Why Mountain Biking is Inappropriate in Wilderness

Below is an aricle I came across just doing searches on Google regarding Mountain Biking. I read the whole thing and thought it well thought out. I have my opinions and was curious as to what YOUR thoughts are on the subject...



Why Mountain Biking is Inappropriate in Wilderness
By George Wuerthner On July 12, 2014

I just got back from a mountain bike ride. The trails outside of Bend, Oregon where I reside have numerous loops and degrees of difficulty. Riding my mountain bike is a pleasant way to unwind, get some exercise, and enjoy pedaling without the fear of being hit by a car. The trails are located in previously logged forests on the edge of town. These lands do not qualify for wilderness or other special protection, and thus are an appropriate location for mountain biking in my view.


The key words here are “appropriate location”. That is the same qualifier I would have for my four wheel drive vehicle, as well and other thrillcraft. I am grateful to have a four wheel drive vehicle when there is snow, muddy roads, and the like, but that doesn’t mean I feel it’s appropriate to drive it everywhere a four wheel drive can go. Just because my vehicle can climb steep hillsides, traverse meadows, doesn’t mean I think it’s appropriate to use it just because I have the technology to do this.


Wilderness is about restraint—self discipline. We do not automatically bring our technology with us into wild places—or they do not remain wild for long.


Mountain bikes a highly developed technological mechanism that provides mechanical advantages to human transport. Mountain bikes do not belong on trails in designated wilderness (nor, in my mind, even in proposed wilderness areas) for a host of reasons: legal, ecological, sociological and philosophical.


The primary purpose of designated wilderness is to preserve self willed landscapes or wild nature. The intent of the 1964 Wilderness Act is clear, the goal of designated wilderness is to protect natural processes, and leave these lands untrammeled. The word untrammeled means unrestricted—in other words natural processes are permitted to operate without human restraint



LEGAL


The Wilderness Act also is very clear about the kinds of activities that are deemed acceptable in designated wilderness—namely travel without “mechanical advantage”. It states this in its opening paragraph:


“In order to assure that an increasing population, accompanied by expanding settlement and growing mechanization, does not occupy and modify all areas within the United States and its possessions, leaving no lands designated for preservation and protection in their natural condition.”


The Act is clear—growing mechanization is not permitted. Mountain bikes are part of that growing mechanization. The Wilderness Act does not discriminate against anyone—all citizens are welcome in wilderness—just not all our mechanized machinery.


Anyone can walk, float a canoe or raft, or even ride a horse into a wilderness area, but mechanical advantage is not permitted. That is why dirt bikes, snowmobiles, wheeled game carts, motorboats, airplanes and a host of other mechanical conveyances are excluded from wilderness with only a few exceptions. (For instance, snowmobiles are permitted in Alaskan wilderness areas by subsistence hunters and aircraft may be permitted, again mostly in Alaska).


Other incompatible uses like livestock grazing and mining can also occur where they existed prior to wilderness designation, however, this does not mean they don’t detract from the purposes for which the lands were designated. Typically such uses are not allowed to be expanded.


Just because other incompatible uses are permitted in rare instances, does not mean new uses, including mountain biking, should be permitted. It is not difficult to see a slippery slope if the original Wilderness Act were changed or amended to permit bikes. Why not permit hang gliders or base jumping or other thrill sports?


Those who enjoy these activities or conveniences all feel they are unfairly discriminated against by Wilderness designation as well. However, we regularly discriminate against all kinds of people for various reasons. Smoking is not permitted in most public buildings across the country and some smokers definitely feel they are being discriminated against.


The point being we regularly exclude some activities from some places those proponents enjoy. The fortunate thing for myself as a mountain biker and for all others who enjoy this activity is that there are hundreds of millions of acres of public land where mountain biking is perfectly acceptable and appropriate. There is no shortage of trails that are open to mountain biking.



ECOLOGICAL


While mountain bikes may do less damage, than say, a pack string of horses or even a boy scout troop, the cumulative effect of numerous tires does create additional erosion, sedimentation in streams, and potential for trail damage.


Worse, though, from my experience, is not so much the trails that are commandeered by mountain bike users, but the numerous new and often completely unregulated creation of trails. Where there are mountain bikes, there are frequently multiple trails established, often without any official oversight by land management agencies. Little regard is given to impacts that new trails and user activity might have on sensitive species of wildlife, the spread of weeds, and the fragmentation of habitat.


The contention that mountain biking does less damage to trails than a pack string of horses is a specious argument. The idea that some activities do more damage than another is not a reason to expand damaging activities. As previously outlined, mountain biking can and do more damage than walking. We must remember the main goal of wilderness designation is to protect and preserve wild nature, not to preserve any particular recreational opportunity.



