Community Blogs: George Wuerthner
Mountain Biking and Wilderness—Not Convinced
By George Wuerthner, 5-12-09
 | |
| Hikes view waterfall. George Wuerthner | |
|
This past weekend, I was hiking in the Mount Hardesty proposed wilderness near Eugene, Oregon. The Mount Hardesty area was among the roadless lands that were included in the 1984 Oregon Wilderness bill. It was cut at the last minute to accommodate an “acreage” limit imposed by then Oregon Senator Hatfield. So the Mount Hardesty awaits wilderness protection.
The Mount Hardesty area is not spectacular—there are no vast vistas or snow capped peaks. It is, however, one of the last unlogged low elevation old growth forest tracts near Eugene. I often took my children there to hike when they were small because the trails were easy to hike, but I would not recommend the trails to parents with children today.
Since my children were born, mountain bike use of this area has increased dramatically. Because Mount Hardesty did not obtain wilderness status in 1984, it is today overrun by mountain bikers. I barely missed being run over this weekend and was run off the trail by several mountain bikers. In some ways mountain bikers are worse than motorized thrillcraft because they are silent. It is easier for them to sneak up on you. After several close calls, I found myself, continuously looking over my shoulder to make sure that another bike wasn’t barreling down on me. It definitely changed what had been a relaxing and contemplative walk into a nerve-racking ramble.
The mountain bikers had torn up the trail in all the wet spots. Finding one’s way around these mud holes may be a small inconvenience, and admittedly as mountain bikers like to point out horses can do as much or more damage to the trails, but does that justify yet another use that degrades the trails or the experience of other forest visitors? So that has me thinking about whether wilderness advocates should accept mountain biking as a potential new use in wilderness areas. Here’s my two cents worth.
SHOULD MOUNTAIN BIKING BE EMBRACED?
I have been thinking a lot lately about mountain biking and wilderness, in part, because New West’s Outdoor Columnist, Bill Schneider, recently published a couple of thoughtful columns suggesting that wildlands enthusiasts join with mountain bikers to protect roadless lands from motorized uses. (To read Bill’s essays http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/hikers_wilderness_groups_should_re_think_mountain_biking/C41/L41/#comments http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/branding_wilderness_lite )
To avoid endless conflicts over wilderness designation, Schneider suggests that Congress should either permit mountain bikes in designated wilderness or create another category of land designation not quite wilderness, but something protected from industrial development like logging, oil and gas, motorized use, and mining, which nevertheless permits uses like mountain biking, and perhaps other non-motorized forms of recreation like para gliding, skateboarding and whatever else might be invented. Schneider’s goal is to protect wildlands. He is less bothered by the term for these lands than making sure the roadless lands remain protected from industrial development.
I share Schneider’s concerns that the longer we wait to put lands under some kind of land protection--whether it is called wilderness or wilderness lite, the greater the chances that industrial uses will destroy their wildlands value. Though I believe Schneider has some strong arguments and he may still convince me that his ideas should be embraced, I remain at this time unconvinced that opting for permitting mountain bikes in wilderness or supporting some new land designation is ultimately a wise move.
Is it wise to compromise strong wildlands protection to garner support from users who have no interest in wildlands other than using it as an outdoor gymnasium? Those mountain bikers who genuinely care about wild country—which I count myself as one—are going to support wilderness designation whether we can ride a bike there or not.
Before I go further, I want to make it clear that I am not opposed to mountain biking –in appropriate locations. I own a mountain bike. I ride it several times a week in the warmer months. I admit riding on a challenging trail can be fun. But one doesn’t need to ride in wildlands to have fun. There are plenty of old roads that provide miles and miles of access.
It would be nice if mountain bikers worked to close roads, and sought to restore lands previously damaged by mining, oil and gas exploration, logging and other development and lobbied to maintain those areas for mountain biking and other non-motorized recreation. But greater access and intrusion into otherwise undeveloped wildlands is something that I think should be prohibited. What we need is less human access and the problems that excessive access creates.
VALUES OF WILDERNESS
There are many values to wilderness regardless of whether we “recreate” in it or not: protection of watersheds, wildlife habitat, and ecological processes. People recreate in wildlands as well—fishing, hiking, hunting, camping, canoeing, and so forth are all well-known wilderness activities--but that is not the only reason or the main reason I advocate for wildlands protection.
Wilderness designation is also an act of restraint where we purposely limit our technology—particularly the technology that allows us to pass through the landscape rapidly. Entering wilderness on its terms, not our terms, is part of the value of wilderness. And by accepting this restraint we at least create the opportunity to see the land as something other than just a place to “use” but to come to know it in more intimate terms. Careening on a mountain bike down a steep trail, with your entire focus on the ten feet of trail in front of you doesn’t lend itself to contemplation, or appreciation of the land, other than how it might challenge your mountain biking ability.
MOUNTAIN BIKERS ARE JUST A NON-MOTORIZED FORM OF THRILLCRAFT
There is a lot of what I might call “causal” mountain bikers. We use our bikes primarily as transportation to get from point A to point B, without using a motor. Just as I use my 4WD pick up for transportation, not for challenging myself by tearing up the landscape as many ORVers do. I don’t feel compelled to drive my pick up off road for kicks, nor speed around the backcountry on my bike to challenge myself on bumpy trails or roads. It is not the destination so much as the journey that is important to mine and most other wildlands hikers. In other words, we are out to enjoy the landscape we travel through as much as the final destination—if there be one at all.
By contrast, there’s an implicit selection by mountain bikers for quantity of miles traveled and the challenge of the trail, over the quality of the natural world experience. Riding on a rough trail requires concentration that makes it difficult to observe one’s surroundings. Mountain bikers are often oblivious to their surroundings, except as regards the challenge of the trail. Those who do enjoy those kinds of experiences are more interested in thrills than transportation, and culturally they are no difference in my view than the dirt bikers who love to ride trails and challenge themselves on steep hills. Too many mountain bikers see Nature primarily as a giant gymnasium or sandbox—unfortunately in using the land as a gymnasium, they harm the land.
Obviously there is challenge and thrills that all of us experience at one time or another while wandering wildlands. I get a thrill from a nice downhill run in fresh powder on my skis. I’ve been challenged by a sea crossing among big waves in my kayak. I enjoy running rapids in my canoe. My skis, kayak and canoe are how I travel in wild places, the activity itself is not the prime purpose of the trip.
