You are here

Forest Service Drawing Line On Mountain Bikers in Potential Wilderness, National Park Service Agrees

Share

U.S. Forest Service managers in parts of Montana and Idaho are working to ban mountain bikes on landscapes that some day could merit wilderness designation, a move that isn't sitting well with the International Mountain Bicycling Association. Over at the National Park Service, meanwhile, officials have no intention of letting mountain bikers access lands eligible for wilderness designation.

“Existing lands that have been determined to be eligible for wilderness, they should not be considered for potential mountain bike trails at this point," says Garry Oye, the Park Service's wilderness and recreation chief. "We wouldn’t want to authorize a use if we’ve already determined that the lands should be considered for wilderness. We wouldn’t want to allow a use that would compromise that future designation. That’s consistent with our policies.”

Since 2005 at least IMBA has been working to expand mountain bike use in national parks. That year saw the organization and the Park Service sign off on a Memorandum of Understanding calling for a five-year pilot program that would explore mountain bike possibilities in the National Park System via pilot projects in three parks. Initially that MOU was aimed at opening more dirt roads and administrative roads to the cyclists, but not long afterward IMBA officials began talking of the need for single-track routes in the parks.

While those efforts led to a study in Big Bend National Park to create a "shared use" trail, one designed primarily with mountain bikers in mind, IMBA officials began working to change Park Service regulations that must be negotiated before a park superintendent can open park terrain beyond developed areas to mountain bikes. As the clock was running out on the Bush administration the Interior Department published a proposed rule to "streamline" the regulatory landscape regarding mountain bikes in national parks, but it quickly drew criticism from groups that feared how much Park Service landscape its passage could affect.

There are places for mountain bikers to ride in the National Park System. Hundreds of miles of mountain biking opportunities exist in the parks, ranging from the classic, 100-mile-long White Rim Trail in Canyonlands National Park to routes through the woods at Mammoth Cave National Park, the carriage paths in Acadia National Park, and even the rail trails in Cape Cod National Seashore. In all, more than 40 national park units off mountain biking opportunities in some form.

But not all public land landscapes are open to mountain bikers. This past Sunday's New York Times ran a story about Forest Service efforts to institute regulations that would ban mountain bikers from hundreds or even thousands of miles of trail that weave through lands that one day could be designated as official wilderness. While many mountain bike enthusiasts maintain that they should be able to enjoy their favored form of recreation on public lands, included those designated wilderness, land managers who oversee lands with wilderness characteristics are trying to prevent compromising those characteristics. And since officially designated wilderness is off-limits to mechanized travel -- even if that mode of transportation is a bike -- the forest managers are perhaps erring on the side of caution by moving to limit where mountain bikers can ride.

"There's no comparison between bikes made 20 years ago and those made today," Dave Bull, the Forest Service's director for recreation, minerals, lands, heritage and wilderness in Montana told the Times. "People are better able to get to places they couldn't reach before without hiking. They're pushing further and further."

Not only are the latest generation of bikes capable of taking their riders farther and farther into the backcountry, but their arrival, some believe, is out of sync with the wilderness concept.

“There is a wilderness experience, a truly backcountry experience, that is part of the idea and the concept behind wilderness," says Michael Carroll, associate director of The Wilderness Society's Wilderness Support Center. "It's preserving a landscape that is similar to the landscape that our fathers and their fathers before them were able to experience. It’s hard to argue that that experience has been preserved when you have heavy traffic zipping by on mountain bikes after you’ve spent two days hiking in.”

IMBA's communications director, Mark Eller, believes that sentiment can flow in two directions.

"Let’s reverse the hypothetical and say you’re in a remote area and you’re a solo mountain biker and you come across a gaggle of hikers," he offers. "Is that going to disrupt your quiet, the solitude on your mountain bike? Probably.”

Beyond that, says Mr. Eller, the debate over appropriateness, and righteousness, of trail use seems to be getting skewed.

“There seems to be the perception of conflict and the realities that people see on the trails are totally out of whack with each other," he said, adding a moment later that, "I have a hard time just categorizing one trail mode as always more pristine and contemplative than other.”

IMBA has worked to build alliances with the land-management agencies, from meeting around the country with officials to sending trail crews out to both repair trails and demonstrate how to build trails that will stand up to bike use. The group has not talked about cutting trails in national park wilderness areas -- though IMBA officials have talked in theory about realigning proposed wilderness boundaries to benefit mountain bikers -- but rather has focused on creating more riding opportunities elsewhere in the parks. With word that the New River Gorge National River is in line for $2 million to expand its network of bike trails, the group hopes to show that shared-use trails can be well-designed and used cooperatively by hikers and bikers.