SOCIALOGICAL


Zipping down a trail they can rapidly approach other trail users, whether horse riders or hikers.

If one only mountain bikes, it may be difficult to understand why those on foot often are dismayed when a favorite trail is discovered and commandeered by mountain bikers. It is not unlike the same reaction that dirt bikers and other ORVers have to other recreationists. One survey of hikers in Montana found that the vast majority were negatively impacted by the presence of dirt bikes on hiking trails, but few of the dirt bikers are negatively affected by hikers. Mountain bikes have the advantage of speed and often generate the same negative reactions from hikers.


There are philosophical reasons for this ban on mechanical aid. Any mechanical advantage whether it is a dirt bike or a mountain bike shrinks the backcountry. The amount of terrain that can be traversed is significantly increased by mechanical advantage. This has several effects. Those using more traditional means of travel—i.e. walking—are easily surpassed by those using mechanical means which can psychologically dismay other users.


I find many, but not all, mountain bikers (as well as dirt bike, snowmobile, ATV enthusiasts, among others) put their particular recreational desires ahead of preserving wild nature. If they can’t use their mountain biking in a proposed wilderness area, then they often oppose wildlands protection or designation.


PHILOSOPHICAL


The spirit and letter of the 1964 Wilderness Act is to protect specific lands “where the Earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man.” Where the land retains “its primeval character and influence” and is “managed so as to preserve its natural conditions.


The Act says nothing about preserving recreational uses or adapting new types of recreation. In testimony before Congress in 1962, Howard Zahniser chief architect of the 1964 Wilderness Act stated clearly that “Recreation is not necessarily the dominant use of an area of wilderness.” Rather Zahniser declared that “The purpose of the wilderness act is to preserve the wilderness character of the areas to be included in the wilderness system, not to establish any particular use.”


The growing sophisticated advancement of mountain bike design and technology reduces the natural limits imposed by primeval character and reduces the natural conditions by the very presence of mountain bikes.


Zahinser also wrote about the spiritual benefits of wilderness. in an essay he authored in 1956, he said: “Without the gadgets, the inventions, the contrivances whereby men have seemed to establish among themselves an independence of nature, without these distractions, to know the wilderness is to know a profound humility, to recognize one’s littleness, to sense dependence and interdependence, indebtedness, and responsibility.”


The more advanced our technology we drag along with us, the greater our alienation and separation from the spiritual values of wilderness areas.


To many who are walking in quiet contemplation of nature, mountain bikes are an intrusion. They are no different to many wildlands enthusiasts than if a dirt bike were to invade the Sistine Chapel or were ridden in the Arlington National Cemetery. The fact that many mountain bikers are oblivious to these feelings of sacred lands and the spiritual values inherent in wildlands is one reason why so many non-bikers find mountain biking obnoxious at best, and even disrespectful.


Of course these are personal values and not everyone holds the same values, but just as dirt bikers may see no reason why they can’t ride through a national cemetery or smokers don’t believe they should be excluded from public buildings, social values are important and should be considered.


That is why I try to ride primarily on designated mountain bike trail systems where the majority of users are other mountain bikers. I am conscious and considerate of how my own mountain bike use affects others using our national patrimony.


Our wildlands are not outdoor gymnasiums or amusement parks. Part of the rationale for wilderness designation is to encourage and provide an opportunity for people to contemplate and observe natural systems. I know from my own mountain bike experience, that the main focus of anyone riding a trail is about 20-30 feet ahead of your tires, not on the surrounding landscape. The speed and need to concentrate on where you are going diminishes if not fully excludes the opportunity for nature appreciation.


The primary purpose of wildlands—whether designated wilderness or roadless lands that are not yet developed thus retain wildlands characteristics–is to preserve their wild, self willed character. It is not primarily an outdoor gymnasium, especially when that kind of activity can be pursued on other public lands that are far more abundant and available.


By contrast, at least for me and many of my fellow wilderness advocates, whether we hike or otherwise access any designated wilderness is irrelevant. Our goal is to preserve remnants of self willed landscapes or wild nature, not preservation of self indulgent recreational opportunities. And I think that is far more in line with the original spirit and intent of those who crafted and helped to legislate the original Wilderness Act. We honor those people by maintaining the sanctity of the philosophical purposes of the Wilderness Act intact.

 

Interesting, thanks for posting Mikie.
I would tend to agree with some of it however

“Our wildlands are not outdoor gymnasiums or amusement parks. Part of the rationale for wilderness designation is to encourage and provide an opportunity for people to contemplate and observe natural systems. I know from my own mountain bike experience, that the main focus of anyone riding a trail is about 20-30 feet ahead of your tires, not on the surrounding landscape. The speed and need to concentrate on where you are going diminishes if not fully excludes the opportunity for nature appreciation.”

