The very purpose and role of national parks is being drawn into question over a proposal by Big Bend National Park officials to cut a dual-use mountain bike trail into a hillside near Panther Junction.
In some aspects, the proposal underscores the gist of a Traveler column from last month, one in which we broached the subject of the popularity of having a national park nearby but the often-resulting opposition to many of the rules and regulations -- and even restrictions -- that come with such an entity on the landscape.
At the heart of the issue, as opponents to the mountain bike trail note, is the role national parks were created and the mandate given the National Park Service to manage them. While public enjoyment and recreation are certainly key to the parks, resource management is foremost the role of the Park Service.
Against that mandate, questions are being raised over whether Big Bend officials are holding to that mandate, or bending over to placate a special interest group that already has more than 300 miles of mountain biking opportunities in the park.
Big Bend officials are preparing an environmental assessment into a roughly 10-mile-long network of trails that would be cut into an undeveloped part of the park. Part of the project would include parking for a trailhead and a picnic area near the Panther Junction Visitor Center, and a second trailhead near Grapevine Hills Road.
While the park describes this trail as an added recreational outlet for park visitors, members of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees see it as little more than a "promotion of the mountain bike industry" and a move that facilitates "the regrettable trend toward parks becoming venues for extreme sports."
This project did not arise overnight. Indeed, back in 2007 it was seen as a "centennial project" by Interior officials under the George W. Bush administration. Back then, the International Mountain Bicycling Association was a strong proponent, and had promised to come up with half of the $12,000 cost then estimated for the project.
The proposed loop trail would start near the visitor center at Panther Junction, cross the Chihuahuan desert and wrap Lone Mountain while providing sweeping views of the Chisos Mountains, the southern-most mountain range in the country.
While Big Bend officials say the trail is simply another recreational outlet for park visitors, they do note that it's part of a deal IMBA struck with the National Park Service years ago to explore more mountain biking in the park system.
The purpose of the proposed project is to provide park visitors a trail-based recreational opportunity in an area of the park where none currently exists. The proposed action is in keeping with a 2002 Memorandum of Agreement between NPS and the International Mountain Biking Association that encouraged identifying mountain biking opportunities in the national parks, including new trail construction in appropriate areas. The primary objectives of the proposal are to: 1) create new recreational opportunities for park visitors, and 2) provide a trail-based recreational opportunity in the vicinity of Panther Junction.
That arrangement with IMBA is part of the issue cited by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility in their objections.
"The project is a collaboration between the south Texas national park and a private mountain biking group, raising disturbing “pay-to-play” questions about user groups carving out park lands for special purposes," the group said in comments it filed with the Park Service.
Most of the backcountry trail would be single-track – approximately the width of a bike, with one-way traffic moving counter clockwise. Horses would be barred from the trail.
“Big Bend calls this a ‘multi-use’ trail but it is clearly designed for high-speed, high-thrill biking. Any hikers foolish enough to venture on this path risk tread marks across their backs,” said PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, noting that the EA dryly concedes “some visitors might not enjoy their experience sharing the proposed trail with mountain bikers.”
“We are not anti-mountain biking," said Mr. Ruch, "but are concerned that scarce public dollars may be diverted to promote exclusionary recreation scratched out of national park backcountry.”
In their comments on the proposal, members of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees said Big Bend officials seem to be "pursuing an agenda not supported by law, policy and common sense."
"The mountain bike trail construction proposal for Big Bend NP raises serious questions regarding the purpose of National Parks. Through law, Congress and the courts have clearly established that resource protection must always come before visitor enjoyment," Rick Smith, who chairs the coalition's executive committee, wrote to the park. "While there may often be a tug of war between those who place enjoyment first and those who place preservation first, the law clearly states which of the interests has priority.
"Further, NPS Policies articulate this legal precedence into coherent direction for the agency to place resource protection as the primary role of the agency in managing our parks," he added. "In the case of this EA we believe that single-track mountain biking may be enjoyable for the participants but we do not believe it is necessary or appropriate for experiencing the value and purposes for which national parks are set aside by Congress and construction of a single use trail certainly does not conform to the resource protection deference over public enjoyment the park must honor."
Carving this stretch of bike trail, wrote Mr. Smith, "provides no additional means of appreciating park wilderness beyond that available on existing backcountry roads, particularly on roads with very low speeds and levels of vehicular traffic."
"There is nothing about single-track mountain biking that adds a unique opportunity to appreciate the natural and cultural resources of this national park. On the contrary, the rough, rocky terrain combined with hazardous vegetation detracts from that opportunity. In addition there are hundreds of miles of single track opportunities on nearby private and state lands where mountain biking is being actively welcomed and promoted."
