You are here

Home

All Recent Comments

Updated: Big Bend National Park Proposing To Cut Mountain Bike Trail, PEER, NPS Retirees Raise Objections

Mar 25th - 20:13pm | Bob

"But back to mountain bikes on public lands. Have you ever gone on a multi-day trek into the backcountry where it is currently allowed? I'd love to hear about those opportunities." You might check out this possibility: http://www.mdhta.com/

Mar 25th - 19:33pm | Kurt Repanshek

Zeb, There's more than one "vocal minority" out there;-) Civilization won't end with more bikes on more trails. But it certainly is unsettling to more than a few folks who are walking and finding bikes rushing down on them. Here in Park City the issue seems to get crazier by the month.

Mar 25th - 19:26pm | Kurt Repanshek

1) I don't think we have a greatly different vision. As you know, I mountain bike, I enjoy mountain biking, and we've written about mountain biking opportunities in the parks, most recently about the work at New River Gorge National River to create two mountain biking loops.

Mar 25th - 19:22pm | Zebulon

Justin, Others = mountain biking opponents, usually hikers and equestrians, or PEER. The point I was trying to make about flying around is that statistically, you're more likely to encounter a cyclist going slowly than fast, since a cyclist will spend 3/4 of the ride going uphill at slow speeds. Kurt,

Mar 25th - 19:16pm | imtnbke

As an aside, I can't help but wonder why most mountain bike proponents just weigh in on the Traveler when the issue at hand is mountain biking in the national parks and not other issues that confront the parks? That could be interpreted as a general indifferent feeling about the parks other than as merely a new place to ride. Any insights?

Mar 25th - 19:13pm | imtnbke

"Want fewer bikes in the backcountry? Fine, then accept more obese children at the margin. That's one example." I'd like to see the cause-and-effect study for that statement, imtnbke;-)

Mar 25th - 19:05pm | imtnbke

While mountain bike trails in the parks are at the heart of this debate, it's much bigger than just that, encompassing everything from the healthy benefits of recreation in general and getting more folks out to the parks to preserving the parks for future generations. And how we as a

Mar 25th - 18:46pm | Kurt Repanshek

Want fewer bikes in the backcountry? Fine, then accept more obese children at the margin. That's one example. I'd like to see the cause-and-effect study for that statement, imtnbke;-)

Mar 25th - 18:32pm | justinh

Zebulon, "The silly part of this argument is that most backcountry trails are pretty much empty anyway."  Then why not turn them into bowling lanes?  I imagine bowlers are pretty angry that we're not sharing.

Mar 25th - 18:32pm | Mark Davis

Peer also opposed the Rail Trail in Merced river canyon.  Yosemite National Park closed the door to bikes as a means to access the valley.  They did so to relocate the Parks' Stables from the Valley to Foresta.  The greater public good was set aside for a country club asset for the Park Management.  The two golf courses seem far more out of line than bike trails in Yosemite.

Mar 25th - 18:14pm | imtnbke

Mark Davis's comment about PEER opposing a rail trail in the Merced River Canyon is most interesting. It sounds like PEER is the Jesse Helms of the conservation movement: no, no, and no again.

Mar 25th - 18:07pm | imtnbke

JustinH, your reply to Matt Stubbs is funny. It seems that you have no sense of irony. The lack of one causes you to miss his ironic point. I'm sorry about that; I don't know where one goes to acquire an understanding of irony in prose. I guess just lots and lots of reading.

Mar 25th - 17:50pm | Zebulon

Justin, I meant to say that serenity and solitude was NOT inherent to backpacking only.  Users can choose to ride in groups or by themselves, not much difference between cycling and backpacking.  The silly part of this argument is that most backcountry trails are pretty much empty anyway.

Mar 25th - 17:06pm | justinh

matt stubbs, You seem to be objecting to an argument noone has made.

Mar 25th - 16:43pm | matt stubbs

Where in any document Justin does it give you the right to hike in the parks. I see nothing that would allow such behavior. We must stop it as it ruins my solitude. Technically just two of you ruins it as it is no longer solitude. Go ahead and show me where it not only says hiking is allowed, but I want to see where it is the only way to enjoy the parks.

Mar 25th - 16:34pm | y_p_w

i would add that hunting and target shooting are allowed in designated wilderness outside of NPS jurisdictions.  Now there's nothing like gunfire to ruin peace and solitude.