Look at nearly all of the Ride Reports on here. Each and everyone describes the trails we ride of course, but equally important are the pictures of the vistas and areas that we all thrive to see posted in each report. I can see where speed can diminish some things, but for me I know that if I come around a corner to a vista, unique plant, wildlife or flowers the bike drops (sort of speak) and the camera comes out.
A few other points could be disputed also, but I'll leave those for now, that is the one that got me.

 

I am unable to ride a horse. The advantage of a horse in a wilderness area is 1 horsepower, and significant waste added to the environment.

The advantage of a mountain bike in a wilderness area is 1/2 horsepower, if you're Jens Voigt.

As far as unregulated trail creation, prior to and even after the Wilderness Act, the majority of trail creation is by either equestrian or reversion from prior mechanized access to trails, whether legal or illegal.

The true intent of the Wilderness Act would prohibit anything that did not adhere to the "leave no trace" mantra. Neither horses nor mountain bikes "leave no trace". Neither should be permitted in Wilderness areas. Hike in, hike out. The words "mechanized mechanical" were inserted into the Wilderness Act of 1964 in order to ensure passage by those congressmen/senators whose primary financial support in that time period were weathly, primarily western (there's very few wilderness areas east of the Rockies, and almost none of significant size east of the Mississippi)...see National Geographic's recent article on this topic), and also allowed for the exemptions for grazing and industry where it previously existed within designated wilderness areas, hence the allowance for equestrian access within wilderness areas to access those areas of industry/ranching.

I have no problem with Wilderness Areas or the purpose they serve. I have a problem when someone espouses an opinion to be fact, does not have the history or research to support their OPINION, and does so in a manner that ignores the intent of the Wilderness Act while at the same time using any "slippery slope" argument in a selective manner.

Wilderness...experience it without leaving a trace. Horse/mule crap on a trail does no such thing, and such "assistance" shrinks Wilderness areas.

Keep it simple. Carry it in. Carry it out. Leave no trace.

 

I'm okay with wilderness excluding bikes. Sometimes I want to be on a trail without yahoos ripping by. And wherever bikes can go, there will be a percentage of unsympathetic yahoos. Sad but true.


But I have objections:

“In order to assure that an increasing population, accompanied by expanding settlement and growing mechanization, does not occupy and modify all areas within the United States and its possessions, leaving no lands designated for preservation and protection in their natural condition.”

Proposing that existing language definitively states an absolute about bicycles in Wilderness? I'm calling steaming bullshit. It describes the spirit of the Act and says nothing specific.

Also, a boat does provide mechanical advantage. As does an oar or paddle. So do shoes and trekking poles. And aid climbing gear.

 

My understanding is that the peoples land was set aside for recreation. Many wilderness trails I have no desire to ride. The trail out to half dome with hundreds of hikers does not appeal to me. On high sierra trails I would be walking more than riding. But there are areas closed to bikes that make no sense. Old railroad grades, mining and logging roads flumes should be open to bikes. Excellent example is the road that leaves mosquito flats into the lakes basin, very gentle grade and is a old road. The old roads that go into Golden Trout wilderness are another example. Many wilderness areas see very few people, I am not asking to ride popular trails just off the beaten path areas. The forest service goes too far, my friend Brian was kicked off a paved road in Yosemite because they told him that the area was wilderness during the winter and he could not ride his snow bike on the paved road when there was snow on it.

Dean

 

See my reply on MTBR AZ Forum.

Dean

 

I think the problem is how areas are designated wilderness vs what to do with them afterward. Wilderness is a code word for "no bikes", and I feel that many land advocates choose a Wilderness designation for preservation over other designations (like non-motorized back country) simply because they would prefer that there be no bikes rather than looking at the land and how best to protect it and access to it.

 

I'm skeptical of George Wuerthner and any of his do-gooder ecological activist cronies. More rules and regulation just adds to a mushrooming bureaucracy, increasing the scope of government and hurting the citizens.

I'm into my 50's and have been traipsing around in the wilderness since I was a young tike. In the days of yore, the wilderness was harder to get to, no doubt. Roads were rugged, unpaved, there were no visitors' centers at the end. The wilderness, for the most part, was more pristine, as well. Back in the day, we rode motorcycles through the deserts and mountains... very remote lands. That was the only way to get there. Hiking to such locations was impossible. As time went on, I don't know what laws transpired, but rangers started patrolling. Some days my partners and I would be the only visitors for 20 miles in any direction... and there would be a ranger. I could never figure out the cost effectiveness of paying one ranger to park his truck at a crossroads in the desert to keep an eye on two guys. Once, we were camped WAY out in the desert, when a small plane made several passes over our camp. Forty minutes later, a ranger in his jeep came rolling up. It took one aircraft, fuel, a pilot, a ranger, and more fuel, just to locate us and come see what we were up to. At time went by, things got more restrictive, outdoor riders were herded into smaller and smaller areas, and those areas were soon devastated from over-use. No surprise.