PEER's other concerns include:
* This would be the first trail constructed from scratch on undeveloped park land to accommodate mountain bicycles. A pending rule change, also supported by IMBA would open millions of acres of national park backcountry, including recommended wilderness, to mountain bike trails;
* Big Bend already has 200 miles of trails and roads open to mountain biking and there are another 900 miles of bike-accessible trails and roads on state and private lands surrounding Big Bend;
* This trail would be expensive to maintain and vulnerable to high erosion. Yet Big Bend, like other national parks, has a sizeable backlog of maintenance needs on existing facilities, and;
* While the proposed trail is not in designated wilderness, the project would likely preclude the land from ever being designating as wilderness.
“The plan at Big Bend is without precedent in the national park system,” added Mr. Ruch, who is urging members of the public to send comments to Big Bend National Park before the comment period on the park's Environmental Assessment runs out April 2. “This is part of the steady degradation of our parks into settings for thrill sports rather than preserves for enjoyment of natural and cultural features.”
Currently, bicycles are allowed on park roads, dirt or paved, as well as on trails in developed areas, such as the South Rim Village at the Grand Canyon. Backcountry trails are generally reserved for hikers and horseback riders. IMBA began its campaign to gain access to national parks trails in 2002.
A copy of the park's environmental assessment is attached below. To voice your opinion on this project, head to this site.
Comments
Here is the kind of riding that skilled cross-country mountain bikers live for (this is said to be in Slovenia). Sorry about the slow download.
http://video.mpora.com/watch/5qeKuG5MV/
There are, thankfully, still some places in the U.S. that offer something similar. But alas, much terrain like this has been walled off as Wilderness or off-limits National Parks System trails. Hiking in it is just not the same as riding in it. Not that there's anything wrong with hiking or backpacking; it's just different. Notice the flow that these guys are enjoying. And I can assure you they're taking in the landscape as much as any hiker or backpacker would.
Great soundtrack!
Those are some incredibly skilled riders. The way that guy hopped his bike around the switchbacks was amazing.
Although, judging from some of those dropoffs, I wonder if they were really able to take in the landscape as a hiker/backpacker would be able to or were more focused on the 8+ inches of trail right in front of their tire?
I've heard there are some mountain bike trails in Slovenia that lead you through old mines....
Thanks, Kurt. I agree about the soundtrack. The second piece, the classic "Ghost Riders in the Sky," I believe is the version by The Outlaws (available on iTunes). I should buy it. Does anyone know what the first piece is? I thought it was great.
Those guys' technical skills are way better than mine, but I still think that would be a great ride. It looks 90% rideable. I think that they concentrated their filming on the more difficult
sections, but it seems that there were miles of the stuff throughout the ride that we saw at the beginning.
Of course when they're dropping down some of those rugged drops they'd be looking only six feet in front of them. (Either that or it'd be a costly helicopter ride out to the hospital.) It looked like they were also stopping regularly even on the tough descents, however, and presumably they were looking around.
The main point about that video, I think, is that these highly skilled and very physically fit cyclists weren't bombing around in a way that would startle, scare, or injure a hiker. It shows what cross-country riding is really like. I'd be the first to admit that the bicycle industry's downhill mountain biking porn constitutes a continuing setback for bicycle trail access. To conflate that footage with actual bicycle riding is about the same as conflating pornography with dating. Because so many people have little or no experience with bicycles on trails (whereas presumably everyone has dated someone), they see it as what trail cyclists want. Whereas 99.9% of us don't, and for those who do, there are private lands and low-conservation-quality public areas they can head to, just like OHV drivers.
I am confident that the antiquated no-bikes rules in NPS and federal Wilderness will someday be repealed (which won't require any congressional action, just agency decisions) and we'll be able to ride areas like this in the U.S. In fact already we can. There is some incredible legal riding along the Continental Divide Nat'l Scenic Trail, and the Forest Service gave mountain bikers an effective access victory on the CDNST a year or two ago, while giving the traditionalists a rhetorical nod (formally, the trail continues to be primarily intended for packstock, horse, and foot use).
I hope people will take a look at the video and post comments. The download is slow. I recommend starting it, then immediately pausing it, waiting 10 minutes for the file to load, then starting it again so you can watch without interruption.
Kurt,
Your comment was interesting. It's very true that when riding a tight trail, especially one with so much exposure, a cyclist does not take in the landscape as much as a hiker would, but I don't see how that's relevant to the access discussion. I see it as an issue of personal choice. Presumably a hiker would rather have a slow pace that would let him/her enjoy the landscape whereas a cyclist would rather forego some of the landscape experience for a more rewarding ride experience. Neither one's better than the other. Furthermore, during a ride, there are plenty of opportunities to slow down, stop and enjoy the surroundings.