Mar 25th - 14:40pm | justinh

Zebulon, Part of the motivation behind pushing for widerness designation in the National Parks is exactly to provide backpackers with serenity and solitude.  Which is why parks are not the same as National Wildlife Refuges, for instance.  It's also part of the motivation to limit things like airplane tours over the Grand Canyon.

Mar 25th - 14:09pm | Zebulon

Justin, One flaw in your argument is that it implies that wilderness designation is there to provide backpackers serenity and solitude.  Clearly it's not, otherwise horse packs would not be allowed.  The other flaw is that bicycling in the back country can provide serenity and solitude as well.  This is inherent to backpacking.

Mar 25th - 11:23am | Matt Stubbs

Ryan, There is not a single document out there that cannot be cherry picked to represent both sides of the fence. This article from 1997 has some good input on the reasoning I use about the Organic Act. /2007/12/robin-winks-evolution-and-meaning-organic-act

Mar 25th - 10:44am | justinh

Gerald,

Mar 25th - 10:29am | Ryan

Matt, I honestly do not know what you are getting at with the previous post...but is cetainly easy to cherry pick things to meet your needs, so let me give it a try...from the Organic Act of 1916:

Mar 25th - 10:13am | Matt Stubbs

Per the organic act section 3 "SEC. 3. That the Secretary of the Interior shall make and publish such rules and regulations as he may deem necessary or proper for he use and management of the parks, monuments, and reservations under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service"

Mar 25th - 09:53am | Gerald Drucker,...

It is unfortunate that many hikers seem so adverse to sharing their trails with mountain bikers. The vast majority of mountain bikers are considerate to pedestrian traffic and equestrian traffic on mixed use trails. Then there is the mistaken perception that mountain biking is an "extreme" sport. Some of us can't hike that far and prefer to ride.

Mar 25th - 09:28am | Ryan

Matt, WHY?  ...the Organic Act is not perfect, but it's what grounds any NPS unit, recreation area or otherwise...it may suck, but those are the facts!  Touting the organic act is why you have a National Recreation Area, or national parks at all...

Mar 25th - 09:06am | SS !

The National Park Service disagrees with Matt. Cape Hatteras might, due to an oversight, have 'recreational area' tacked to the legal name of the park. The NPS includes CHNS as one of the 10 national seashores not one of the 18 recreational parks. 

Mar 25th - 08:15am | Matt Stubbs

here iis the article from 2007 on the same area from the same author and the same old arguements. We will never learn. /2007/11/mountain-bikers-encouraged-seek-access-rocky-mountain-national-parks

Mar 25th - 06:40am | Matt Stubbs

VPW "Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreation Area" is this not the real name? I use it for ACCESS. Not one over the other but simply ACCESS! Me using the name for that is like you ignoring it for the elimination of its true meaning. "National Recreation Areas" are either urban lands with historic resources...

Mar 24th - 23:07pm | y_p_w

Ryan: Recreation area has zero to do with this argument, it is a national park, not a national recreation area...and regardless, if it is an NPS unit it still all boils down to the Organic Act which states that preservation is just, if not more, important than providing recreation...feel like I am hitting my head against a wall here...

Mar 24th - 22:33pm | Mark Davis

Peer also opposed a project for a Rails to Trails project in the Merced River Canyon.  That trail would have opened a corridor to Yosemite Valley without riding on the dangerous and crowded highways.  There are no bike lanes on these roads. The other two highways to Yosemite Valley have tunnels which substantially increase the risks to cyclists.

Mar 24th - 20:45pm | David Lachniet

We can fight over the use of our public lands, then when there are so few users the mining companies can come in and say; look at all that unused land , let us strip mine it, it's not being used for anything else. United we can all enjoy nature, divided we can walk up and down the sidewalk.

Mar 24th - 20:37pm | Bob

For those of you who don't know the actual site of the proposed trail: it's at the main visitor center, between the junction of two major roads.  There are no maintained trails there but if you climbed the mountain the bike trail will circle, you'd be in sight of a road at all times.

Mar 24th - 20:15pm | Ron Saunders

Man what a read. That Julie then Ryan Followed by Anon. Strong. But, you have to give Mr. Siglin due respect . Any opinion coming from the heart has merit.

Mar 24th - 19:57pm | Zebulon

Hikers speak as if their hiking through national parks was not recreation.  Come on, it is a form of recreation just like mountain biking.  It's different, but neither better nor worse.

