After keeping them off the trails, then we get them off roads, then sidewalks, then school parking lots, then any type of pedistrian walkways, then skating board pools, etc.

Better yet, I say we keep 'em where they cause no harm - in the gym propped up on only one wheel?

Only kidding so save flames. But these are all other area's I have heard people complain about. Kinda makes you think if everyone had their way...

Chuck

Alan, this is America. Of course you will continue to pay for trails you cannot ride on. But you can walk on them, so your money is well spent, is it not? You pay for subsidies to oil companies too, though I'm not entirely clear just what it is you get from that money. Is that what you think this is? You are being ripped off ala oil company subsidy?

The argument that you should not have to pay for things that you cannot use comes out of a pretty narrow view, one that frankly fails to understand the importance of the notion of the greater good and your obligation to it.

As for joint-venture, appropriate multi-use trail building/maintenance, well I suppose I'm for it, but my experience here (Annadel State Park is my weekend stomping grounds) is that those who beat the hell out of the trail (typically, yes, mountain bikers) are not those who fix the trail.

Yeah, I know, it's a revelation.

My experience tells me that mountain bikers will always tear up hiking trails even when those trails are posted "Hikers-Equestrians Only".

Why?

Because those trails are there, of course, and those trails are in pretty good shape, way better shape than the collections of rocks that now pass for the multi-use trails, thanks to mountain bikers. Sure, lots of "fun" can be had by flying down single-track hiking trails at 30 miles an hour, ducking low-hanging brush, locking up the rear wheel entering a turn, getting airborne, the satisfying sink of full suspension upon your return to earth, but it is not right to do so. Ethics, yeah. Go figure.

So, yes sir, I will strenuously oppose bikes in the wilderness however I can, and you sir will likely strenuously support bikes in the wilderness however you can. And that's fine; that's America.

But at the end of the day there won't be mountain bikes in the wilderness. I'm sure of that, just as I am sure that common sense is returning to our country and that a sense of common purpose accompanies that common sense.

We'll just have to await the decision.

In the meantime, HYOH.

John, You say that you are a mountian biker but that you dont ride on trails or in the mountains? I'm not talking about tax dollars, I'm talking about my personal time and money. The countless hours spent repairing trails used by hikers and bikers and the cash donations I make to keep these trails alive. I love that you use the internet to sling insults about spandex and full suspension at me. Do your reasearch before you call me names. I have a steel bike with no suspenion and no gears. Look at this picture of me running down a trail where no bicycles are ever permitted. You might notice as I did that I was the only person for miles and that even though no bikes are permited here the trail is torn and worn from thousands of boots kicking at the land. You talk of skidding tires? have you never slipped in your boots? Is that not the same equivalent to my tires ocasionally slipping? I am what I am. Sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me. :)~

Hi there,
First off I should say that I am both a hiker and mountain biker. For many years, thousands of miles, and hundreds of nights backpacking I shared the disdain for mountain bikers that many hikers have. I was convinced that bikers cause more damage and I was always upset when they spoiled my peaceful wilderness experiences by blasting by. I repeat, "MY" experiences, as if the world belonged only to me. Then I took up mountain biking because I eventually realized that everyone blasting by appeared to be having a hell of a good time. Since then it has occurred to me that both groups do damage and that both also have the ability to help. We need to remember that there are good and bad hikers, and good and bad bikers. As a mountain biker, I don't spend more than a few hours in the wilderness. I don't accidentally forget a tent stake at some pristine site, I don't leave my car at the trailhead overnight, tempting wildlife with the food I decided to leave behind in the car, I don't set up camp on fragile vegetation (anything other than bare rock suffers from campers), I don't scare little chipmunks from their favorite chill spot for more than a short lunch break, I don't leave a trail of turds, I don't make fires, the Park Service doesn't need to set up bear wires and clear campsites and build outhouses for me, and I don't make half the noise a pair or group of friends hiking along does. So there, everyone makes mistakes and everyone has an effect on nature. I personally prefer the quiet, slow pace of hiking over mountain biking, but it doesn't mean that either one is more ethically right than the other. I think we should all just be grateful for each other, because the more user groups there are to advocate for the protection of wild areas, the better off we all will be. So go have fun out there and try to stop whining. Maybe we can all start crying about dogs now too. Hugs and kisses to all, Lizzie

It is good to see that some are taking a deep breath and counting to ten.

