COLLABORATION CAN SOLVE CONFLICT OVER TRAIL USE

Creating Quiet Trails Doesn’t Need to be Noisy

By Bill Schneider, 9-27-07

A few weeks ago, I spent a couple of hours on a Monday night listening to long-time adversaries working together like long-time chums. When this happens, you almost always end up with positive results instead of endless polarization. And endless polarization is fairly close to what we've had in Montana on the white-hot issues of Wilderness designation and trail use.

Perhaps this is the start of a sea change, I said to myself as I listened, and now, that's what it looks like, the wave of the future, using a collaborative process to unite what I call natural allies and to do things together instead of against each other.

Earlier this week, representatives of eight trail use organizations signed a lengthy letter to Regional Forester Tom Tidwell explaining and promoting the end result of that meeting (and several before it), officially called Montana's High Divide Trails. The eight natural allies are the Great Divide Cycling Team, Last Chance Backcountry Horsemen, Helena Bicycle Club, Helena Outdoor Club, Highlands Cycling Club, Mile-High Backcountry Horseman, Montana Wilderness Association, and Prickly Pear Land Trust.

	"We offered to roll up our sleeves and help them make this happen." -- John Gatchell, Montana Wilderness Association.

Perhaps using the word "adversaries" is a push, but these groups have had long-standing disagreements over Wilderness proposals and bicycle use on trails. But at least in central Montana, collaboration has conquered that conflict and could pave the way for Montana's first Wilderness bill in 25 years.

The real adversaries, regrettably, weren't at the table in the meeting. They are the Blue Ribbon Coalition (BRC), which represents ATVers and other motorized users, and the International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA), which does not represent most mountain bikers. Both BRC and IMBA have consistently opposed Wilderness designation in Montana and throughout the country and have already criticized this project.

In the proposal, the eight groups asked Tidwell and the Forest Service (FS) for new policy and changes in management and travel plans that result in the following:

• Hundreds of miles quiet single-track trails in some of "Montana’s most rugged and scenic mountain lands," including 200+ miles of the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail (CDNST).
  
  
• A network of “front country” trails near Butte and Helena to give cyclists, horse enthusiasts, hikers and other quiet trail users quick access to trails linked to the CDNST.
  
  
• Designation of eight small areas, 232,000 acres in total, of Wilderness, both new areas and additions to existing Scapegoat and Anaconda-Pintler Wilderness Areas.
  
  
• Creation of a similar-sized land area (230,000 acres) to be managed for "quiet trails and wildlife conservation" where only nonmotorized trail use would be allowed.
  
  
• The completion and better management of Montana's 820-mile section of the 3,100 mile-long CDNST and to make sure it's managed as a quiet trail open to bicyclists, horsemen, and hikers, but not ATVers and motorcyclists, with the exception of a few stretches where the CDNST uses established roads, which will remain open to motorized use. (As an aside, the Continental Divide Trail Alliance the main group charged with completing the CDNST, wrote a letter of support for Montana High Divide Trails.)
  
  

The eight "quiet" groups also offered the Tidwell and FS both "volunteer power" to build trails and restore ATV-ravaged areas and help the cash-strapped agency raise money for trail work called for in the proposal.

"The freedom to head into the mountains for a quiet weekend ride or hike is a big part of what makes living in Montana so special," Mike Borduin, president of Butte’s Highlands Cycling Club, said in the press release sent out by the collaborators. "By rolling up our sleeves and working together, we can help National Forest managers meet growing demands for quiet mountain trails.”

“As more and more people move to Montana to enjoy our quality of life, we’ve recognized the need to expand and protect our traditional mountain trails,” added Dennis Milburn of Last Chance Backcountry Horsemen. “We want to make sure there will always be room to get away from it all, whether on horse, by foot, or on a bike.”

Calling this a "Wilderness proposal" is seriously premature, although it may eventually lead to congressional action. "Congress likes bottom-up proposals like this one," notes John Gatchell of the Montana Wilderness Association and one of the leaders of the collaborative effort, in a recent interview with NewWest.Net. "Eventually, we need a bill to get the Wilderness part of it, but the first step is on the administrative level with changes in travel planning. We haven't had any discussions with our elected officials, yet, but now, that we have this plan, we will."