I have to admit that this looks like an amazing ride. Adding to bucket list...
I have read and participated in this and several other articles as many of you know. I think Kurt has probably come to know me to some extent as have some of you. I want to ask you this.
With few exceptions, can we all agree that Both sides of every issue have valid points of view. There are millions of acres in the national parks and therefore should be ample space for everyone to recreate in a manner suitable for them. Everyone is interested in preserving the integrity of our parks. Everyone has the best interests of Gods creatures at heart. Everyone wants to insure that future generations are insured of enjoying the parks as we have. I could go on but you get my point.
I started out with a chip on my shoulder. I could not understand why some people took the attitude that they did. It has taken a while, a lot of reading and writing and a whole lot of thought but I have learned a lot. The first thing I learned is that there are a lot of people involved. All kinds of people from all walks of life. There are people involved for different reasons. There are those involved because they like to do things in the parks and love the parks. These people, for the most part, love sharing the parks and love seeing others enjoying the parks as they themselves do. But some are involved for the wrong reasons. They possibly don't enjoy anything other than the feeling associated with power. The feeling that a dictator might thirst for. I'm not sure but, something must drive these people. For they do not look for ways to share and get along with others. They easily find fault instead of seeking out the good in their fellow man. They use excuses but we know what is really behind their actions. You know what I am saying or you don't want to know.
Kurt, you are in a difficult possition. You are trying to run a business. That can be tough but you are doing a good job. If I were you I would have to ask myself every morning, Who are my main supporters. I would have to give that consideration all day long. That could be tough at times. I don't envy you in that respect. I do respect you in that you do not let that dominate you as a person or in your work. You remain objective (wish I could sway that objectivity a bit more than I have been able to).
I think most of your readers and commentors are much like you. It seems that the more people comment and read others comments, the more they seem to get to know each other and many seem to start to understand where the other is coming from. Though they don't completely agree, they start to become tolerant and maybe even comprimising in their feelings.
Since participating, I think I have become a better person. At least, I hope so. I do believe there are some bad people out there that don't care about the parks as much as they do accumulating power and wielding it over others for self gratification. Please keep writing to the good people and provide them with a place to commune with those like themselves. You can sense something happening in the comments and one day good will come from it and the parks as well as the world will be better for it.
Ron (obxguys)
I would think there would be miles of established suitable trails in Big Bend where the view for bikers and hikers affords dramatic vistas and plenty of leeway for each group to avoid
endangering each other in a park this size. I think Mt Biking can be a great way to view/access many national Parks for many reasons and I would like to thank all who commented for increasing my understanding of Mt Biking in this way. I would hope that some more Mt Biking/hiking trails could be identified and approved for Big Bend.
There are many national park supporters that view parks as masterpieces that should be altered only by natural process. When I was visiting St Peter’s Basilica in Vatican City and was viewing Michelangelo’s incredible masterpieces I had the overwhelming desire to
reach out and touch the cold marble. The works breathe life. One can believe there is a pulse under the skin of the sculptures.
I could even see the artist approving my touching his work. However I can understand why I’m not allowed to touch these works of art. Likewise I can understand some peoples desire to keep new lines from being drawn in certain national parks.
CAHA is a very different situation than Big Bend. Even ORV groups do not consider ORV access as recreation. Recreation is a key component of CAHA as was primitive wilderness. The failure of the NPS to regulate ORV access has had a profound affect on the wilderness aspect of CAHA.
No matter what side of the issue you are on, either MT Biking in Big Bend or gaining ORV access in CAHA, civility is the first step in finding a solution.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42306970/ns/travel-active_travel/
Yellowstone opens for spring bicycling
YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK, Wyo. — Bicycle riders have a few weeks to enjoy Yellowstone National Park before it opens to motorized, wheeled vehicles next month.
Crews at Yellowstone are clearing snow off the roads and the park is scheduled to open to motorists on April 15. Until then, bicyclists who are willing to brave the elements can tour the park under their own power.
The road between West Yellowstone, Madison, Norris and Mammoth Hot Springs will be open to bicycle travel for the next three weeks. Park officials say the northwest section of Yellowstone typically receives less snowfall than the rest of the park. There is no spring season bicycle-only access to Old Faithful or Canyon.
Riders must be prepared to encounter bears and other wildlife and should expect winter weather conditions.
Please notice no mention of Hikers.
Good job, Ron! It IS interesting when you care about something and stay in the conversation. Everyone has a different learning curve. Hopefully, that curve is ongoing for us all, LOL! Rock On,K