Hikers, expecially UL backpackers here who operate at the pinnacle of your sport, have more in common with real mountain bikers (like members of the IMBA) than they have differences. Think about it for a moment... You both love the outdoors, are deeply concerned about the environment and are passionate enough to sepend hundreds to shave ounces off your kit. The list of commonalities goes on.

The cycling community is organized, financed and motivated to advance their adgenda. Why not do the same? I'll bet if you engaged the IMBA to educate, you would find a willing partner. Would you rather have a shared use model that suits both or a competitor for the same foot of trail?

Rather than threatening from the safety of an internet forum, why not engage cyclists in a conversation next time you are both gearing up at a trailhead on a Saturday morning? Why not post a flyer at the kiosk? Why not run that slide show at the monthly meeting of the local bike club instead of threatening to sue and show it to a judge. And why not just call a ranger next time you encounter reckless riders?

And my Swiss made ASSOS "Underwear" cost more than your sleeping bag!


-Tim-

Edited by TimH. on 12/21/2008 14:35:17 MST.

First they came for the mountain-bikers, and since I didn't own one, I didn't speak up....

This is me on a 3 day trip on the North Umpqua trail in central Oregon. See the beauty of that trail? It's like that the whole way and it's one of the best examples of true backcountry multi-use I've seen. What was the erosional impact? None that I could see, and I see a lot- especially after horses hit the PCT in early season.

Oh, and by the way, I'm on a full suspension rig. And I don't skid- never. And I can jump when I'm at a mountain bike park, but that's not what backcountry riding is about.

What you find in places like the Umpqua is that the riders who visit are experienced, often IMBA members like myself who spend a lot of time helping with trail maintenance and respect closed trails. We have good trail manners. It's easy to have a Mountain Dew/X-Games view of mountain biking when you aren't part of the culture and haven't had the experience. And I'm not saying that you should- I'm just saying that there's another perspective to consider.

I'm also not saying that the wilderness should be open to mountain biking. I'm not sure how I feel about that- definitely the lion's share should be closed (and always will be). But if you look at the North Umpqua (and there's nothing else like it in the northwest and I mean NOTHING), you might see that multiuse can be a reasonable option in certain situations.

Doug

I think the biggest problem is the different rate of speed while traveling. Hikers and horses are going under 5 mph whereas bikes are going faster. Just not compatible on a single track.

Alan,
I think you're taking this a little too personally. Nobody is talking about you and your riding style. What people are talking about is mountain bikers collectively as a group and the impact that they have on trails relative to hikers, again when viewed collectively as a group. Sure some bikers will have less of an impact than others on trails due to their riding style (and it sounds like you fall into this group of mountain bikers), but that doesn't make the hard-riders--the ones responsible for tearing out the corners of switchbacks, digging long ditches in the center of trails, and wearing down a trail's shoulders before the season's even ended--not exist, nor does it prohibit them from continuing to ride hard enough to cause these kinds of damage.

At the end of the day the issue for national parks is how can the most people enjoy these areas for the least amount of tax dollars. Considering that 1) many (though certainly not all) trails open to mountain bikers tend to get torn up faster than those closed to them, 2) torn up trails in the park system must be worked on when they go beyond a certain point of damage, and 3) it costs money to work on trails, I'd imagine that the decision has been pretty clear cut for park management the the past decades.

A few additional points only made the rule more logical from a park management perspective: 1) prohibiting bikes doesn't prohibit the bike riders access to these areas like prohibiting horses might (i.e. some people ride horses because they are not in-shape enough to hike the trails themselves, but the same is almost never true of bikers), 2) bikers are occasionally inconsiderate of the hikers and equestrians using the trail and there's no practical way, when in the backcountry, to hold an inconsiderate biker, who gets away, responsible for spooking horses or hitting a hiker (those are extreme examples, but the idea is that a biker might be going so fast that he doesn't actually realize it and the people inconvenienced are not fast enough to catch up to him), lastly there are undoubtedly 3) wildlife concerns, either for animals that might attack the speeding bikes (wolves, bears, possibly moose), or the speeding bikes spooking the animals (bison, migratory birds, or other species unique to a particular park that probably shouldn't be harassed too much).