I shot lots of guns in the wilderness. Now the rangers don't want me out there doing that.

I climbed a lot of rocks. Ecological activists don't want me out there doing that.

I hike and backpack where most can't go, and many can't survive... and some haven't. Yet, there are rules and regulations about that, as well.

The local trails we currently use were put in 100 years ago by the white man, and many trails are even older, being established by the red man long before my ancestors even got on a boat. But to clear a landslide from that trail, or to fill in a washout, is a crime punishable by jail and fines. Make no mistake, the regulators and "ecologists" want us confined to the cities and to never experience nature.

It is the modern notion of "wilderness conservation" that creates the problems of overuse. The government gives control to the rangers. Invariably, they put in roads, parking lots, restrooms, visitor centers, all of which attract a greater number of people and increase the population density. Unchecked increases in population density obviously leads to overuse. Don't build paved roads. Don't put in flush toilets. Leave the wilderness hidden and remote.

We have plenty of examples of overuse here in Socal. You know all the parks where there are hordes of people every weekend. That's clearly by virtue of the surrounding populace. But if you make a little more effort, you can ride in places where you might not see many other people. And if you're really willing to work hard, you can go places where you will see no one. It's not that we lack wilderness, it's that it's hard to get there. And that's part of what defines wilderness.

The area where Wuerthner lives is less populated and has more remote areas than we have here, so it seems his intent is just to take away access from people he doesn't want in his area. If he was indeed dedicated to his beliefs, he would not set his high-tech technologically advanced boots into the wilderness, he would sell his technologically advanced kayak, and carve a canoe out of wood. Of course HE would then be stuck in the city, it would only be us mountain bikers on the trails, but he wouldn't see us and everyone would be happy.

What does Rob want? I want to be left alone. I want activists to stop lobbying pork barrel politicians to make new rules every year to prevent me from doing the things I love. The suit dweebs in Sacramento have no clue about the wilderness. Most of the donut eaters in the ranger station haven't a CLUE about anything more than 50 yards from the road. Seriously. Call them to find out about trail accessibility, water flow, snow conditions outside of their parking lot. Yet, these very people are the one's deciding if you'll be riding your bike in ten or twenty years.

 

The Forestry Service does not make directives, they simply follow direction. :|

Common Sense is dead! :|

There is ignorance amongst all User Groups to include Mountain Bikers...

The Forestry Service only follows orders. If they are told that the forest is closed, they do their best to enforce it. If the wilderness allowed cyclist they would wave as we rode by. On several occasions they have been sued by special interest groups to include the Sierra Club. The Sierra Club has it's radicals that have influence and money, (or the ability to rally those with money) to influence outrageous ecological studies to justify their hatred for anything other than their beliefs for wilderness use. Understand, for the most part I am not anti Sierra Club, there are those that can attest that I would love to "club" a few good Sierra Clubbers...they have done some good things in this world.
I think the Forestry Service (which has no budget) think it's easier to have a closed forest as it makes their job a whole lot easier. But personally, I really don't think they care one way or the other. Several have expressed this to me at past meetings. They are civil servants just following orders.



Common Sense is dead. I read the obituary. I'll post it at the end of this post.

If certain elements of Mountain Biking were adhered to, you would not have so much "Hiker Hate".

I have seen and attempted to rescue a lady on the side of McGill Trail weeping in fear of Mountain Bikers flying down the trail with no regard to her safety actually yelling at her to get off the FN trail. That's sad and a poor testimony to multi-use trails. Yeah, she picked a Sunday, a very bad day to go for a hike. Was she the idiot for thinking she could go for a nice hike on a Sunday, or were mountain bikers the idiots for being a jerk to a fellow trail user. Remember, she had the right to be there too...it gives us a bad name regardless...

Contrary to popular belief of some, that responding to an online deposition by a hiker that mountain biking should be banned from mountain trail use, only to have a belligerent mountain biker whose only retort is that they are "FN idiots" is probably not the best representation we could provide.

A little common sense (and some kindness) goes a loooooong way when it comes to trail diplomacy. I work extra hard and spend extra time to leave hikers with a smile when I represent the mountain bike community....and we ALL represent the MTB community when we meet another user of the trail.



So where is this going? :?

