From the Idaho Panhandle
Mountain Bike Access Threatened by Cyclists’ Own Cars
We could lose access to some prime trailheads, and possibly even to the trails behind them.By Cate Huisman, 5-14-10
![]() |
|
| The author cycling at Canuck Pass. She drove to this trailhead, but she doesn't drive to the trailheads west of Sandpoint. | |
A common kernel of self-knowledge here is that we all want Bonner County to be the way it was when we arrived, either from some distant origin or by being born here. We know we need development because it brings us jobs and money, but we don’t want change. We want to be able to continue to do what we always have done, where we always have done it.
In a specific local instance of this issue, mountain bikers want to park their cars where they’ve become accustomed to parking them. They’ve been taking advantage for years of de facto public access to the hills west of town, where a growing network of trails threads through a lot of privately owned but sparsely occupied land. And they’ve parked their cars where the trails intersected with roads.
Occupation of this land is increasing, however, and owners are not necessarily comfortable with the two-wheeled trespassers. One access point was lost several years ago when distant owners built a fence, reputedly to reflect concern that passing cyclists would sue them if a cyclist were hurt on their land. Last summer another access point disappeared as an owner figured the absence of cyclists would help to sell the vacant lot through which the cyclists had been passing.
In response, the Pend Oreille Pedalers bicycle club was formed several years ago, and it has been doing an admirable job since of securing legitimate access for cyclists (hikers and horseback riders also benefit), as well as constructing and maintaining trails, and rerouting them as necessary if landowners request. An ongoing bugbear has been parking for the cars of cyclists accessing the trails, and it is about to come to a head.
Before the land was occupied as it is now, cyclists could park their cars along the road where the trails took off, and no one was around to mind. Now, owners are starting to be around to mind. The PO Pedalers have encouraged their members for years to park in the lots for public parks at the base of the hills, but this requires them to ride uphill a mile or so on pavement.
Apparently, an annoying number have been reluctant to do so. Landowners have begun to complain that cyclists are parking along roads where parking is specifically disallowed. If too many such vehicles are parked too long or too often at trailheads, we could lose access to those trailheads, and possibly even to the trails behind them.
The Pedalers have re-upped their exhortations to their members to park at the bottom and make the short ride up the pavement, and no doubt many will comply. But how they are to convey their concerns to non-members and to our many out-of-area visitors is an open question. We need to do whatever it takes—posting signs, towing offending cars, making sure trail maps show areas off limits to parking—to make sure that all cyclists, not just club members, obey the injunctions.
The development hiatus provided by the current recession will end, and more people will want to develop their land. We’ll have our hands full just maintaining the access we have, and we can’t risk losing any more.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.





Comments
I wonder if you could pitch to the rider community, the uphill climb on pavement warms you up and the downhill cools you off.
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://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtb10 . 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://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7 ). 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://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtbfaq .
Pretty much he just hates mountain biking. The end.
Sandpoint people please listen to this article and the PO Pedalers. The homeowners aren't fighting you too hard, yet...
However, I’m afraid I disagree with you in a number of areas.
First, of course we could all hike on the trails (with some exceptions; see next paragraph). We don’t want to hike. We want to bike. That’s why we built the trails. If we hadn’t built the trails to bike on, they wouldn’t be there for you to hike on. I know that’s not the case with all trails, but it is with those west of Sandpoint. So let’s get off your high horse about that one, please.
Second, I can’t walk all the trails I can bike anyway. Biking is salvation for people like me who spent too many decades carrying too-heavy packs down too-steep hills. My knees have been shot since the Nixon administration. I can bike downhill without pain where I cannot walk. And I know I’m not alone in appreciating this aspect of mountain biking.
Third, virtually all mountain bikers I’ve met are good people, not Satan incarnate, as your diatribe suggests. Most bikers avoid wet trails so they won’t make ruts, don’t park where they’re asked not to, stay on the singletrack and avoid widening the trail, and are considerate of hikers and horseback riders. A few come screaming around corners in unannounced ways that I wish they wouldn’t, but they’re generally about a third of my age and I know their tax payments will fund the social security checks I hope to get some day, so I tend to forgive them.
Fourth, if mountain bikers are rough on nature, four-wheelers and dirt bikes are worse, and horses are just as bad. If you want to minimize impacts on nature, it seems you could do a lot more by putting a stop to all non-human-powered use of the backcountry.
However, that’s not going to happen. All of us will have to put up with others using the backcountry in ways that we’d rather they didn’t. My experience has been that those other folks, despite the difference in our tastes in outdoor recreation, have been willing to help me and others in a variety of ways (first aid, moving stuck cars, etc.). So I’m willing to share the planet with them—and plan for ways that we can share trails, too.