Edited by artsandt on 12/21/2008 15:38:58 MST.

"It's easy to have a Mountain Dew/X-Games view of mountain biking when you aren't part of the culture and haven't had the experience."
Hi Doug,
IME, you're right, but in a slightly different way. It's easy because the vast majority of mountain bikers I have run across, and sometimes almost into, are precisely that type of biker(X-Games). The thought of turning them loose in the wilderness provokes a very visceral reaction in me, I have to admit. As to whether or not the lion's share of wilderness trails will always be closed, I'm not so sure you speak for the majority of mountain bikers. Greg M. sure doesn't convey that impression in his posts. It's one thing to share access to close in trails, but when bikers start talking about venturing unrestricted into the national parks, I think the lines are pretty clearly drawn and there isn't a whole lot of room for compromise. The last time I felt this strongly about this kind of issue was back in the late 70's when Disney & Co got the bright idea of building a recreational complex up near Mineral King, overlooking the Kern Canyon in Sequoia NP. Fortunately wisdom prevailed in that case and I fervently hope the same is true this time around.

BPL,
It sounds like you have some potential podcasts here. Why not redirect this and other forum strings that have brought out some strong feelings to get some real 2-way discussions and education. How about a debate/discussion/chat with:

-Mountain bikers - International Mountain Biking Association
- Horse riders - American Trail Horse Association
- ATVers - West Coast ATV Riders Association?

I have opinions about some of this, but let's hear what the leadership of these user groups have to say when tough (but courteous) questions are asked. BPL should set up a gorum thread to solicit questions from this shy bunch.

Call it a crazy idea, but let's talk.

Its just common sense that you cant have someone going 30 mph on the same track as people on foot. Any public official that tries to do so will be bulldozed by complaints and stories of injuries.
Why dont you take your bikes on the freeway? Your taxes paid for that and you have far less impact then they do.
Oh thats right, because the speeds they travel put you in harms way- imagine that.
As long as there are separate trails for bikers and I dont care.

Tim,
If the end goal of IMBA's organized, financed , motivated agenda is unrestricted access to the pristine backcountry areas of NP's, we're probably headed for a real confrontation. Not meant as a threat, just an educated guess as to how things are likely to turn out. Wheels and hikers in pristine wilderness areas are not compatible, and the reasons have been very well presented in numerous posts to this thread. NP areas close in to trailheads are one thing, true wilderness areas are another. Can't you guys settle for half a loaf? I don't think anybody here is looking for looking for trouble, but it's pretty obvious there are very strong, even passionate, feelings on both side of the issue, and that makes me real uneasy. As for trying to
"call a ranger next time you encounter reckless riders?", when is the last time you tried to find a backcountry ranger in a real remote part of any NP? At least the western ones. I sure haven't had much luck when trying to report especially egregious instances of horse packer behavior and, on the 2 occasions I did run across a ranger, when I started to explain what I had observed they just threw up their hands and told me to save my breath because they couldn't touch them-too much political clout. I mention this because they are a prime example of another organized, financed, motivated group. As far as I am concerned, one is enough.

Fair enough Brian- your points are valid, but your information is inaccurate. 30mph is extremely fast on a mountain bike- downhill race speed and those bikes would never be found in the wilderness. More accurate would be 10-15 mph on challenging trails. 20 tops. That may still be too much of a difference, but the speeds you suggest are extremely high.

Consider this- when riding the North Umpqua trail (the only trail in Washington or Oregon that is compatible to this argument, in my opinion) during top season in mid-July, I saw a grand total of 4 hikers, 2 fishermen, and 2 cyclists in 3 days. During each encounter, the bikes slowed or stopped, and except for the fishermen, we exchanged trail info and food. Now, I may not be the average biker, but I'm not far off for what you're talking about.

The X-games folks that most of you mention- I'd ask where you met these riders. I'd guess it was at a BMX park, lowland trails, that sort of thing. Because the backcountry cyclists have very few opportunities, at least in the west. The places we get to ride in most of Washington are places that very few would ever choose to hike.