MOUNTAIN BIKE DO DAMAGE THE LAND
Mountain bikes do damage the land. They cause soil erosion, soil compaction, create tracks that alter water drainage, and spread weeds, among other impacts. Mountain bikers, because of the greater ability to travel further with less effort, have a greater opportunity to harm wildlife and plants, particularly sensitive species like grizzly bears.
Of course, one can argue that other uses, some permitted in wilderness like horses, also damage the land. But the argument that other uses do damage is no reason to permit the introduction of more damage. It might be reasonable to debate whether mountain bikes do less harm than say horses or hikers, but that is not the issue so it is irrelevant. Hiking is always permitted, and horses are permitted in some places (but not all). The issue is whether mountain bikes damage the land and whether we should expand the areas open for more ecological damage by enlarging the areas open to mountain bikes.
Secondly by the greater distances they can travel in a typical day or outing, even if things like soil erosion were similar between say hikers or mountain bikers, the greater distances that are traveled greatly increases the damage to trails.
MOUNTAIN BIKERS DESERVE ACCESS
This is a spurious argument since mountain bikers already have access—just like everyone else—they can walk. It’s just their thrillcraft that are not welcome everywhere.
UNDEFINED LANDS WILL CREATE NEW LEGAL CHALLENGES
Assuming that Congress would create a new “Wilderness Lite” category as Schneider suggests, I can guarantee that it will invite endless legal challenges. No matter how well thought the legislation might be, there will be attempts to push the boundaries. If the law didn’t expressly deny use by say skateboards, would skateboards be legal? Every new invention or modification of an existing use would invite yet more legal wrangling and administrative law. We’d see a lot of energy going into defending the land instead of working towards new wilderness areas. We don’t need another distraction.
POLITICANS WILL OPT FOR THE “LITE” END OF WILDERNESS
I also fear that such a new category will provide a convenient way for politicians to avoid controversy by opting for a less protective land status. Bill even concedes that this may be the case in his essay—that we might see the end of new wilderness areas. I’m not yet ready to give up on wilderness designation. The Omnibus Public Lands Bill proved, if it proved anything, that we can still pass meaningful wilderness legislation without permitting mountain bikes in wilderness.
MOUNTAIN BIKERS LACK RESPECT FOR OTHER USERS, REGULATIONS OR THE LAND
Like their counterparts in the motorized thrillcraft world, mountain bikers often lack any respect for regulations and the land. I’ve had countless encounters and seen the tracks on trails of mountain bikers which have ignored closure signs. Worse, I’ve seen numerous new trails and routes pioneered across the landscape without any prior agency review or permission. There’s a reason why the Forest Service and BLM plan things like roads and trails –to avoid degrading sensitive environments. But like their thrillcraft cousins, mountain bikers don’t seem to care how their activities affects the land or other users.
SPIRITUAL VALUE OF WILDLANDS
There are many reasons why many of us support wilderness designation, but certainly one of the reasons is that it is place where people can connect to the natural world. By going slow and through careful observation, one can gain respect for the surroundings one sees, and is aware of things that we often miss in our daily routines. Certainly not everyone that goes into wilderness is looking for a spiritual revelation or even to experience the natural world, but that doesn’t mean we should give up on the possibility for the realization of those values to accommodate other uses. Just as we would be applauded if someone decided to get their kicks doing tricks on the pews in a church, many of us are revolted when we see mountain bikers performing feats on mountain trails. Not that I don’t think those acts of bravo are not amazing or lack skill, but I do not think it’s something that one needs to do in wildlands.
WILDERNESS STILL BEST IDEA
This brings me back to the issue of wilderness designation. I realize as Bill Schneider does that broadening support for more wilderness designation or at least protection from industrialization is critical. There is a strategic advantage to neutralizing the opposition to wilderness by mountain bikers. Nevertheless, hard core mountain bikers (as opposed to causal bikers like myself) are still a minority, though vocal. Just like their motorized thrillcraft cousins, they make a lot of noise, far more than their numbers would suggest. For myself, I would rather continue to fight for pure wilderness designation than change the wilderness act to accommodate mountain biking. I surely believe it’s worth discussing wilderness proposals with mountain bike activists to avoid conflicts where that is possible. However, where their usage compromises the integrity of a larger protected area, we should not give up on advocacy for the wildlands values, even if that engenders opposition from that quarter. Hopefully over time mountain bikers will recognize that there are reasons for protecting lands that goes beyond their personal desires for an exciting backcountry ride and they will join with wildlands defenders to advocate for the highest possible land protection--namely designated wilderness.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
If the USFS wanted to keep mountain bikes out of an area, they can. If they want to keep horses out of an area, they can, although they themselves use packers and pack strings seasonally for all sorts of purposes to haul freight to back country projects and administrative sites. Or ATVs, what have you.
Roadless is pretty much a finite limitation on use. Roadless has protected the special places quite handily for quite a while. And so has the National Park designation, but NREPA is written to put National Park lands inside its purview and regulation. If I were in the Park Service, I would see this as an indictment of the agency's stewardship. That inclusion is tainted with the language of zealots, and from those I tend to shy.
Mountain biking is a youth deal. It is about speed, about adrenal glands. And it is about the defiance of youth to authority and regulation. Sixteen year old kids die going too fast in cars, on skis, ATVs, and even bicycles. A sixteen year old on a mountain bike, with little or no serious law enforcement regulation to control his or her judgement, could give a damn about your hiking in solitude. That is who they are. Some are 40, and still trying to be 16. No matter. Mountain biking is not about to be a staid sport, ever. It is the outlaw mentality of macho-man. I have witnessed it. I have been right there at the property line, with the landowner, who asked that the mountain bikers stop, turn around, and not cross his land. 40 something professionals. University, high tech kinda guys. They just glared, said "F-you," and rode right by the landowner. Noon time in a college town, and public land everywhere. Evidently they are special people. Entitled. "I am fit and on a bicycle, therefore I am better than your property right." I learned a lot about that crowd that day. And what is better, the guy built a mineral surface trail that would not create fall line erosion, signage and all, and the mountain bikers ignored it and rode right down the ever increasing ditch created by their tires. If it were my property, a keg of roofing nails would be spread to put iron in the soil.