Mar 24th - 18:13pm | Ryan

Recreation area has zero to do with this argument, it is a national park, not a national recreation area...and regardless, if it is an NPS unit it still all boils down to the Organic Act which states that preservation is just, if not more, important than providing recreation...feel like I am hitting my head against a wall here...

Mar 24th - 17:44pm | matt stubbs

Recreation area [color=#336699]http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online...ps/anps_5g.htm[/color][/url] POLICY ON THE ESTABLISHMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF RECREATION AREAS See the following examples from the council created by Executive order #11017, of April 27, 1962

Mar 24th - 17:07pm | justinh

Roger, Nice post.  Separate from National Recreation Areas, too.

Rocky Mountain National Park To Resume Battle With Bark Beetles

Mar 25th - 12:28pm | MJC

ML, I'm willing to bet that the anonymous poster you're referring to does in fact contribute to CO2 emissions. But who doesn't? We all need to be accountable and find ways to reduce our footprint as we seek alternative sources of energy.

Mar 25th - 10:59am | ML

I take it that the person with the 7:40 am post does not use lights and heat provided by fossil fuels and does not drive a car so as to not contibute to the "gargantuan" amounts of CO2.  I think we should look at everything we do to the environment, but as has been shown over the past few years, the Al Gore backed climate information is anything but reliable.

Mar 25th - 08:45am | ecbuck

There are (were?) millions of trees in that park.  Saving 5000 is hardly going to change the course of nature.  The key question is whether its worth $50k to protect the trees in the specific spots the park service has chosen to spray.  Maybe that $50k would be more effective breeding red bellied clerids.

Mar 25th - 08:40am | Anonymous

You overlook the fact that the process actually ocurring is not natural - that is the process of humans putting gargantuan amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, driving up global temperatures, and allowing the bark beetle to comfortably persist and expand its range like never seen before.

Mar 25th - 08:06am | Colorado Cowboy

Last year, my wife and I had planned to go hiking at Rocky Mountain National Park since we only only toured the park some 5 years earlier.  However, we gave my brother a quick tour of the park when he came to visit.  We were stunned by the mountains of dead pine trees throughout the park.  I won't be around in 50, 100, or 200 years to enjoy whatever trees take the place of these dead and dying

Mar 25th - 04:36am | MRC

I'm not happy with this activity. The rise of the pine beetle is a natural process, adopting the ecosystem to a changing climate. And the ecosystem will be able to adopt. There will be a new forest eventually.

National Park Service Establishing Protocols For Dealing With White-Nose Syndrome in Bat Populations

Mar 25th - 11:42am | Anonymous

I'm not sure that you will find penicillin in a cave, but I do want to give you credit in stating that the cure for cancer might be found in a cave. Unfortunately, the issue will be that when access is not available to get inside of a cave, how will someone be able to find that extreemaphile to begin with. I don't want to hear about special permissions, because you would be hypocritical.

Reducing The Federal Deficit Is Essential, But Are the National Parks A Logical Place to Cut Spending?

Mar 25th - 10:51am | Anonymous

We spend $200 million to deploy missiles in Libya but then we want to cut the National Parks budget by $100 million...something definitely wrong with this picture.

For $30 Million You Could Have Zion National Park in Your Backyard

Mar 25th - 09:27am | CraigBowman

Hi from Ga. . . As usual, all the heirs want is to get their hands on the money, too bad about his vision. Very sad.

National Park Mystery Plant 18 Revealed

Mar 24th - 23:04pm | Anonymous

Clever clues.

Free Water Soon To Be Available On North, South Rims of Grand Canyon National Park

Mar 24th - 21:03pm | Lone Hiker

It's a nice notion but anyone who is already planning a serious assault doesn't really need them additional reminder to top off or convenience of having a station close at hand.  And those who don't plan ahead and educate themselves on exactly what they're getting themselves into you can't help anyway.  But as is said, it's better than nothing.

A Walk Around Alaska, The Andrew Skurka Story

Mar 24th - 20:57pm | Lone Hiker

Glad to hear about it.

Interior Department Report Finds No Misconduct By Point Reyes National Seashore Staff In Review of Oyster Farm Impacts

Mar 24th - 17:56pm | matt stubbs

Wow Kurt it sounds like the making of a good joke... There was a scientist, a politician, a newspaper columnist, and an Judge that walk into a sandbar. Find some credibility.

Mar 24th - 17:03pm | y_p_w

Here 's a blog on this report.  Apparently the author of the report is sympathetic but still scathing to PORE's scientific advisor. http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/24/a-park-an-oyster-farm-and-science

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.