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.
Comments
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...
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.