Yeah, George. I don't like mountain bikers. But they should have access to USFS land. It is, after all, public land. But not in Wilderness. In roadless, sure. But there has to be respite from their presence somewhere in the forest. One would think that all the cat tracks and clear cuts, and old jeep and fire roads would provide a lot of opportunity. Some old guy once told me that the sure way to kill a deal is to want it all. He said to me "Hummer, if you can get 95% of what you think you should, jump on it. The whole deal could disappear like a fart in a windstorm, and you get all of nothing. Part of something, Hummer, is better than all of nothing." (The Hummer nickname came from a joke I told about a little martini bar, a few stools, a cool jazz pianist, and great drinks. So this guy was sitting there, and a monkey ran down the bar, stopped, and sat on his glass, his monkey balls soaking in the best martini he had ever tasted. The bartender pretended not see. So the drinker asks the cool jazz pianist if he knew whose monkey just dropped his balls in my martini and the pianist replied "No, man, but if you can hum a couple bars, maybe I can pick it." The siderod called me Hummer forever after.
Your experience with mountain bikers is very similar the experience of others. There is something about the culture or mentality of people using mountain bikes for thrills (as opposed to simple transportation) that turns otherwise nice people into rude rogues.
I agree with you that with all the old roads, cat tracks, skid trails, etc. on public lands it would seem that mountain bikers could find plenty of terrain to ride. I support the conversion of such roads into mountain bike routes.
George, I appreciate that you wrote what so many of us feel and believe, and support.
Karen (hiker, jogger, equestrian and former road bike racer)
Where once we only had a few hiking trails along the steeply sloped temperate rain forests, we now have a multitude of these heavily modified bike "trails/trials" snaking down the rain soaked slopes. Drainage patterns have been changed (or purposely diverted); vernal pools and "swampy" areas have been filled in. When the heavy rains come, we see those "rock armoured trails become streams, and the rains wash out the dirt, used to pack in the rocks, into our streams and ponds.
We have mountain bike "amusement park" structures built in the woods -- teeter-totters, wall rides, roller-coasters, gap jumps (and even a "hamster wheel" somewhere up there.) It may be too late for us ( on the "North Shore"), but this will be the end result of "wilderness lite", if you legitimize mountain biking inside the wilderness areas, off-road. We will be forever looking over our shoulders for speeding mountain bikers.
THIS IS A WARNING -- Do not compromise wilderness trying to appease a strong-armed, aggressive lobby group, such as mountain bikers. You can't appease extreme, hardcore mountain bikers. You need to work to contain them, like skiing and snowboarding, and if you cannot regulate and enforce them properly --- KEEP THEM OUT OF WILDERNESS AREAS!
Our authorities will not? (or cannot) control these free wheelers anymore, who have pretty much have called the shots and subverted fair and democratic public process through intimidation, bullying and threats, up here -- and now "own" our beautiful forest, "ripping and shredding" it both on their bikes and by their "trail/trial" building techniques. Don't make the same mistake our public land authorities have. They race downhill, they build structures and shoot their "bike porn" videos, etc.
Nothing is sacred to these free wheelers.
Because they now "own" the forest, they feel they should also "own" our adjacent neighbouring streets! I even have to keep my eyes behind me on the streets, and even our sidewalks, when these bozos pour out of the woods. Our feeble authorities will not or cannot manage these free wheelers, up here. Give them an inch and they will abuse their "welcome".... Don't let this horror story happen to you. Once they are "IN" you can't remove them.
Extreme free ride mountain bikers are a menace if not enforced properly. They are just like the motorized yahoos. And they want to "own" your Wilderness!
My current bike and I, (about 4 years old and 61 years old) have logged over 10,000 miles on single track trails, and my experience has been that most mountain bikers are quite respectful of hikers and of property rights. Sure there's those who irritate me because of their thoughtlessness, so there are always some who think we should pass laws to punish the 99% because of the inconsiderate 1%. That's pretty much today's liberal mindset.
But like you say, mtb'ers pay taxes too. There's sooo much wilderness out there that there's plenty of room for them too.
There is plenty of wilderness, and we will do quite well, and so will the critters with what we have. The roadless areas will stay roadless for as long as anyone can predict. If they are all suddenly opened to multiple use, it will be because of a sea change in American perceptions, and Wilderness can be changed by overwhelming public support as well. Congress passes laws. Congress can pass laws to void the prior law. It is only the Constitution that has to be changed by a vote of States.
But, and nothing ever counts before "but", mountain bikers have already made their impressions of who they are, what they do. It is best, now, for them not to be in Wilderness, and if they think they ought to be there, then they should pony up the bucks and sue to use the big W Wilderness. If they lose, and through all appeals, then they know the law precluded them. That will solve the issue for once and for all.
In the meantime, it would be in their self interest to not let more and more land be put in Wilderness, because that is locking them out of lands they presently have access to. The process will be driven by coalitions, and that is probably the answer for bikers for now---become a part of a coalition to keep your present access.
They way the purists for hiker limited land use seem to do it to join with other sort of connected groups to present a united front. When the deal sorts itself out, you find really odd associations of groups lined up for and against any proposal. Democracy at work. Mostly it will be who has the most money to convince Congress. They are cheap bastards, those legislators. They will take $20,000 from someone in campaign funds to cost the majority tens of millions of dollars. Sort of like how hiring new state employees, who have mandatory union dues withdrawn, dues that go to Democrats by a factor of 10:1. So to get a couple hundred bucks for the next race, they will hire people who cost in excess of $150,000 a job to have employed. Strange deal but true.
Our local school district is announcing that due to much lower state support, limited property taxes, they are going to be short $5.6 million for next school year. Therefore, 60 administrators, classified help and teachers will be pink slipped. $336,000 per job. Think about it. 24 kids in a classroom for 180 days a year demands $14,000 a kid to pay for hired help. And I do know jobs will be lost to free up money to pay for heating, lights, etc. So it is only $13,000 per kid. Do you wonder why Wilderness is not affordable right now? A study I read about says a rural job lost equates to over a hundred jobs lost in the city as to financial impacts on private and public infrastructure. Mountain bikes, hikers, horsemen, all ought to be thankful for what they have, for any opportunity to use what they have, and to understand this is not the time nor the economic conditions to further restrict jobs, rural communities. They have yet to recover from the last bout of "goodwill" and "environmental need".
People have the right to use and enjoy wilderness, but their recreational vehicles should not. Hikers and nature walkers looking for solitude end up leaving those hiking trails poached by mountain bikers. The passive users of wilderness end up becoming disenfranchised. Letting mountain biking inside wilderness opens up a Pandora's Box of problems.