I pay my taxes, I have a steady job, I'm a contributor to society. I go to church, I vote, I have rights, I'm an American citizen, I buy a wilderness pass every year...
Personally, I'm a firm believer that we have the right to ride on any EXISTING trail in the wilderness. I did state EXISTING. And, I didn't say abuse any trail in the wilderness. I currently have horses (and donkeys), I was an avid Backpacker for many years. There is no difference in my opinion of Backpacking to Bikepacking. Same respect for nature on foot as on bike, we ALL must live by the common sense rules of the wilderness.

Stepper is right, there are many trails I would have absolutely no desire to ride in the wilderness. Yet, there are many that I would, and I should have the right. As well, Rob S. is right, I want to be left alone, and the deeper I go into the wilderness, the less likely I will meet "City People of Convenience". Ones that leave trash, plastic water bottles, and diapers lying around. mike is right, there should be blocks of land left alone, but that means banned for everyone. The minute a trail is established, let's face it, the damage is done (or begun). It's all for one and one for all, and this should apply to all.

Just because I choose to ride a bike does not make me irresponsible; but there are those out there that have preceded me and have established a reputation for me. They have used "bad" common sense. I have been on many sections of the John Muir trail hiking only to find previous hikers have cut the trail, left trash behind, or not properly buried their feces, etc etc etc... I don't think of the general hiker as being jerks based on this, I think, a few bad apples. Common sense...

What does Mikie want?
I want my right to ride wilderness trails. I'm willing to pay for an annual pass. A pass that comes with very explicit rules attached. Rules that state articles of common sense. The Mikie Watson 7 Commandments of the Wilderness:
1. Thou shalt not cut thy switchbacks
2. Thou shall not wander from thy established trail
3. Thou shalt love thy nature and thy fellow trail user. To honor and respect til death do we part
4. Thou shall not leave behind anything; accept non skidded tire tracks
5. Thou shalt pick up thy bike and HAB it to the next spot of safe trailing to include stream crossings where a fragile network of life could be potentially injured
6. Thou shall be banished from all wilderness areas if violations and any abominations are conducted in such holy lands. No if's, and, or but's...
7. Use thy good judgement of common sense, or, Yea, Shall, Be . . . Judged

If only all Trail Users, used common sense. We all have rule breakers amongst every one of our user groups. All can take blame to erosion, trail damage, violating the fragile balance of nature, and upsetting another user group. I'm always amused by the hiker who complains we are riding on the trails they established. "What, the ones they created in a wilderness area? The originator of the social footprint, and the first to violate wilderness?"

But if we established common sense rules and policed ourselves we could all benefit from what the wilderness has to offer.

My vote is for access with responsibility... and consequences for those that violate the rules that can, and does, ruin it for others.

Can you imagine bikepacking the John Muir Trail?????




The Death Of Common Sense

Obituary

Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense, who has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was, since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape.
He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as:

- Knowing when to come in out of the rain;
- Why the early bird gets the worm;
- Life isn't always fair; and
- Maybe it was my fault..

Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don't spend more than you can earn) and reliable strategies (adults, not children, are in charge). His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well-intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place. Reports of a 6-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended from school for using mouthwash after lunch; and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition.

Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the job that they themselves had failed to do in disciplining their unruly children.

It declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer sun lotion or an aspirin to a student; but could not inform parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.

Common Sense lost the will to live as the churches became businesses; and criminals received better treatment than their victims.

Common Sense took a beating when you couldn't defend yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar could sue you for assault.

When the acts of a few determine the punishment of the masses.

Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement.

Common Sense was preceded in death, by his parents, Truth and Trust, by his wife, Discretion, by his daughter, Responsibility, and by his son, Reason.

He is survived by his 4 stepbrothers:
I Know My Rights
I Want It Now
Someone Else Is To Blame
I'm A Victim
Not many attended his funeral because
so few realized he was gone..
If you still remember him, pass this on.
If not, join the majority and do nothing.

 

Hey, Mikie.
There is certainly a code of honor among "real" outdoorsmen: accepted conduct, chivalry, courtesy. There is no doubt that the deeper you go into the wilderness, the more honorable the adventurers are. I think it's because in the real wilderness, people are serious about what they're doing: it's hard just go get there, and if you don't take it seriously, you don't get to keep living. The others out there are equally serious, so there is an automatic level of respect. There's also the knowledge of interdependence: sometimes a gulp of water, a few bites of food, or a shared fire from a stranger can make a huge difference in someone's wellness or comfort.

Contrast that with a lot of mountain biking. Most people can get a bike fairly easily. It easy to get that bike to a lot of trails, especially when you live close to the city, as we all do. The result is a lot of people who are not really committed to the wilderness go out there and engage in some type of douchebaggery. The speed of the sport is a factor, as well. The cowardly d-bags can act aggressively toward someone, and be long gone before any possible repercussions. This behavior is so prevalent that there are some trails I'll only ride on weekdays.