My point is that when it comes to user groups, it's important to be open to different groups within the larger group, and to question a perception against a reality.

For example, there are several studies that show horse usage having far more impact than mountain bikes. My experience says this is true. But we allow horses in many wilderness areas. Is it speed? Is it history? Is it erosion? Or should human feet be the only things allowed?

Taken from the IMBA web site:

Expected Rule Change Would Benefit Bicycling in National Parks

Action Alert

For Immediate Release
11-19-08
Contact: Mark Eller, IMBA Communications Director
markeller@imba.com
303-545-9011
An upcoming National Park Service (NPS) rule change could greatly benefit mountain bicycling by improving the administrative process for opening trails to bicycles. IMBA has been asking the agency to revise its policies since 1992, because the current "special regulations" process is needlessly cumbersome and treats bicycles like motorized vehicles.

The NPS has said the proposal for new rules will be formally announced later this year. IMBA hopes the enhanced procedure will allow park superintendents to make trail access decisions locally, instead of being tied to a Washington-based, multi-year regulatory journey. The new rule would treat bicycling like other non-motorized trail users, such as equestrians.

The suggested NPS rule change would only apply to places where including bicycling is non controversial, and would maintain current requirements for environmental review and public notice. Opening a trail to bicycling must be in compliance with the National Park Service Organic Act, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Historic Preservation Act, and all NPS General Management Planning processes.

Proposed Rule Subject of Misunderstandings

Recently, the American Hiking Society (AHS) published a national action alert opposing the as-yet-unreleased NPS rule. This alert is based on the incorrect assumption that requirements for comprehensive environmental review and public commentary about opening a trail to bicycling will be discarded. In fact, these safeguards will remain in place, as required by federal law. IMBA and AHS leaders met nationally on this issue last week.

Unfortunately, the alert has rippled through the hiking community, causing consternation and confusion amongst the shared-use trails community. Some hiking-based groups have expressed concern that mountain biking will infringe on foot travel in national parks, but IMBA remains confident that shared-use trails can succeed in national parks, as they do in countless public land settings around the globe.

The alert also suggests that this regulatory change could affect how Wilderness, or areas proposed for Wilderness, will be managed. In fact, these issues are completely separate. IMBA recognizes that cycling is not allowed in areas designated as Wilderness. The NPS proposed rule change would have no impact on Wilderness regulations.

National parks that are not interested in expanding opportunities for bicycling will not be affected by the rule change. The new proceedures will not force mountain biking on any park unit, and superintendents that do not see opportunities for mountain biking in their parks will not be asked to adopt it.

IMBA Encourages Clubs to Reach Out to Hiking Groups and NPS Leaders

IMBA encourages mountain bike organizations to reach out to their local hiking trail partners and NPS local leaders with our fact sheet on the issue, to address concerns and answer questions about the rule change.

Creating opportunities for mountain biking will not diminish experiences for existing users such as hikers or equestrians. Park staff are skilled at selecting appropriate trails for shared-use experiences. Hikers and bikers can work together to repair eroded trails, get kids exercising in parks and build excitement about our national parks.

More on What the Rule Change Will Achieve

The current "special regulations" process for opening NPS trail to bicycling is onerous and cumbersome, often typically taking years to complete. Only two of the roughly 24 parks that allow singletrack mountain biking have managed to complete special regulations, highlighting the unrealistic and unnecessary burden it places on NPS staff. The special regulations process required for bicycles also applies to snowmobiles, jet skis, airplanes, commercial trucking and other similarly intensive park uses. IMBA believes local park management, using the inclusive NEPA process, can best make decisions regarding bicycle use on the trails that they oversee.

In one real-world example, Tennessee's Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area, trail users and park staff worked for many years to open two existing routes to bicycling, detailing the process publicly in environmental reviews, park planning documents and rigorous scientific research. Regardless, the trail opening was prohibited because special regulations had not been completed. While bicyclists, NPS staff, hikers and equestrians all support opening these trails to bicycles, the opening date is likely several years in the future, at best.