Mountain biking can be categorized into different mountain bike groups (e.g. Dowhnhill, Freeride, Enduro ,4X, Cross Country, Dirt Jump), drawing a parallel to skiing (e.g. carving, freeride, freestyle, snowboarding - This info comes out of the World Mountain Biking Conference synopsis). There is also a heavy BMX element to mountain biking, which is fairly obvious.
What does skiing and BMX'ing have in common? They are both contained inside an enclosed area ie. ski resorts; private BMX tracks, etc. just like mountain biking should be --- corralled, contained, regulated and enforced --- outside of ecologically sensitive places, like "wilderness" .
Ripping and shredding wilderness trails on mountain bikes is not polite, nor respectful. Advocating for what is essentially "mountain bike sprawl" is just plain inconsiderate. Vehicles belong on roads, not on our wilderness trails. Mountain bikes are "vehicles".
There is an arrogance, an elitism, about biking today, that has to do with youth and energy and environmental concerns. They sound like they are better and more deserving of consideration that the dinosaurs who walk. There issue is that since they cover more miles per day, their impact is less. Lance Armstrong covers serious miles per day. I doubt if he has more than a passing interest in the local flora and fauna. He doesn't have the time, and neither do mountain bikers.
Wilderness was not created for bicycles. Or motorized travel. Shank's mare or the pedestrian is what Wilderness travel is about. That is what people much older, many now gone, worked to create and protect. So what is the reason for change? What is the over arching societal need for change in the Wilderness language?
Those 630 plus million acres of Federal land must have adequate space for mountain bikers and Wilderness users alike. If not, then I just guess they will both have to do without. It is not possible to have every acre be all things to all people, and it is not prudent to have too many acres devoted to one type of user. Out of balance in use and users, there will be change that will appeal to none, because the decision will be made by someone with only the idea of practical conflict resolution as the goal. Nobody wins. The frog will slowly be raised to boiling. We will get bussing for Wilderness users to lesser used Wilderness, and cyclists will have to draw numbers to ride by lottery. Both with appropriate fees, of course. And a plethora of attendants, ticket takers, guides and path minders. Sort of like first grade recess in today's non conflict playgrounds where the pecking order is maintained not by the kids, but by the school cop. We will get what we deserve.
I quote the old favorite of the Hikers of the Scared Forest....
"mountain bikers already have access—just like everyone else—they can walk. It’s just their thrillcraft that are not welcome everywhere".
That is not equal access, that is access only if we agree with YOUR VALUES. When you got to the "tricks on church pews" analogy I knew you represent the big threat to all public land users
Look, it's dirt, not the Holy See and our wreakreational thrillcraft are our way of reaching our nirvana. We don't want it ALL, but many of us see that there are already plenty of roadless restricted locations for you to go contemplate your naval or whatever.
Your quote about wild landscapes as dirt is the real threat to our planet. Landscapes, particularly our small remaining natural landscapes, deserve special treatment. Lack of respect and understanding is the ultimate environmental threat. Unfortunately, the attitude of far too many mountain bikers is represented by your perspective.
Most non-mountain bikers find these mechanical conveniences a nuisance or worse when they are visiting wild country. Most of the public realizes that you don't spit in a hotel lobby, swear in a public school, drink in public parks, play loud music in public campgrounds at night, have a boom box in a public library and so on. In other words, some behaviors are inappropriate and impose a significant loss of quality experience on other people. It's too bad that some thrillcraft owners are so clueless that they don't get the idea that some behaviors and activities should be restricted in some places--and mountain bikes in wild landscape is in intrusion. Ride in town. Ride on logging roads. Ride on semi developed lands. There's plenty of terrain for your thrillcraft that won't impact other public land users.
I can name a bunch of real threats to our planet, like intolerance, but bicycles are laughably low on that list.
Thanks, George, for sharing your thoughts and eloquence.
2. aren't compatible with real Wilderness values
3. consistent with Wilderness values
WILDERNESS Values - see here once again is the Holy Church of the Sacred Forest. What Grant & Geo., et. al don't seem to understand is that we DO NOT share in your silly cult religion. You remind me of fundamental Xians in the way you demand that all of everyone's behavior patterns be based on your particular belief system. Sorry but you do not hold the Ultimate Truth about public land access and more than Baptists do.
We are not wrong because we use the outdoors differently than you and that does not abdicate our land-use rights.
The majority of people who use public lands do not ride motorized vehicles or non-motorized vehicles. When they get out of their cars, they walk. Thrillcraft speed, combined with the inconsiderate attitude of some thrillcraft riders, generally creates conflicts with this majority.
It is not unlike the fact that the majority of public library users prefer to have the rooms quiet so they can read without distractions. It is not that public library users are opposed to people blasting music or talking loud outside of the library in appropriate locations, but such distractions are inappropriate in the library.
Not all activities are appropriate in all places. That is something that thrillcraft users seem to be unable to comprehend.
Besides the impacts on other people, thrillcraft do increase human impacts on wildlife, help to spread weeds further, and other ecological impacts.
As Bearbait has noted, there are hundreds of millions of acres of land that are accessible to thrillcraft, including mountain bikes. The small acreage of land that is off limits or not yet degraded by thrillcraft should not be compromised.
I agree, y'all can have what was closed off in 1964 and stop grabbing more and more and more and I will support you. But 2 MILLION acres including some long-used MTB and ORV areas just got stolen and you will see more and more resistance.
On the numbers, the population of Americans that use MTBs + ORV far EXCEEDS the number of citizens that will set foot in one of the big W Widerness areas, let's call 'em "The Purists", the Members of this Church of the Holy Forest is far smaller than other outdoor users. 70 Million HIKERS is a number quoted, 1 in 4.7 Americans is a HIKER, give me a break. Big number, but break it down - that's all the day park walkers plus the estimated 500,000 back country primitive backpackers. Most of the larger group can be persuaded to keep public lands open with shared access for wheeled recreation because they are casual users and don't share the exteme elitist views.
That's why for a decade Sierra Club tried to court mainstream outdoor groups like Hunters and Fisherman, they need the numbers
The attempt to compromise those groups by the SC failed because those outdoorsmens were not fooled.
I doubt we'll reach any agreement.
My perspective is that we need large unmanipulated, self willed areas that are not continuously eroded and degraded by new mechanical advantages. We need to leave some places primarily for nature.
What we have left is already too small and ineffective for the many attributes that we demand of them--wildlife habitat protection, watershed protection, ecosystem protection, and so forth.