Building trails gives you NO special privileges. If they were built illegally, they should be closed and obliterated. If not, you were told where and how to build them, FOR EVERYONE. In either case, I have no need for them, so thanks but no thanks.
Having ruined your knees also gives you no special privileges. Since mountain biking is considerably more dangerous than hiking, and knees are the most likely part to get damaged, your "need" to mountain bike is fallacious. You are simply continuing a tradition of abusing your body -- nothing I care to support. Your argument is bogus.
The rest of your message is irrelevant. The issue isn't whether mountain bikers can be polite. We all know they can't and won't (your calling me "crabby" proves that -- after claiming that mountain bikers are mostly polite!). But the REAL issue is that mountain biking, HOWEVER "POLITELY" EXECUTED, creates V-shaped ruts in the trails, kills animals and plants on, next to, and under the trails, and drives other trail users off the trails and out of the parks.
So the only solution to all those problems is to ban bikes from natural areas. You are welcome to walk on the trails (up to the limit of your abiliities, LIKE EVERYONE ELSE), and bike on pavement.
It's nice to see that there's a public education effort taking place, and hopefully riders will continue to enjoy the easily-accessible singletrack in the area.
As to compromise, the protection of wildlife and the safety of the people who use the trails are too important to be compromised! Without the wildlife, the parks wouldn't be worth visiting. Without safety, there wouldn't be any point in going there! So to tell the truth, it is only the mountain bikers who refuse to compromise. They are ALL capable of walking. They are just too lazy to do it, INSISTING on bringing along their MACHINERY wherever they go. And when it isn't allowed, they just do it anyway, breaking the law by riding illegally or even building their own illegal trails.
I have been asking this question for 16 years, but I have never gotten an answer: Can you give even ONE good reason for allowing bikes in natural areas? "Because mountain bikers WANT to ride their bikes there" is not a good reason, from a citizen's or land manager's point of view!
Mike is a closed mind. No amount of logic will penetrate.
Fenske, you haven't USED any logic. Nor fact. As you demonstrate, mountain bikers aren't capable of defending their selfish, destructive sport with any facts or logic, so they always turn to attacking those who tell the truth about mountain biking. All that does is prove that we are RIGHT!
In my opinion Mike Vandeman is the most intelligent person to ever form a sentence.
BTW. Yesterday I rode 15 miles on the CDT trail east of Butte. A great ride.
Mountain bikes are allowed, the trail is new and very well built and I had a blast.
Now, run along little man.
That trail system I was riding on consists of over 35 miles of great single track overlooking both sides of the Continental Divide.
At several points it intersect multi-use trails that are heavily used by ATVs and motorcycles. During our ride yesterday we ran across hikers and OHV users. We all said hello, smiled a lot and in general had a wonderful time getting along with each other.
I look forward to more rides in that area and more time spent spreading the word that mountain biking and other forms of recreation are perfectly compatible and we all need to get along.
You have a nice day now, ya hear.
what a prejuiced idiot
you represent the anti-wilerness mtn biking crowd well
what a loon.
Please don't lump Sawtooth in as an example of anything to do with Mountain Bikers or any other groups.
That is a LARGE part of the problem.
From all sides.
I wish that were true
Mtn. Bikers are only a step above ATV users in their conservation principals. Mtn. Bikers demaning to ride deep into roadless areas has a detrimental effect on wildlife, solitude, trail conditions and general character of pristine areas. But hey you folks wanna ride your trikeys everywhere even if it means these roadless areas will never be wilderness and will end up being released to the highest bidder.
Personally I find most mtn. biker to be arrogant, self centered, too busy to wave hello back, can't slow down and enjoy nature on it's heartbeat, adrenaline junkie outdoor jocks.
Sorry to sterotype, but there are a lot of asshole mtn bikers out there
Geroge W Bush being one.
Any proof aside from your personal opinions would be appreciated.
(Please do not cite Mr. Vandeman, he has already been proven to be an empty and cracked vessel)
My opinion is as follows.
If it has roads, it ain't Wilderness. If it has trails already, an area has lost a lot of its Wilderness character.
Areas can be and are currently protected from being "released to the highest bidder" through designations that are not as exclusive as Wilderness Designation.
Wilderness Study Areas were not intended to be studied forever. For example, The Buffalo Horn/Porcupine WSA has been in limbo for 32 years.
As for individual impacts, you would be fine with me walking into a place and camping for 3 or 4 days, shitting in a cat hole and in general making a helluva impact.
But because I ride through in 3/4 of a day the area is ruined. Interesting viewpoint.
