Ominbus Wilderness Bill likely
By George Wuerthner , 11-29-10
![]() |
|
| Sands to Snow proposed National Monument, California | |
During the last session of Congress many wilderness and park bills were reported out of committee, but have not yet been voted on by the entire legislative body. Many of these bills will protect important wildlands across the country. And the recent election of many anti-wilderness legislators means that if these bills are not passed in the Lame Duck session coming up, these wildlands may not garner protection for a long time into the future.
At one time or another, I have visited at least a portion of the lands included in the major wilderness legislation before Congress. So I know first hand what these lands offer such as the Chihuahua desert in the granite ribbed Organ Mountains of New Mexico, the mossy rainforests of the Devil’s Staircase in Oregon’s Coast Range, the grassy plains in Buffalo Grasslands in South Dakota, and the diverse Southern Appalachian forests that line the Bald River in Tennessee. All of these lands are worthy of wilderness protection but their future is uncertain if legislation is not passed in this session of Congress.
The political risk for these lands is displayed well in New Mexico. Senator Bingamam of New Mexico is one of the sponsors of the Organ Mountains – Desert Peaks Wilderness Act that would protect hundreds of thousands of acres in the Organ Mountains near Las Cruces New Mexico. But the newly elected Congressman Republican Steve Pearce whose district includes the Organ Mountains is opposed to any new wilderness. A similar situation exists in many of the districts where new wilderness and/or parks are proposed. So it’s now or never for many of the areas proposed for wilderness in the last session of Congress.
Voting on individual bills in the limited time left in this session means few, if any of these bills, would become law despite obvious support from Congress. As a result Senator Bingaman, chair of the Senate Energy Committee, has decided to bundle as many as 60 separate bills, including many wilderness proposals into one Omnibus lands bill for passage. A similar technique was used in the 2009 Congressional session to garner wilderness designation for many areas in the country including wilderness designations in Utah, Oregon, Virginia, Michigan and California.
The status of two major pieces of wilderness legislation is unknown at this point. Montana Senator Jon Tester’s Forest Jobs and Recreation Act, (S. 1470), that would designate 669,160 acres of wilderness and 336,205 acres of recreation, protection, and special management areas on three national forests in Montana--the Kootenai, Beaver Head-Deerlodge and Lolo National Forests remains uncertain. Likewise Idaho Congressman Mike Simpson’s 333,000 acre Boulder White Cloud proposal (Central Idaho Economic Development and Recreations Act, or CIEDRA,) is still up in the air.
Both failed to make it out of committee, and Senator Bingaman is reluctant to include legislation that has not already passed through the committee process. Of the two, Simpson’s Boulder White Cloud is the least controversial and probably should be included in any Omnibus legislation.
Senator Tester’s bill is more problematic especially on Tester’s insistence for a mandated logging quota, which is not popular in Congress. Whether Tester’s will be in the Omnibus bill is unknown, however, Tester’s staff hopes that the Senator can circumvent the Omnibus bill process by attaching his legislation to other must pass legislation as a rider. Given the large amount of new wilderness that would be created, one can hope that some compromise can be reached that would enable the basic outline of this legislation to be enacted, but without out the egregious timber mandates.
Two other major pieces of wilderness legislation not likely to be included in the Omnibus legislation are the Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act (NREPA) and America’s Red Rock Act. Both are ambitious and among the most important wildlands legislation proposed in recent years. As a consequence, they are controversial in the states affected, though they have significant support across the nation. NREPA legislation would protect 24 million acres of the finest wildlands in five states including Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Washington and Oregon. The bill basically would protect what Congress has already approved--since it legislatively protects the major and minor roadless lands of this spectacular region.
America’s Red Rocks Wilderness Act would provide protection to 9.4 million acres of Utah’s canyon country. The canyon country is probably the most unique landscapes found anywhere on earth.
Any Omnibus lands bill will probably include national park legislation, including creation of a 89,000 acre Valles Caldera National Park in New Mexico as well as many park studies such as a proposal to evaluate New York’s Hudson River Valley for its potential as a national park unit.
However, with regards to wilderness legislation, the following wilderness proposals are likely to be included in any Omnibus legislation:
ARIZONA: The Tumacacori Highlands are south of Tucson along the Arizona-Mexico border. One of the largest roadless areas in the state, the 83,000-acre area consists of rugged cliffs and ridgelines of three mountain ranges culminating in Atascosa Peak at 6,249’ elevation. Home to jaguars, elegant trogons, gray hawks, mountain lions, javelina, coati, five-stripped sparrow, Mexican vine snake, and tropical kingbird, the area has some of the highest biodiversity of rare species of any area in the U.S.
CALIFORNIA: There are four bills proposed for California. One would up grade Pinnacles National Monument to National Park status, adding 3,000 acres to wilderness status. Originally designated as a national monument by Teddy Roosevelt, Pinnacles was recently the site of a successful condor restoration effort.