I see the ever increasing demands unsustainable. We can not continuously expand new uses and maintain the original values. A line (figuratively and legally) needs to be drawn in the sand because some folks do not believe in limits.
The unwillingness to accept limits is ultimately the problem that we as humans are facing as we continuously place more unsustainable demands on the planet as a whole. The mountain bike/wilderness issue is just a mirror of this larger issue.
Geo.
There is far too much locked up land now in my perspective. So you and your ilk see an increasing need to close more and more areas. See why I say MTBers and ORV can NEVER compromise with the Purists because they will be back with more access reductions a few years later.
Well the good thing for both of us is that there's a lot of public land where mountain bikes are permitted. On most of those acres you won't have me or others fighting you over biking. The areas we may argue over are relatively few in the big scheme of things.
Geo.
For thousands of years, the places we are proposing for wilderness designation have been used by humans--on foot and/or horses. Even a few decades ago, these areas were not accessible to bikes simply because the bikes were not able to go to most of these places.
New technological advances have given mountain bikers new access to many places that were never available to bike riders in the past. And it's not just mountain bikes. All mechanical devices have increased the ability to go to new places that were never accessible in the past.
These technological advances is SHRINKING the lands available to those who hike, etc. and do not care to encounter bikes, SHRINKING the security for wildlife, SHRINKING the sense of space, SHRINKING the areas invaded by weeds, and so forth.
I usually do not like to bring up the "slippy slope" but in this case, I do believe it's legitimate. If mountain bikes use is expanded, what next? There are, as you probably know, new skateboards that can be used on rugged terrain. There are many other new devices and machines being created all the time. If not for the expense, I could easily see "personal" helicopters or jet packs becoming popular. Each new invention and technological advance shrinks wildlands and compromises the experience of those interested in more traditional means of access.
When you refer to expanded mountain bike use, do you mean existing use? I haven't heard anyone suggesting 'expanded' use but rather preserving existing opportunities.
Expanded opportunities are created by improved technological subsidy--not because of direct human abilities. I.e. you can travel further today on a mountain bike than one could go 2-3 decades ago walking or even on a bike due to improvement in bike design, etc. That has expanded the areas that mountain bikers are exploiting.
As with any technological improvement, society finds it necessary and desirable to "limit" or "restrict". It is no different than how we created limits on commercial fishing when new technology allowed greater catch that threatened to overexploit fish stocks, or limits on car speed once technology enabled them to go a hundred miles an hour, or it became necessary to limit drugs in athletes. Mountain biking is no different. The greater the technological subsidy, the more restrictions you can expect.
With the advent of advanced mountain bike technology, and the expanded use it has generated, and the lack of any restraint on the part of some mountain bikers, it becomes necessary to restrict where and when they can travel.
"You suggest that mechanized users should be big enough to value YOUR conservation ethic so much that we give up traditional trails to Wilderness
'
I am kind of laughing here....right, "traditional" trails...sorry guys, 20 or so years does not constitute any kind of historical or traditional use...it may not even be enough time to study the negative effects...and may not have even been legal use!!
Geo makes some great points...but the mbikers never seem to concede that their presense may impact the safety and outdoor experience of other users when you add "wheeled vehicles", to TRADITIONAL footpaths and trails. It is adding another user that is not compatable in terms of speed....
Karen
50 years ago, you were either brave or foolhardy, to fish the lee shore of the Pacific, and many ended up dead in their adventure on the ocean. Boats were well made, sturdy, of time proven design. Many in salmon and halibut fisheries are over 75 years old and still working. There was nothing about the platform that was not well done and well built. It has been the technology that has been added aboard ship that has changed the whole nature of the industry.
All you had 50 years ago was a compass, an RDF (radio direction finder---gave you a compass reading to KNPT or some US Weather radio broadcast antenna), and some had a Loran A, an airplane direction finder modified for use at sea with a Loran A chart to show you about where you were by a mile or more. Some big boats had a radar for night and fog, and all boats had a radar deflector so a wood boat would show up on radar. Boats needed a "big set" radio, which was a low band radio that worked wonderful after dark by "bouncing" of some layer in the atmosphere, and you could talk to a buddy in Alaska from off Mendicino or find out where the tuna were if you had radio friends who would tell you, and that was mostly code. About then, you could get a Citizens Band radio, maybe, and that would allow talk between close by boats, and there was a VHF radio and a band of frequencies reserved for maritime activity. Ch 16 to call the Coast Guard, and talking channels. And, on that or the big set, you could get a weather report or forecast. To see where you were over bottom, there were depth sounders telling you the depth, and "paper machines" that graphed the bottom and actually could show bait and fish. That was it. So you made your own book on hang ups and drags that produced fish. Loran lines, a compass line from a fathom line and two ridges on the land horizon lined up. Stuff like that. You could still get lost in fog, run aground in foul weather, and lose gear to uncharted hang ups. The fish had a chance. Tide, wind and currents could keep you off the spot where the fish were, then. Not now.
Today, the tupperwear fleet, the 25' sport fleet, has radar, bottom sounders with a fish finding side, all in color, with a tracking GPS that can tell you within feet of where you are, with maps loaded in the receiver that tell you that you are about to run into a buoy or a rock, or you can follow the bouncing ball all the way to your slip in black fog, or find each crab ring you threw out earlier in the morning. You can find a slot or a drop off, and drill on it time and again. You can find anywhere on the bottom anytime your boat is safe on the ocean. The engines are bigger, more powerful, better running, dependable, and you have more navigation aids than big boats had 25 years ago. You can find and stay on fish till you catch the last one. And we have. Not only is the technology helping to catch way more fish per hour of effort, but it also allows you to fish more days, and longer days. Nobody took a 25' boat to Harrison Ridge to find one halibut 50 years ago. Nobody. You can go to the Chicken Ranch 30 or more miles off shore, where there is a high spot on the ocean floor, and find yourself with a hundred other boats on a snotty ocean. You can have weather and ocean conditions, wind speed and direction, all come to your boat from a WeatherFAX from a satellite. There is stuff out there I haven't seen yet, and big fishing boats have a pair and a spare of anything. Technology has provided more effort and better effort, and now there will have to be limited entry to even the sport fisheries. High catch rates of a finite resource, all brought about by technology. An unintended consequence of societal advancement. And that is just what a mountain bike is about. They put too many people over too much ground. Too much effort concentrated in one spot. They allow access in hours that takes days by foot or horse. And that becomes a factor of overuse. Just like there are too many boats trying to catch too few fish, with space age technology ($95 a year and you can get sea surface temps and chlorophyl concentration maps sent to your computer by way of satellite phone. No sense using up fuel prospecting for tuna---just go where the food is--the service gives you GPS coordinates), there is a finite amount of Wilderness being asked to do too much for too many when you add mountain bikes to the plan. Wilderness is a value and set of circumstances, very plainly put forth, as to be a place where you can find solitude and quiet. Adding mountain bikes to the mix takes from that. Adding too many people takes from that. A pack string takes from that. Maybe we need less wilderness, and that should be off limits to people. The One Hand Clapping Wilderness, or the Falling Tree Wilderness. Then you could sit home, by the fire, a good book and a stiff drink in hand, and think good thoughts about the place where no people can go, and about all the good things that were happening there naturally. That would be an act of faith, and service your spiritual need. And if you needed to admonish yourself for being such a squanderer of precious resources, you could sit home and smash your hand with a bike wrench so you could experience the pain and punish your selfish side. See what a true wilderness experience could be!!! All in your mind. Even for the mountain biker. They can imagine the ride that nobody would ever have access to......the no use wilderness, and the no catch fish...our future...