Another example can be found in Washington, DC, at Fort Dupont National Park. IMBA affiliated club Trips for Kids has been bringing inner-city youth to the park to ride the existing network of singletrack trails for many years. This program helps build self-esteem, get kids exercising and exposes an often underserved population to the benefits of bicycling and national parks. Technically, these trails are out of compliance with this bureaucratic, special regulations process - although all groups involved would call this program wildly successful.

For more information on this issue, please contact IMBA's Government Affairs Director Jenn Dice (jenn@imba.com), or Policy Analyst Drew Vankat (drew@imba.com).

"My point is that when it comes to user groups, it's important to be open to different groups within the larger group..."

Well stated Doug.

Doug,
You are right about my impressions being gained from contact on lowland trails here in western Washington, most egregiously in off limits to bikers sections of the Tiger Mountain complex, which I use occasionally on training hikes. My question to you is quite simply: If they behave this way on lowland trails, would they suddenly become enlightened disciples of LNT and backcountry etiquette in the cathedrals of true wilderness beauty? Please forgive me for being skeptical.
No question horses have far more impact, but as I have mentioned in several posts, both in this thread and others, they have both history AND a huge amount of political clout in their favor, particularly in the Western USA. If I had my way, they would be restricted from fragile areas entirely, by which I mean areas that, once damaged, will not recover for many years, if ever. My experience in this regard is primarily in the higher areas of the Sierra, where the damage is extensive and growing by the year. Here in Washington it does not seem to be as bad, at least not where I hike.

Doug,
First off, many thanks for posting this info from the IMBA website. I think hikers of good will may see cause for hope here:
"The suggested NPS rule change would only apply to places where including bicycling is non controversial."
"IMBA recognizes that cycling is not allowed in areas designated as Wilderness. The NPS proposed rule change would have no impact on Wilderness regulations."
I do not know whether the true backcountry areas of NP's are considered wilderness areas by the bureaucrats, or IMBA. As far as I am concerned, if such areas will remain off limits I am not only a happy camper, but will be a supporter of IMBA's efforts to expand multi use trail networks in non sensitive areas. Doug, Greg, et al, can you offer some clarification here? I can't speak for the community at large, but I know recognition of this distinction would make me rest a lot easier in so many ways.
Then maybe we could even work together to bring some sanity to the regulations governing the use of horses in the backcountry.

According to the NPS (http://wilderness.nps.gov/wilderness.cfm), over half of National Park lands are designated as wilderness under the Wilderness Act. I believe over 95% of Olympic National Park and 93% of North Cascades National Park is designated as wilderness.

I have no problem with opening a limited amount of trails in national parks for bikes. Certain trails are wide enough to be able to accommodate both bikes and hikers, but small single-track trails could probably only be open to either bikers or hikers. I think many here, including me, are just afraid of all national park trails being opened to biking without restrictions.

Bicycles should not be allowed in any natural area. They are inanimate objects and have no rights. There is also no right to mountain bike. That was settled in federal court in 1994: http://mjvande.nfshost.com/mtb10.htm . It's dishonest of mountain bikers to say that they don't have access to trails closed to bikes. They have EXACTLY the same access as everyone else -- ON FOOT! Why isn't that good enough for mountain bikers? They are all capable of walking....

A favorite myth of mountain bikers is that mountain biking is no more harmful to wildlife, people, and the environment than hiking, and that science supports that view. Of course, it's not true. To settle the matter once and for all, I read all of the research they cited, and wrote a review of the research on mountain biking impacts (see http://mjvande.nfshost.com/scb7.htm ). I found that of the seven studies they cited, (1) all were written by mountain bikers, and (2) in every case, the authors misinterpreted their own data, in order to come to the conclusion that they favored. They also studiously avoided mentioning another scientific study (Wisdom et al) which did not favor mountain biking, and came to the opposite conclusions.

Those were all experimental studies. Two other studies (by White et al and by Jeff Marion) used a survey design, which is inherently incapable of answering that question (comparing hiking with mountain biking). I only mention them because mountain bikers often cite them, but scientifically, they are worthless.

Mountain biking accelerates erosion, creates V-shaped ruts, kills small animals and plants on and next to the trail, drives wildlife and other trail users out of the area, and, worst of all, teaches kids that the rough treatment of nature is okay (it's NOT!). What's good about THAT?

For more information: http://mjvande.nfshost.com/mtbfaq.htm .