One of the most iconic landscapes in California, the Santa Lucia Range rises dramatically 6000 feet from the Pacific Ocean. The Big Sur Forest Management Act would add 2000 acres to the 240,800 acre Ventana Wilderness in the Santa Lucia Range and designates Arroyo Seco, Carmel and San Antonio rivers and the San Carpoforo and Big Creeks to the National Wild and Scenic River system.
The Beauty Mountain Agua Tibia Wilderness Act, (H.R. 4304), would protect 21,000 acres in southern California near San Diego by adding lands to the Beauty Mountain and Agua Tibia Wilderness areas. These areas exhibit granite boulders and scattered oak groves mixed with chaparral,
Finally the biggie in California is The California Desert Protection Act, (S. 2921), introduced by Sen. Diane Feinstein. This expansive bill would protect nearly 1.5 million acres of southern California’s desert lands by creating two new National Monuments (Mojave Trails and Sand to Snow National Monuments), adding Wilderness acreage, expanding Joshua tree and Death Valley National Parks, and protecting the desert’s historic treasures like Route 66.
COLORADO: Like California, there are several pieces of Colorado wilderness legislation before Congress. One is the San Juan Mountains Wilderness Act that would add 33,383 acres to the wilderness system by expanding the existing Mt. Sneffels and Lizard Head Wilderness areas, and the establishment of the McKenna Peak Wilderness. In addition it would protect another 28,293 as the Sheep Mountain Special Management while prohibiting oil and gas development in Naturita Canyon.
To the north of the San Juan Mountains near Vail, the Eagle and Summit County Wilderness Preservation Act proposes protection of nearly 166,000 acres. The original proposal was trimmed by nearly 100,000 acres to appease mountain bikers (who in so many ways are no different than the motorized thrillcraft crowd). The legislation proposes quite a number of small wilderness areas, including in the Williams Fork Mountains and Ten Mile Range as well as a Red Table Special Management Area. Additions to the Holy Cross, Eagle Nest, and Ptarmigan Wildernesses are included in the bill.
The most expansive legislation is Rep. Diana DeGette Colorado Wilderness Act of 2009. The bill would protect 34 areas totaling 850,000 acres. Included in the bill are 14,000 foot summits like Red Cloud Peak and red rock canyons of the Dolores River. Most of the lands are managed by the BLM like the Little Book Cliffs, Granite Creek, Palisades and Unaweep areas by Grand Junction as well as Browns Canyon, Beaver Creek and Grape Creek near Canyon City.
MICHIGAN: The Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore Conservation and Recreation Act would protect 32,557 acres of Lake Michigan’s shoreline.
NEW MEXICO: The El Río Grande Del Norte National Conservation Area Establishment Act includes 235,000 acres of the Rio Grande’s magnificent gorge and, among other things, protect 13,420 acre Cerro del Yuta Wilderness and 8,000 acre Rio San Antonio Wilderness.
The Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks Wilderness Act would protect would protect 270,000 acres of wilderness and 110,000 acres as a National Conservation Area near Las Cruces. In addition to the granite spires of the Organ Mountains, portions of the Robledo, Doña Ana and Potrillo mountains would be given some overlay of protection.
OREGON: There is one thing that the Coast Range of Oregon does well and it is grow trees—giant trees. Unfortunately most of this natural capital has been logged off. One of the few places in the Coast Range where you can see forests as they once stood in magnificent abundance is Wassen Creek drainage near Reedsport. A cascade along Wassen Creek gives rise to the name Devil’s Staircase. The Devil’s Staircase Wilderness Act, would protect 29,650 acres of wilderness in one of the most remote parts of these mountains and roughly 19 miles of Wild and Scenic River.
In eastern Oregon lies the John Day River, one of the longest undammed tributaries of the Columbia left. And as a consequence, the river is a major spawning ground for steelhead and Chinook salmon. The river flows through a wonderful canyon for much of its length that is only accessible by canoe, kayak and raft. Bordering the river are two proposed wilderness areas each of about 8,000 acres: Horse Heaven and Cathedral Rock proposed wilderness areas. Both are cloaked in lovely bunchgrass/sage a community that supports elk, mule deer, and home to endangered pygmy rabbits.
A third bill that may make its way on to the Omnibus bill is the Wild Rogue proposed wilderness. The Wild Rogue lies in southwest Oregon’s Siskiyou Mountains. Famous for whitewater rafting, and salmon/steelhead fishing, the Wild Rogue proposal would protect 58,000 acres as wilderness and 143 miles of stream as Wild and Scenic Rivers.