Did I sense a concession from you that other than speed - mountain bikes are a compatible mode of backcountry travel?
So what to do with speed? You have written at length about those individuals that have been startled / run into by speeding bikers that ruined an otherwise perfect outing or worse. I truly sympathize. I would venture to guess that most of these encounters occurred on YOUR existing ‘traditional’ trails at blind spots where line of sight was limited. Simple physical alterations to the trail in these spots to naturally check speed that would slow bikes to the speed of a hiker or horse would handle this type of conflict – would it not? Working with local bike clubs you could jointly identify such spots and work to solve this issue.
The historical 'traditional' trails obviously were not designed with mountain bikes in mind. Trail design has evolved considerably since the WPA days of building trails for hiking and equestrians. Modern multiple-use trails do consider possible conflicts and use design to minimize user conflicts and impacts to the land. Line of sight and speed control are two tenets of the modern trail systems. The new trials I have personally worked on are designed from the beginning to reduce speed and potential conflict areas. IMBA leads the world in sustainable and user-friendly trail design and are engaged and committed solving such issues.
It would seem that working with all users to identify potential problem areas and collaborate to find a solution. Trail reroutes, one-way systems and segregated sections of trail are also solutions. So are having some non-Wilderness trails that ban bikes. While some money is available for new trail construction, maybe more with the stimulus package, many of the improvements for safety and long term trail integrity can be done with volunteers working with local land managers. One thing mountain bikers like to do is work on trails so engaging them in this pro-active process should not be a problem.
When all else fails – it is time to trail share. Don’t give me the Kabota crap. Trail share has worked well to solve the I-don’t-want-to-see-a-bike on our busiest, most popular local trails. If you want to hike your favorite trail without bikes - no problem. Just pick your day.
This does not, however, provide a blanket solution on how to manage our roadless lands. Again you, George and others are certainly eloquent in how many ways you say NO to bikes in the backcountry but that is just identifying a (your) problem and not providing a solution. Without suggesting fire roads, bike parks or pavement again, what do you have to contribute toward a real solution? Is sharing these lands in some form even possible for you and yours?
One of the problems with expanding mountain bike use is that it has occurred outside of any review. In other words, bikers commandeered trails, and/or created new ones without any public input.
I would support the creation of mountain bike trails, particularly by closure of existing roads (which there are more than 400,000 miles of them on FS lands alone) and their conversion to mountain bike trail systems.
As far as a review - what would that look like? We spent 5 years on the Gallatin travel plan with dozens of public meetings and thousands of comments submitted to come up with equitable plan through a democratic process. When the travel plan was released, every user group had something to bitch about - but in this day and age that is probably a good thing... Do you have a problem with the current Gallatin Travel Plan and where it allows bicycles? Or was this not ENOUGH review or the outcome you wanted?
I am afraid that I haven't read the final plan closely. I just read the summary.
But I am wondering whether mountain bikers couldn't "capture" some of the roaded country that travels through wild country instead of setting your sights on proposed wilderness areas.
Off the top of my head I am thinking of things like the Gravelly Range Road. I would support closing that route to motorized vehicles and conversion to a mountain bike route.
I can think of many other similar roads on FS lands that lend themselves to those kinds of treatments--like the Taylor Fork Road in the Madison Range beyond the ranches, Mill Creek Road to the lakes in the Tobacco Roots, Mill Creek road system in the Absarokas beyond the Snowbank campground near Chico, portions of the Lolo Trail on the Clearwater Forest--beautiful high mountain vistas on that one) and so forth.
Closing such roads and conversion to mountain bike use might be easier to do than trying to open up proposed wilderness areas to mountain biking and yet might satisfy many of the goals you may have for riding.
Of course for any proposal, I would want to have some kind of public discussion about potential impacts on things like sensitive wildlife, or other things. But in general if it is used by motor vehicles now, one would presume the road is constructed to standards that would reduce impacts, and effects on other values.
Close Taylor Fork past the ranches to motorized? Maybe. Close Pica Point to bikes? No thanks.
We wholeheartedly agree with your opposition to allowing any bicyclers on our lovely trails.
Already we are beset by tooting horns in endless traffic, subway trains crowded with people headed to places of unsavory amusement, cinemas exhibiting distasteful forms of "entertainment," and the like. We need respite from all of the foregoing.
To have hordes of overly energetic youths running amok in our quiet preserves, including mountaining bicyclers, is the last straw. What happened to the days when the young retired to a quiet and chaperoned conversation at a neighborhood soda fountain after viewing a wholesome Jimmy Stewart or John Wayne movie?
Introducing to the outdoors more overstimulated youths, along with their elders who refuse to grow up, can only wreak havoc. If they learn to enjoy the local parks soon enough they will want to intrude into our National Forests, State Parks, and National Parks, disturbing settings that have remained untouched for generations, except for such wholesome pastimes as luxury packstock outings, hiking (preferably with porters, of course), and bird-watching.
With all of the newfangled beeping devices we see youth disporting these days, is there not some form of electronic entertainment they could engage in at home without disturbing the flora and fauna of our natural areas?