“That’s what we’re hoping will be a great place for people to look to and see how it can work in a national park," said Mr. Eller, who agrees that not all national parks are suitable for backcountry mountain bike trails. "We think we’re going to be able to show how it can be done when it’s done right.”

While IMBA also has argued that the ban against "mechanized" travel in official wilderness should be reworded to one against "motorized" travel, that might create more of a battle than the group wants to enter in light of the longevity of that provision in the Wilderness Act, which was passed in 1964

“Any time you go back and modify the parent law, or parent legislation, you better do it with some good public debate, and I think that’s what needs to happen if we do need to go back and look at those things that were legislated in 1964," said the Park Service's Mr. Oye. "It’s not our intent to change the Wilderness Act to allow for mountain bikes, and it’s not our intent to compromise future wilderness designations by promoting mountain bike use in areas that” have potential to be designated wilderness.

At the Wilderness Society, Mr. Carroll adds that, “This is the camel’s nose under the tent. That’s been our argument for a long time. There’s no way you can say that they’re not mechanized. They say themselves that they want to see these big loop systems developed, and they say they want to be allowed in wilderenss. For us those things don’t add up.”

A mountain biker himself who enjoys riding the trails around Durango, Colorado, Mr. Carroll said the issue over mountain bikes in wilderness is personally a tough one -- "I've got tons of friends who are mountain bikers. It's a conundrum for me." -- but in the end he believes wilderness lands need the highest level of protection from impacts. With mountain bikes getting bigger and bigger, their impacts are getting larger, as well, said Mr. Carroll, referring to the Surley bike company's "Pugsley" model with its huge, 4-inch-wide tires.

“Protecting the resource, protecting it for what it represents, for the clean air and water, the wildlife, protecting it for future generations ... is the first priority of wilderness areas," he said. "We want to preserve that as a piece of the puzzle in terms of the management of our public lands. It’s not about 'our' use. ... I think it’s (the debate) unfortunate. There are so many people, if they could take a step back from their use and look at the larger resource issues, and the larger context, I wish they could see that this is about the greater good, not just about your specific use.”

Comments

Thanks for the article and resulting comments, Traveler!

Regarding the paragraph cited below, please note that for more than two decades the Wilderness Act was not interpreted to ban bicycles. Nowhere in the Act does it say that bicycles are prohibited from Wilderness areas.

“Any time you go back and modify the parent law, or parent legislation, you better do it with some good public debate, and I think that’s what needs to happen if we do need to go back and look at those things that were legislated in 1964," said the Park Service's Mr. Oye. "It’s not our intent to change the Wilderness Act to allow for mountain bikes, and it’s not our intent to compromise future wilderness designations by promoting mountain bike use in areas that” have potential to be designated wilderness.

And regarding Mr. Carroll's comments, IMBA and its members are in full agreement that pristine lands should be protected from extraction and development. We do not believe that they need to be protected from bicycles! Fortunately, Wilderness is just one of the tools that land managers can use to afford lasting protections to backcountry areas -- bike-friendly designations like National Recreation Areas offer a good alternative.


haunted hiker, maybe you should sit in the lotus position and slow yourself down as you obviously just read the parts of my post that you wanted. I am not against mountain bikers as a whole, just not in Wilderness areas. As stated above, federal lands should have a place for everyone just not all at the same place !


Betty H. Would you mind explaining why in your opinion cyclists do not belong in wilderness? I always find the rationalization highly entertaining. :)


Such trite hubris to think this is about access, mountain bikers, hikers, horsemen, etc...
Here in my neck of the woods on federal lands only 45% of the trails are machine free, this by being in National Parks and Wildernesses.
Narrow this down to the Wenatchee National Forest alone and one will find 2,500 miles of trail to play on with their toy.
I detest the continuous lobbying for more development in our National Parks and Wildernesses; be it buildings, roads or trails for mountain bikes, horses or boots
and the belief that nature should conform to the trends of society.

"Every recreationist whether hiker, biker, horsepacker, or posey sniffer should not begin by asking, 'What's best for ME?' but rather 'What's best for the bears?'" ~Tom Butler~

"We revere the trail for what it does, not for what it is. We honor the volunteer weed-whackers, but not to the point of wishing to "promote" them to professionals; trail work can be a form of privatization, as it most surely is when undertaken by those who do it to facilitate their wreckreation.” ~Harvey Manning~


Zeb,

Good question, but your sarcasm at the end puts a damper on it.

That said, I think a big part of the answer is being able to walk into an area where you can have an actual primitive experience with as minimal impact as possible on the setting. Now, there's sentiment out there that if you truly want a "primitive" experience you'll leave your stove, watch, GPS, and other devices at home. Perhaps so, but those don't impact the landscape as does a mountain bike.