Now that I've taken the time to type this out, I can see how George Wuerthner might have reached his conclusion. But I think it's fallacious to compare the rude newbie who never ventures far from his truck, with the dedicated wilderness rider.

The solution is for all of us to ride like ladies and gentlemen. Good behavior is contagious.

 

Well said Rob, and it's unfortunate that most opinions are formed by those on the outskirts of town and not in the depth of the wilderness where it really counts.

 

As much as it pains me to say this, yes, there should be areas that do not allow mountain bike riding. We have a full array of riders among our ranks from the most respectful and courteous to the obnoxious and rude energy-drink-fueled douchebags yelling "get out of the way." Our obligation is to train the idiots to be courteous human beings while riding their bikes - in spite of the fact that there will always be "those guys." So, yes, I think it's OK to take some territory off the map for bikes in order to preserve its most pristine state, while still allowing access on foot. That said, I will oppose most expansion of Wilderness Area designation. I will also attempt to be more courteous than I need to be when I ride my bike - for I represent us all when I ride.

 

here is a VERY well written rebuttal to the original post in case anyone has missed it:

http://www.singletracks.com/blog/tr...-allowing-mountain-bikes-in-wilderness-areas/

I have actually contacted someone from STC and was told raising money is not going to be the issue. The way we will win is when the time comes to make our voices heard we must act with emails, petitions, and voting. I can't wait to see how this plays out. I'm feeling pleased with the way things are going with STC. The voice of reason.

 

I have a (small L - philosophical, and not party) libertarian take on this:

1. Legal: Irrelevant. Just because congress passed a law doesn't mean they have the constitutional authority to make such law. I can guarantee you that they do not have such authority, but I leave it as an exercise for the student to read the document to discover why that is so; but I kinda give it away below.

2. Ecological: The San Gabriels, to use our relevant backyard area, butts up against Los Angeles. This should be sufficient for anyone but the most obtuse to figure out, but for those that can't: There are numerous fire roads and forest roads throughout the "wilderness" areas in the San Gabriels. There are roads galore through the "San Dimas Experimental Forest" adjacent to Glendora Ridge Road on the way to Mt Baldy Village. I cannot fathom why those roads would be closed to mountain bikes. Note that Hwy 39 cuts between two "wilderness" areas, and there is serious(!) discussion that reopening 39 would adversely affect the bighorn sheep in the area. The road's been closed since 1978 due to a landslide, and not reopened due to financial issues at Caltrans. Caltrans wants to dump the road back to the Forest Service or county, and neither will take it on. It's been there since the 1930s (or so), and people have been traversing those mountains for much longer.

3. Sociological: BS argument, and completely irrelevant. The people will do what the people do. Besides, the more citizens who can access the area, the more they are likely to want to take care of it. Yes, there are yahoos who should be culled, but they are in the minority. Punish the individual who does damage; do NOT assume we all will. Don't whine about not having the resources to find him.

4. Philosophical: Philosophically (and legally), there is no constitutional authority for the federal government to own or govern land outside of "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts,Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;" (Emphasis mine) (Article 1, Section 8, clause 17 US Constitution - which starts with "Congress shall have power..." juxtapose that with the 9th & 10th amendments.) Did the state of California receive remuneration for these wilderness areas? The standard $1 doesn't count. And what forts, magazines, arsenals, etc were built there?

So I ask you...any of you...to please explain to me how the federal government came into the authority to own and regulate national forests. Or to proclaim wilderness.

Yeah, I know...it's a done deal, and we can't dispute it. BS. Si, se puede. All we have to do is assert our rights. But legalized adulthood scares the bejesus outta many folks.

Rant concludes. You may now return to your regularly scheduled ovinery.

 

his ecological argument is one based on emotion, not on empirical evidence. His language speaks volumes. Bikers don't "commandeer" trails. They use them, just like a hiker or equestrian.
The empirical evidence from a Cal State study shows that impact from a bike is pretty much equal to a person on foot, and in some cases is less damaging. Certainly far less than a heavy horse and rider.
There is no evidence that a mountain bike causes any more impact to a "sensitive species of wildlife" than a person on foot does. On the contrary, the quiet, quicker movement can quite often have less impact. Certainly less impact than heavy machinery brought in during fires.
As far as trail creation, fairly overstated. Possible, but really does not happen that often.
Weeds - same or less than foot users. Certainly less than horses.

Agenda driven articles like these should be met with rebuttal based on empirical evidence.

 

did you check this out?

http://www.singletracks.com/blog/tr...-allowing-mountain-bikes-in-wilderness-areas/

 

Yep
Didn't you see my 'like'?