Nothing kind can be said about the mountainous bicyclers who seek to infest our wild areas. They are too physically fit and too happy for their own good. The fewer places they are allowed to visit with their howling and screeching, the better. Many of them need a good caning, or at least a salutary lecture from their betters regarding the joy of ambling through the woods on one’s own feet (or, in the case of regrettable infirmity, on a faithful steed or in a wheelchair pushed by one's manservant), rather than racing through them on a wheeled contraption.
Why, my late husband the Commodore would never have stood for such tomfoolery. He would have set them straight, brandishing his Enfield rifle at them from atop his noble stallion if necessary.
Again, we agree with you, and we similarly beseech our public and private land stewards and guardians: do not allow the bumptious multitudes to intrude on our hitherto nearly private preserves.
Sincerely,
Phoebe Millicent (Mrs. Jarvis H.) Smoot
P.S.: I am authorized to state that my views are endorsed by the following public-service-minded organizations:
SANCTIMONY: Sour and Negative Curmudgeons Targeting Invigorated Multitudes of Noisy Youths
NOSE: Naysayers Opposing Strenuous Exercise
AHAB: Apoplectics Hating All Bicyclists
HOHA: Hateful Old Hikers Association
SLACK: Sedentary Luddites Against Cavorting Kids
NOPE: Neighbors Opposing Progress Everywhere
It clearly isn't the mountain bikers posting here. Forward a link to this comment section to your congresspeople if you want to provide ongoing evidence that mountain bikers don't have the respect or maturity to be trusted with wilderness areas.
George, I have a major issue with your statement that what we need is less access to our public lands. I'm not sure entirely how you're defining access, but to my read, you're implying we need less recreational use. The outdoor constituency is shrinking. If we don't find a way to get more Americans out there enjoying our public lands, we're going to lose support for them. Although being "green" is politically popular right now, with a reduced public lands constiuency, what's to stop "clean burning" natural gas development.
Although I like to use wildlands in a similar manner to you, George, reading your piece made me want to jump onto the "Wilderness if for the Elite" bandwagon. Glad to know you're better than those humans who are shallow enough to enjoy an adrenaline rush. We also can't officially say wilderness is for spiritual purposes because of this whole First Amendment thingy. It doesn't work in favor of everything liberal.
In my haste I may have given the wrong impression about access. We need less access for machines, not people. I actually want more people to experience the natural world--and I feel that is ultimately what I'm trying to protect. The thrillcraft experience doesn't led itself to thoughtful appreciation nor of understanding. But one goes on to the public lands with respect for the land, respect for other creatures and people, than one is welcome.
Why is it that pompous elitist asses like yourself think that you know the One and Only TRUE way to enjoy the outdoors? There's no limit to access as long as you are WALKING!! I see that as a limit based on religious preferences from the way y'all act. That is what pisses me off to no end. One is welcome to public lands ONLY if they are a member of your religion.
It is NONE of your business whether I am THOUGHTFULLY appreciating the scenery and furry woodland creatures. Frankly my level of shallowness is still legal as far as I know. For me, via thrillcraft wreakrecreational vehicles is the only way I ever want to see most of the the public lands. Hiking is just about as much fun as mowing the lawn, but I hear some folks enjoy that too. I don't care if you want to walk, I don't care if you meditate every step of the way, but I am a citizen too and I never gave you the authority to determine the one sanctified way to be one with the woods. As citizens. We the anthropocentric, shallow, and thoughtless have rights too.
My God rides a Quad!
[now don't y'all be stealin' my tshirt slogan]
Federal wilderness lands are not yours to destroy!
They belong to every taxpayer in this country and we expect our investment to be maintained responsibly. Any land manager that allows public land to be wrecked betrays a responsibility to the investors, that is, taxpayers.
There will always be challenges from people like you. Your mentality is in the shopping malls that replace marshlands, the tops sheared off mountains for mining, global warming, the polluted streams and rivers, litter alongside the road. It's the mentality of nihilism....who cares, we're big-bad American boys we can destroy what we want. Outdoor vandalism as the American Way, a throwback to the myths of unlimited resources and Manifest Destiny, Bush policies.....stupid is SO over, don't you get it???
It won't even get you the chicks. Green is the new black. Brains are in. But you know what? Our wilderness lands can't be left to the vagaries of American culture anyway. That is why they have strict and lasting protections, to insure conservation of what little is left, not just for us, but for future generations.
Translation: "To achieve Nirvana one must follow the Noble Eightfold Path, two parts of which are Right Thought and Right Understanding." (From Buddhist precepts.)
This is the problem with this issue. One point of view is essentially religious, intolerant of those who don't adhere to the devotee's perception of the One True Way. The other view is pragmatic, life-oriented, accepting of others, low in self-righteousness, and appreciative of play in adulthood.
The first view has led to the author's beloved deep ecology, and it has also led to fascism, communism, religious fanaticism, and the slaughter of millions in the last century. The second view has led to happiness and, as relevant to this discussion, physical fitness and appreciation of nature in a nondogmatic, nonexclusionary form. How many people under age 40 are going to embrace the first view? With luck, hardly any.
A friend put it well the other day: Most Americans think bicycling is a good thing and that we would all be better off if there were more bicycling. Amen to that.
You do? Then why aren't you (if you aren't) campaigning against long dust-raising fly-attracting vegetation-trampling trains of heavy nonnative mammals (horses and packstock) with steel-shod hooves that rip up Wilderness trails, all to transport indifferent sedentary Wilderness tourists to their luxury camps, where they can imbibe alcohol and wait for dinner to be served?
Of course, if you are campaigning against such befoulments, I stand corrected.
Your mentality has led to the increasingly marginalized Republican party having an approval rating of 20-30 percent. Not a good thing, even for liberals, as in a democracy no party should have complete control.
So please come to your senses.
We have more wild horses living in wild horse concentration camps than we do in the wild, and they still are able to tramp the water holes, eat the vegetation, and multiply like rabbits.
We have those horses because they are "native" and "wild" and have never been "domestic beasts of burden." In a pig's ass. My grandfather worked for the GLO, and with the advent of the various grazing Acts that regulated and priced public land graze, he told me that all that really happened was tractors replaced draft animals, and nobody would brand a horse because it could be used to make you pay the 2.5 AUM rate on a horse. So, unbranded, gathered for the hay season, and then abandoned to the Public Domain, the ranch stock was more feral than domesticated. And, when you ran short of money, had ambition, like a young JR Simplot, you started a small hog operation instead of going to high school, which you fed with cull potatoes from the spud dugouts, and horse meat you shot, and cooked the whole deal in a big rendering pot with a sagebrush fire. Now there is not even one horse slaughter outfit left in the US. So no matter the horse status, is has to take up its piece of the landscape until a natural death. Working for a living, packing supplies for back country tourists or work crews, what exactly is it about horses that you don't understand?