Again, this isn't a movement to ban mountain bikes from all public lands. Rather, there just seems to be a desire out there to have such an "wilderness" experience. I recently was in Yosemite and hiked the John Muir Trail up the Lyell Fork and it was a nice, smooth trail, one that would be perfect for biking. But I can easily see how it could become so popular with bikers that many hikers would move elsewhere. Indeed, in some places bikes have displaced hikers.

Let's flip your question: Why do mountain bikes belong in wilderness? It's not an access issue. You're more than welcome to walk into any wilderness area you can.

Beyond the philosophical issues, what about the logistical ones? IMBA has demonstrated a great ability to build trails that reportedly stand up to bike use. But as the images on IMBA's website indicate, some of those construction projects are rather large, requiring Bobcats and, in some cases, a large footprint. How would you go about building such trails X miles into wilderness?


Kurt,

Now, we're having the right discussion. Sorry for the sarcasm, I just can't help it. It was still a good question though.

The primitive experience is a vague term that does not describe much. Again, plenty of current allowed uses of the wilderness are far from being primitive as you pointed out. The issue would be framed in terms of conservation, which is after all the goal of wilderness and most other public lands. I don't see how allowing cyclists on most trails (not all, more on that later) go against conservation. Most well designed trails don't suffer from cycling, and they certainly are impacted a loss less than they are by horses. Of course many more people ride their bikes than horses (30 to 1 ratio nationwide I believe), but that's not a reason in and of itself to ban bikes. If we were allowing access based on impact, we would have ban horses long ago.

Why should we allow access to bikes in wilderness? Well, it's a simple issue of fairness. It's human powered, does make much noise and does not impact the land. I won't hike because it bores me to death. How would you like it if we banned hiking and only allowed biking? You should not be allowed to complain because you could always bike on your favorite trail after all. Unlike the bike haters, I'm not trying to tell people how they should enjoy the outdoors. I just want to be able to enjoy it in my favorite way, so long as it does impact the trails.

Bikes displace hikers: well, that's really only an issue when cyclists are only allowed on a small amount of trails, thereby concentrating every possible cyclist on a few trails and crowding out other users. The more trails are opened, the more dispersion, the less conflict. Again, for the very few trails which are very popular, let's leave them hiking only, and let cyclists go in the rest of the nearly empty backcountry.

Trail building: one can build sustainable trails by hand. I've done it, it just requires more people and more time.


Kurt, your reply to Zebulon makes me think of a question (and this touches on Random Walker's comment as well).

One thing that rankles me in these access debates is the amount of hypocrisy I detect coming from those who have access via their preferred method of travel (e.g., to Wilderness areas). Few people, if any, ever are willing to give up their preferred travel mode; they want someone else to give up his/hers or not acquire the right to it in the first place.

So here's my question: do you think horses and packstock should continue to be allowed to travel in Wilderness and recommended Wilderness areas of national parks and national forests while mountain bikers are barred? If so, on what basis? Admittedly bicycles can go faster than hikers, but our environmental impact is about the same as that of hikers. The environmental impact of horses and packstock is huge. They have to be trucked to trailheads in large ungainly vehicles whose carbon footprint is helping to melt the Arctic much faster than my subcompact sedan. Once there, these large mammals, some of which are not native to North America, poop all over the trails, trample campsite vegetation, erode trailbeds massively, muddy streams to the detriment of fish and roe, attract flies, require staggering amounts of food (some of which they strip from the land), and generally debase the environment. So if the politics of exclusion are based on social impact, I can see the need for bicycle regulation (or hiker regulation) on popular trails near trailheads. But if it's based on environmental impact, wouldn't you agree that horses and packstock must be prohibited and that hikers and cyclists should work out a trail-sharing accommodation?

Alternatively, would you accept, per the argument of Random Walker, that if an area is sufficiently "sensitive" or "pristine" (to invoke commonly used parlance in these discussions) everyone should stay out of it? Doesn't any different regimen amount to hubris, as he argues?

Thanks,

imtnbke


My experience with some hikers on trails is that they are rude. They often go off the trails, disturb the wildlife, litter, ride in on big diesel buses, carve their names into trees, etc.. It's actually quite hard to go off the trail on a bike. Unless you are an exceptional trials rider, most people have difficulty even riding on the trails. I mountain bike quite a lot on more technical trails. I almost never see hikers nor other bikers. When I do, we usually say "hi" as we pass each other.
Most mountain biking groups support work-days at the parks, where the trails are mended and the litter is cleaned. I have never seen a hiking group do this.
It's a shame that angery self-rightous hikers insist on creating conflict where there doesn't need to be any. There is not enough support for national parks already, and yet people want to fragment the little support there is for the parks.
I simply don't not support any anit-biking groups or people with my money or votes. I know other bikers that do the same. Consider this when the NPS budget gets cut.


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.