 

Yes. In fact I JUST read it. Well written. It compels me towards civil disobedience as I am a firm believer that I own those trails as much as any hiker or equestrian.
@herzalot mentioned it earlier and I agree that there are some areas that should remain off limits (but off limits to all, not just bikes). As well, there are some places that simply do not make sense for a mountain bike. But to have a blanket ban? Unacceptable. Preposterous.
Thanks for posting that up. Great article!

 

No, Mikie, there are NO areas that should remain off limits. A bicycle is human powered. A bicycle on an established trail isn't doing damage. When you say that there are "some places that simply do not make sense for mountain bikers" are you referring to places where we have to HAB? Do you really want to be excluded from GE? Because I understand that the Wall of Death makes most normal humans get off and walk....

Be careful what you're willing to accede to. Be most adamant about your refusal to be limited because of some idiot with more money than sense.

 

sorry... I do now!

 

This part right here: Zipping down a trail they can rapidly approach other trail users, whether horse riders or hikers.

If one only mountain bikes, it may be difficult to understand why those on foot often are dismayed when a favorite trail is discovered and commandeered by mountain bikers. It is not unlike the same reaction that dirt bikers and other ORVers have to other recreationists. One survey of hikers in Montana found that the vast majority were negatively impacted by the presence of dirt bikes on hiking trails, but few of the dirt bikers are negatively affected by hikers. Mountain bikes have the advantage of speed and often generate the same negative reactions from hikers."

...tells me this is not a well-thought out argument, but rather an argument by someone who hates mountain bikes. Fair enough, but don't try to argue based on facts when you're coming from an angle of pure emotion.

"Untrammeled" to me means left alone, no human contact whatsoever. So if that's the basis of the argument, horses and hikers are verboten as well. It's my understanding that the Wilderness Act doesn't specifically exclude bikes, it's just always been interpreted that way. Perhaps I'm incorrect. Certainly there are wilderness trails not suitable for bikes. But there are plenty that are - especially all those old roads that were once traveled by logging trucks. The big picture that most of these "conservationists" miss is the best way to make sure that people don't give a crap about wilderness is to make sure they never see it.

 

Band-aids to bullet wounds. This truly is a Tragedy of the Commons. The best mitigation is to coerce people to stop breeding worldwide. Mr. Hardin had it right way back when 'Merica was sending people to the moon and leaving our garbage behind even there.

 

My $.02....

We are now part of the laziest culture on the planet, probably in the universe. What do I mean?

We have simply reached that place where we want the easy, one size fits all, solution for everything... including land and resource use. Think about it. Do we have common sense regulations, which delineate the difference between the various user communities of our resources and allow co-existence? Mostly no. Case in point; a bicycle vs a horse. A horse is a mechanical advantage... just happens to be an organic one. Equine traffic is far more damaging that cycle traffic.

Am I advocating for bikes to be on every trail? Absolutely not... I'm advocating for limited, multi use trails, through Wilderness areas where it makes sense. The Colorado Trail is a great example. There are several segments that are off limits to bicycles, as they cross into Wilderness designated ares for short stretches. Why can't their be waivers for thru traffic situations?

So there ya go... tear my theory apart.

 

Bravo sir!

 

I've been involved in this debate/fight for years at the state and federal level here in CA. I have a pretty good grasp of both (all) sides and the matter is terribly frustrating to me.

I am a firm believer that the original intent of the Wilderness Act of 1964 was to preserve a limited number of untrammeled large swaths of land in sensitive or pristine areas to eliminate the possibility of man made development (drilling, mining, OHV, roads, etc.). For many years, there were a limited number of Wilderness areas and they, originally didn't exclude bikes--that came later. That said, I would not have too much of an issue with having excluded bikes in the 50 or so established Wilderness areas, though I would still support the STR's efforts to allow local land managers to determine whether a bike would be appropriate for each area on an area by area basis rather than a blanket ban.

In the past 20 years, the complexion of the issue has changed radically. Groups like the Sierra Club and other activist groups have worked the system to exclude bikes and rapidly increase land classified as Wilderness. In fact, they sued the BLM and USFS to demand that they try to reclassify more and more land as W and it's worked beautifully for them. At inception, there were about 50 Wilderness areas comprising of just under 10 million acres--not unreasonable. Today there are more than 750 Wilderness areas (a 1400% increase) comprising more than 100 million acres and there are 50+ proposed or recommended Wilderness areas at any given time. The routine for the activists is to look for land that's already well protected, say under a Back Country Non-Motorized (BCNM) classification, and ask or sue the land manager to rip out the roads and reclassify it as Wilderness to eliminate biking (among other things).