That translates into another lengthy wait, probably years, before Montana has this Wilderness bill up for consideration.

But right now the priority is working with the FS. "We've already met with each of the forest supervisors and the regional forester and been out on the ground with the trails crews to work on this plan," Gatchell told . "And we've offered to roll up our sleeves and help them make this happen. So far, the FS has been very cooperative and appreciative of the work we've done."

The primary point of disagreement between these quiet groups is bicycle use on wild, single-track trails in the area. But the collaborative effort peacefully resolved by creating the "quiet trails and wildlife conservation areas," which keep out ATVs, but allow mountain bikers to peacefully mingle with hikers and backcountry horseman and women.

Right now, all trails in the area are open to bicycles, but Gatchell admits that under the proposal, "a minor amount" of the area's trails will be closed to bicycling. "But we found alternative trails for any trail that had significant bicycle use and would be going into Wilderness." Hence the birth of the new term, "quiet trails and wildlife conservation area."

"We coined this term because it reflects what's important in these areas," Gatchell said, emphasizing that such designation would be purely administrative, not congressional, and the groups will rely on the FS to manage for "quietness" by keeping out ATVs and other motor vehicles, which turn single-track trails into double-track roads.

In the wake of isolated opposition to the proposal by IMBA and a few mountain bikers, most cyclists were able to see the priority of controlling rampant and unmanaged ATV use, which ruins a trail for cyclists as much as hikers, and even more for people riding horses. That's why all four major bicycling groups in the affected area signed the agreement.

The primary goal of the collaboration is preventing continued degradation of our public forests from motorized misuse, and it's heartening to see the collaborative process work. Now, the FS needs to pay attention to this agreement and do its part to manage the lands accordingly and accept the "pledge of cooperation" of the groups to get out their Pulaskis and help the agency get some control of motorized use and raise real money to replace funds sucked from the FS budget for The Trillion Dollar War.

Update (9/28/07): The role of IMBA in the Montana High Divide Trails proposal has been a much-discussed and much-cussed issue today, so I would like to clarify the situation. In the column, I stated that IMBA was an "adversary," and this is true in some cases involving designated Wilderness in other states, but is not completely true in the case of the Montana High Divide Trails proposal. As I write this today, I have written confirmation that IMBA does indeed support the "outcome" of this proposal, which includes 232,000 acres of designated Wilderness. The parent organization was not at the table during collaboration nor did it take an official position in advance of the letter being sent to regional forester Tom Tidwell. However, as it was explained to me by staffers in IMBA's national office, the organization depends on volunteers in the field who are affiliated with IMBA to do this work. If you consider that the four cycling organizations that participated in the collaboration and signed the final letter as IMBA-affiliated, then you can say--and I should have said--that IMBA was not an adversary, but instead supportive of the process and final proposal. Footnote: The Montana High Divide Trails project is so fresh that it isn't online yet, so sorry, no link. But you'll soon be able to find it on the Montana Wilderness Association website. You can also email mwa@wildmontana.org and ask for a copy of the letter.

Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.

Next entry: Creating Quiet Trails Doesn’t Need to be Noisy

Tags for this article

missoula (3258), idaho (1398), colorado (1366), montana (1235), bozeman (1130), salt lake city (1107), travel & outdoors (1054), utah (1026), boise (1015), western montana (1013),

Tag cloud for all articles

missoula, politics, environment, idaho, colorado, montana, development, bozeman, salt lake city, travel & outdoors, utah, boise, western montana, land use & development, new mexico, outdoor recreation, northern idaho, idaho northern/panhandle, bend, boulder, flathead valley, wyoming, columbia gorge, idaho politics, montana politics, real estate, snow blog, music, community blogs, wildlife, public lands, wildland fire, jackson hole, colorado politics, technology, oregon, featured photo, utah politics, abq / santa fe, wild bill, tourism, washington, climate change, bob wire blog, outdoors, books, transportation, demographics, diary of a mad voter, front range, new mexico politics, wyoming politics, new west blog, planning in the west, fire updates, the new west magazine, satire, travel, bob wire, humor,

By Bill Schneider, 9-27-07 | comments (9) | email story | print story