I accept your apology about being such a bigot but I am not sure you really mean it.
Good luck to you George.
That illustrates perfectly the typical ignorant-human point of view -- taking ONLY humans into consideration. The fact is, ALL human intrusion is harmful to the wildlife. Roads and trails are especially harmful, because they fragment habitat and make it easier for people to get into wilderness. The worst thing about vehicles is that they allow people to travel virtually unlimited distances with little effort. There is no way that one can WALK that far. Banning vehicles thus acts as a humane filter or restraint, reducing (but not eliminating) the human footprint.
But roads and trails don't entirely destroy a wilderness. A good measure of wilderness quality is the diversity and quantity of wildlife that remain. It is a continuum. As Dave Foreman says, banning vehicles is a good way of keeping out lazy, ignorant, selfish humans, while allowing the more respectful ones in.
Gee as far as I remember there were trails from native americans in even the most remote and rugged mtn ranges before white people ever set foo on this land.
Mtn bikers get into deeper backcountry quoicker in large nnumbers with detrimental effects on wildlife and wilderness character.
You call me a bigot, but it's you mtn bikers with the snobby, holier than though attitude out there on the trail. I keep my opinions to myself out in the mtns. I wave hello to everyone and the one group that dominates areas (riding by in groups of 8+) and never even can return the greeting are the douchebag spandex clad, outdoor jock mtn bikers.
Where's the response to Vanderman's points, oh yeah it got lost somewhere in those deep ruts in the trail and the endless numbers of bikers dominating natural areas.
We have already established that you know everything and the rest of us know nothing.
George;
You seem to have a lot of anger in your posts. When you can get past that and actually have a reasonable discussion then I suggest you formulate your own article like Cate did and you may express your feelings for all to see. Until that time all you are doing is making yourself look silly and hate filled.
Good day.
All of this country at one point was a "natural area". Mike didn't exist and therefore he has no right to infringe his existence on our planet. His home, and vehicle, being machinary, aren't allowed. The computer he is writing these diatribes on are figments of his imagination, since to construct them would do harm to our planet aka "natural areas". They cause untold damage. He is yet to use oil based products, or grow food or eat meat as that does harm to the "natural areas". In fact, he is opposed to not only human life but all life since every creature changes its environment to some degree.
He encourages us to ride our bikes on the road. What is more damaging to the environment Mike, paving roads and that process or trails ridden by bikers?
He types from a computer that can't actually exist, since it infringes on "natural areas".
By the way Mike, the rubber on the bottom of your hiking boots, came from the rape and pillage of trees.
http://evergreenmtb.org/php/show_page.php?page_id=32
I used to live in Plumas County, CA. The plumas national forest there is 1.2 million acres. Only around 23,000 acres of the forest is wilderness, and that barely happened thanks to dedicated hikers. The PCT ran through the small 23,000 acre bucks lake wilderness. A disconnected, high elevation wilerness which was the only refugia from the wheeled, motorized masses dominating the rest of the forest. Did the mtn. bikers respect this space? NOOOOOO! They contonually broke the law and demanded to be able to rideo n the PCT and through the wilderness. No matter how little is designated wilderness the mtn bikers will always bitch and moan and claim they're locked out just like the ATVers.
Do we really need mtn bikers on the conitinental divide and PCT trails. Look what they've done to northern Idaho. A land with no potential for wilderness or roadless deisgantion thanks to the endless motorized and mtn bike trails.
LMAO at you fenske call me hateful but it's the truth son.
Again i'm kind an respectful on the trail, I wish I could say the same for the bigoted, hate filled mtn bikers.
newwest is such a joke.
Machines have a place and it's not in the few areas left in the lower 48 that have few, if any impacts from man.
The problem is no where is sacred anymore not even the cool thousand year old old growth forests or the continental divide, it's machines and spandex everywhere oh my.
Mtn. Bikers refuse to amdmit they have al arger impact than hikers which have their own certainly. This prooves they're dishonest and incredibly biased to their own cause.
Thanks for making sure all those roadless areas will be release in beaverhead county if tester gets his logging bill through.
Thanks mtn. bikers your a vital asset ot the conservation community.
I did'nt always feel this way but personal experience goes a long way, i've seen the damage, the domination by mtn bikers and the attitude.
There's a reason mtn bikers have the rep they do..they earned it.
thats what this article is really about, reps are tough to break and the mtn bikers are'nt making any strides here.
But hey, you'll probally say the same about hikers wanting everywhere off limits except for them.
Funny how stock users and hikers get a long a lot better in wilderness and roaldess than mtn bikers.
I wonder why?