We are seeing historical OHV areas and biking areas being converted to Wilderness, which is absurd and obviously fails to meet the definition, but the activists want to shut down our sports. Take a look at the attache images of the CA around Kernville (YES, look at the PLUNGE) between Barstow and Vegas where the historical BtoV rides and races happened. Even more importantly, take a look at and be ANGRY about the area around Moab. Yes, that's newly proposed Wilderness all around Moab. New Wilderness is popping up all the time. The activists groups have lots of money and full-time staff and lawyers to advance the cause. To get a quick visual indicator of Wilderness areas, open up Apple Maps and scroll around the West. Yes, you must use Apple Maps and not Google for this purpose. Apple maps shows both existing Wilderness and many of the proposed Wilderness areas, but prepare to be steamed.





This is wrong and it's happening under our noses. We are seeing proposed Wilderness areas pop up on LA County (Castaic, Magic Mountain, much of the LPNF, around almost every OHV area). These aren't coincidence. They are driven by design to contain OHVs, mountain bikes and limit development. Read the USFS travel management plan. That plan spells out how the government land managers are implementing plans to eliminate long-distance, point-to-point travel by bikes, motorcycles or OHVs unless it's on approved primary, secondary or tertiary routed (read roads).

So, the original intent of the Wilderness Act was noble and reasonable. The corruption and exploitation of it means the OHV community has lost enormous opportunities and we are in the crosshairs next. What should we do. First, speak up every chance you get. Go to every town hall meeting on land management. Visit your USFS office and get to know the ranger. Attend every land management hearing you see that's seeking elevated protection for lands and speak up. Support Sustainable Trails Coalition and Stewards of the Sequoias--IMBA, not so much. Finally, be prepared to peacefully protest and ride the trails. The OHV community has long been doing this and I expect we will find ourselves in the same position as more and more areas are closed. Keep up the fight. Vote for people that will stand against new Wilderness and have fun riding! BTW, Tom McClintock is one of our best allies in this matter.

 

what do you guys think about some kind of wilderness / STC awareness information leaflets. hand these out at mountain bike events and local bike shops. spread the word.

 

@AKAKTM: I was so disappointed Tom McClintock lost the 2003 election for Governor.

I really enjoyed whenever KFI had him on air.

 

"There is no shortage of trails that are open to mountain biking."

If they gave him an enema, he would disappear.

 

As both a proponent of wilderness AND advocate for mountain biking, I found statements I disagree with in both the essay on the "inappropriateness of mountain biking in Wilderness" and the Singletrack's response. There are already plenty of comments on George's piece, so I'll just share a few observations on John's.

"..on the technology scale, mechanical devices are lower than electronic devices, yet nobody would complain about carrying a GPS into the Wilderness, which precisely pinpoints the user’s location by signals from a constellation of satellites in orbit."

When I hike into the High Sierras, I go to exist in simple, quiet, natural surroundings. I follow existing trails or travel cross-country using paper topo maps and sometimes a compass. I move when I can see where I'm going and stay put when I can't. I've personally been opposed to electronics in the backcountry since the first time I saw a transistor radio hanging from a nail on a tree in a pack camp. A few decades later I topped Mt. Whitney to see a number of hikers on their phones. This technology, for me, separates the user from his or her surroundings, and drives a wedge between the "wilderness" one has supposedly come to enjoy, and the civilization we've come to escape. GPS devices rob the user of route-finding skills and potentially lead to a false security in that a person might depend on them for rescue from outside sources. I find it's much more compelling and in the spirit of wilderness to be totally self-sufficient and rely on myself and companions to stay out of trouble or rescue ourselves if we get into it.

But that's just me. Many aren't coming to "escape" anything and are simply out to go for a hike, climb a peak, catch some fish, or ride a bike. There are different reasons each of us goes to the mountains, or desert or wherever, and that's part of the beauty of it (as long as we don't trash it for everyone else). Lest I be labeled a purist, I've been known to take a flashlight (though rarely), and a camera (with batteries), and even an avalanche beacon (though obviously only when skiing with others). But if I was prohibited from bringing ANY electronics into the wilderness, I'd still go and not make much of a big deal out of it.

John Fisch also said that my ski bindings provide a mechanical advantage, so backcountry skiing in wilderness areas should be banned if all machines are banned. In that case I guess I'd go back to leather boots and three-pin bindings, which served well until plastic boots and more-rigid bindings came along. I don't really see the mechanical "advantage" of a pivoting toe piece though. It merely allows the heel to rise off the ski when walking, which seems fairly natural to me.

The great thing about skiing is that you can go anywhere on snow without disturbing what lies underneath, so there's no worry about creating unauthorized trails. The tracks stay around for a while, then everything melts to start fresh the next winter. Wish it were so with trails.