heck up.
As for relegating mountain bikers to dusty ranch roads and pavement, that is completely missing the point. We already have access to vast amounts of BLM land, National Forests, State Parks, and many smaller areas overseen by local municipalities, just to give a few examples. And as apparently the validity of my mountain biking status has been called into question, I volunteer that while not a 'hardcore' biker I have enjoyed ten years spread across three states in the Midwest frequenting the latter three types of areas, as well as in one Western state.
And lastly, I'm not ignoring how excluded people feel when confronted by unjust laws. As stated above, I will completely side with a group found to be adversely affected by an UNJUST law. I just don't see how having people use their own two feet (my apologies to those who are handicapped) to help minimize their impact on trails, to help the already overwhelmed NPS maintain said trails for the enjoyment of the greater good is affording special treatment or unjust. It's not special treatment, it's about as simple as it gets.
Tooth Doctor, I appreciate your reply and understand your points. I know that many will regard comparing basic civil rights for racial minorities to mountain bike access in the national parks as a poor or even insulting comparison. (I'm not saying that you're reacting that strongly, but others no doubt would.)
You're right, of course, that we have access to thousands of square miles of BLM, national forest, state, and local lands, and to thousands of linear miles of great singletrack trails on those lands. I think, though, that the ultimate goal of the puritans who detest mountain biking is to force us out of roadless areas completely and to relegate us to dirt service roads in nonroadless areas where a mix of dirt roads and trails exists. In California I perceive such sentiments often enough. This situation may help to explain mountain bikers' insistence on principle when it comes to the national parks.
You're also right to say that those mountain bikers obsessing over access to national parks singletrack may "need to grow the heck up" if it's interfering with their daily lives. I hope I haven't gone that far! The question can be turned around, however: why are the antibike types so dogged and/or panicky about the notion of a bicycle on a trail in a national park?
Toothdoctor, what a lame argument. Bikers need to get over it because they impact the trail! 1) the science does not back your claim, and 2) why are horses allowed since they destroy the trails more than any other user? Another poorly thought out contrived argument to justify the unjustifiable. Funny.
Dubbya, I mean Zebulon,
I guess science is just a bunch of hocus-pocus magic that has no basis in the real world. Because obliviously the trail degradation that my eyes took in (increasingly deeper ruts (around a 1/4 to 1/3 of the wheels radius), loss of trailside vegetation as people try to avoid the ruts and widen the trail, the associated increase in erosion following a hard rain, etc.) in the areas that I have biked must all be make believe. I'll refer you back again to the study you posted as it reiterates what I have seen: http://www.imba.com/resources/science/marion_wimpey_2007.html. In all seriousness, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and postulate that in the area that you live the ground is of a tougher soil composition or made up of a higher percentage of rock, which would explain why your eyes don't perceive this reality that occurs in other areas. But realize this however, not areas are created equal. You may not be seeing it, but that does not mean it does occur. And I don't disagree in regards to horses, but pointing your finger and complaining that 'if they get to, then why not me' is a petulant, contrived argument. Sad. I've said my piece and I'll put my faith in that clearer heads will prevail.
Open them up!!! Damage only occurs from mountain bikers that don't follow the rules of the trail... LIKE RIDING IN THE MUD!!!!! (hate those guys...)
I see the damage that can be done by idiots that drag their rear tire down the hills. This is what causes most of the damage. I’ve biked and hiked the same trails every weekend for years, I also carry a 357 GP100. I’ve never had a problem.
I wish Bush would have left it alone, now it’s an issue……
Please forgive my writing skills, I went to public school before the no child left behind initiative started….
Post new comment
All viewpoints, as long as they're constructive, are allowed on the site. But ... the Traveler is not a catchall for viewpoints and discussions that fall outside of the parks or the post at hand. In monitoring comments, we try to restrict those to the topic at hand. Refer to our Code of Conduct for more information.