They are a "protected" class of animals. They are native to the land, and have their place just like grizzly bears and spotted owls. That some have been domesticated, like dogs are to wolves, is not the point. The point is that as it now stands, horses have more right to be on the land than humans. That is how the laws are being written.
They belong to every taxpayer in this country and we expect our investment to be maintained responsibly."
EXCUSE ME, but I and MILLIONS of ATV, 4WD, MTB, SNOWMOBILE, & Motorcycle enthusiasts DO NOT think that locking us out is RESPONSIBLE USE of land that you used my TAX dollars to buy. There in lies the rub. Only YOU know true appreciation and proper use... [insert bull droppings here].
TED has the right idea, "appreciation of nature in a non-dogmatic, non-exclusionary form"
and gw, self-righteousness was a trait of the Third Reich, Y'all are very self-righteous. No, protecting the forest is not one step before building gas chambers for ATV/MTB users but your attitude is on the way to fascist correctness. I see y'all marching in lockstep up the pristine forest path.
Between 10,000 and 8,000 years ago, primitive equine species disappeared from North and South America, the horse was gone from the western hemisphere. Spanish explorers brought horses by ship in the sixteenth century.
Does everyone know that the people who wrote a key report leading up to enactment of the Wilderness Act of 1964 thought horses and packstock were so destructive that it would be better to use airdrops to bring in supplies? "Though travel with horses and pack animals is allowed in Wilderness, the authors of ORRRC Study Report 3 were aware of its environmental problems. Noting that 'recent studies have suggested that horse and packstock use are primary factors in trail degeneration,' they concluded, 'Airplane "drops" of supplies to camping parties in
wilderness areas . . . is less detrimental to the wilderness environment, if limited, than supply by pack animals.' Study Rep. 3, . . . at 301." ("Congress's Intent in Banning Mechanical Transport" (2004) 12 Penn State Environemental Law Review 459, 481, fn. 116.)
If they were not native, then they are feral. Like feral cats, feral horses have a constituency with considerable clout in the media and Congress. So, talking about horses and wildlands, wilderness, is more like religion than science.
It is likely that the early equine species ended up on the human dinner spit. They were hunted to extinction. People ate them. That, we can't do today. Nor can we eat dog, the preferred meat of the Lewis and Clark Expedition. Dog was much better than nothing, and the only time you saw game on that trip was when you were in some no-man's land between tribal territories. So dog was the fare, or game when you had the chance. They got real tired of no fat elk meat when they overwintered on the Oregon Coast.
So I would suggest we somehow turn cat into table fare. Most have never eaten cat, unless by accident at an Asian restaurant, or so the urban legends have said. Or maybe it is that they haven't been exposed to cat. Cougar is actually pretty good fare.
I have owned and ridden mountain bikes since 1985, and the number of times I have startled a hiker is zero. I have startled a horse exactly once, as I recall, and that was when I was on a paved road and came to a stop 50 feet ahead of the skittish thing.
In any case, user conflict is not just cause to entirely ban one type of use, equal or more benign than other allowed uses, from millions of acres of public property. In some cases, special management for user conflict may be called for, but a blanket ban is entirely unfair and unreasonable.
Also in the department of "tarring with a broad brush" is the "thrillcraft" pejorative. While there is a small class of bikers who like to go downhill as fast as possible, build artificial terrain features, and prefer vehicle shuttles to pedaling uphill, this is not the sort of thing that I, nor even the downhillers themselves, would like to be allowed in wilderness areas. Rather, I prefer biking as a way to see and experience more of what nature has to offer, in what precious time we each have to be here. It's not just a focus on the 10-feet of trail ahead...not all trail is challenging, and I, at least, do stop, relax, and observe now and then.
It is beyond absurd to be going along a trail and be stopped by a sign when perfectly good and empty trail proceeds ahead. It is just as absurd to be driving along a perfectly good road and be stopped by a "WSA" gate. The dishonest wilderness lobby gives the public the impression that "roadless" areas lack roads to begin with. What they really mean are areas they don't want to have roads anymore.
Furthermore, I question the legality of the 1984 regulation which banned bikes. I have found no evidence of legitimate due process by the FS in passing it. I doubt it would survive a serious challenge in court. Each biker should study the issue and come to his or her own conclusion as to whether to obey it, or not.
PS. Loved your letter, Mrs. Smoot!
I am pleased that you loved my letter. It does these tired old bones good to know that some young people still can read. The popular press, which Smithers reads to me each morning, reports that some youths write in a strange form of . . . what does one call it? Twittlespeak? Thumbing? Something like that. My late husband's secretary had no need of such things. Gregg Shorthand was perfectly suitable.
I need to feed my cats now, but I would again, and most decorously, invite you to reconsider the threat to public order posed by mountainous bicycling on our lovely trails. I would prefer that the bicycle jousters take up their disportments against the drivers of those sportive unwieldy vehicles, as I believe they're called, on the public ways, and not interfere with those of us out to observe the courtship rituals of the yellow-thrumbled leaf-nibbler.
Very truly yours,
Phoebe Millicent (Mrs. Jarvis H.) Smoot
Many people feel the same way about their bike.
"Hopefully over time mountain bikers will recognize that there are reasons for protecting lands that goes beyond their personal desires for an exciting backcountry ride and they will join with wildlands defenders to advocate for the highest possible land protection--namely designated wilderness. "
I agree there are reasons for protecting land. IF, that's the real plan, and if it is everyone should be forced out. Hikers, horseback riders, as well as mountain bikers. THAT I would support. But, we all know cash is king, and we "hard core" mountain bikers being the small group we are don't have the cash to line the politicians pockets to protect our access....I mean wild lands.
I have stumbled across this page while looking for a new trail in my local area, and am quite shocked that some feel this way about us fellow mountain bikers, I for one believe in equal rights and that if we can all be civil and bring together all our thoughts,inspirations and so on we can make a plan which suits every man. We are all human and should be greatful of the fact our country has some of the most spectacular and beautiful scenery around. If there is any way i can provide help etc (albeit around my work schedule which pays the bills of course) I will be more than happy to assist, and there is most prob a few other fellow mtb`ers i know who would join too.
Chris Sandles
p.s Im 27 yrs of age (and still learning)