SOUTH DAKOTA: America has very little of its native prairie in any protected status. Most of the plains have been carved up by till farming, and the rest is grazed by livestock. Tony Dean Cheyenne River Valley Conservation Act would correct this by designating 48,000 acres as wilderness in the Indian Creek, Red Shirt and Chalk Hills areas of the Buffalo Gap National Grassland on the borders of Badlands NP. Walking these vast open breathing spaces reminds me of being on the vastness of tundra in Alaska. It’s a sense of freedom that is more difficult to experience in more forested terrain. As with any designated wilderness, livestock grazing will continue. This is particularly ironic since Tony Dean, who was an outdoor writer in South Dakota, railed against welfare ranchers and their impact on the state for decades. However language could be inserted into the legislation to permit buyouts of grazing privileges so that eventually bison, not cattle, will be grazing these lands.
TENNESSEE: The Tennessee Wilderness Act would designate a total of 20,000 acres as federal wilderness, including additions to five existing wilderness, and one new wilderness, the Upper Bald River Wilderness. All of these areas are within the Cherokee National Forest in the mountains against the Tennessee-North Carolina border.
UTAH: The Wasatch Mountains provide the dramatic backdrop for Salt Lake City and other communities. These mountains provide not only an amazing recreational opportunity for the bulk of Utah’s citizens, but they are an important source of water for these communities. The Wasatch Wilderness and Watershed Management Act recognize these important values by creating 15,500 acres of new wilderness and 10,000 of Special Management Area.
WASHINGTON: The Alpine Lakes Wilderness Additions and the Pratt and Middle Fork Snoqualmie Rivers Protection Act would add 22,000 acres to the Alpine Lakes Wilderness and 10 miles of the Pratt River and 30 miles of the Middle Fork of the Snoqualmie River. The Alpine Lakes Wilderness is one of Washington’s most spectacular wild areas with high granite peaks and dozens of pristine mountain lakes. This legislation helps to protect a lot of the lower elevation old growth forests.
WEST VIRGINIA: The Monongahela Conservation Act would create the 6,042 acre North Fork Mountain Wilderness. This proposal was shaved down from its original 9,000 plus acres to keep the major trail to the mountain top open to mountain bikers. Like the Hidden Gems legislation in Colorado, more and more wildlands are being compromised by mountain bikers who are nothing more than non-motorized thrillcraft.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.





Comments
Way to marginalize folks that would normally be your allies, Mr. Wuerthner. Mountain bikers care about natural places and would prefer to see wild-lands and roadless areas protected. Wilderness advocates need to see that silent human powered recreation is not the enemy. Extractive industries are. Mountain bikers and Wilderness advocates have far more in common than in differences. Protection of our natural resources is a noble goal. But let's not confuse the tool (Wilderness designation) for the goal (protection).
Companion designations are viable alternatives to Wilderness designation that are also acts of Congress. Wilderness advocates like to say bicycle friendly companion designations or 'Wilderness lite" designations aren't strong enough to protect precious resources. To date, not a single designated Nat'l Recreation Area, Nat'l Scenic Area, Nat'l Conservation Area, Nat'l Preservation Area, etc designated by Congress has been overturned. Companion designations allow for land management decisions to be made on a case by case basis locally by people with boots-on-the-ground knowledge, not in Washington.
Here in Summit County, Companion designations are going to be utilized in the Eagle/Summit Wilderness Preservation Act. These areas will be protected because of caring individuals who VOLUNTEERED hours upon hours of their time and effort in the name of the Summit Fat Tire Society (SFTS). With these Companion designations, MORE land will be protected from extractive industries while still allowing for a human powered recreational experience, mountain bikes included. The SFTS urged our local Congressman & the proponents of the Wilderness plan to add even more acreage to the plan under a Companion Designation. Wilderness advocates largely ignored SFTS's alternative which would have nearly doubled the acreage of the lands to be protected.
The other designations do not provide nearly the level of protection that wilderness designation does. The motorboat crowds at Lake Mead and Glen Canyon NRAs and the logging that has degraded many thousands of acres of Hells Canyon NRA are just a couiple of examples of how NRAs are not up to protecting the land in the same way that wilderness designation.
I and a lot of other wilderness advocates (many of whom are also mountain bikers) feel mountain bikes are a threat to foot traffic and inappropriate in the same areas. I would say the same about other non-motorized pursuits from skateboarding to screaming down a snowy trail on a luge.
One of the effects of mountain bikes is that they shrink the landscape--just as other motorized transportation does--and that shrinkage affects both the conservation value and emotional value of wildlands.
Mountain biking turns wildlands into an outdoor gymnasium-which I would suggest is not what we should be promoting in these areas.
For the most part, at least at its more demanding level, mountain biking is not about communing with nature and/or appreciation of wild places. The mechanical advantage given by today's modern bikes cheapens and degrades the experience for others, and has potential negative impacts on the land (for instance riding a mountain bike might give hunters access to formerly remote lands that provided wildlife with a refuge).
I hope if you genuinely love wilderness and wild places that you would advocate for wilderness designation even if it means a few less places to ride a bike.
Thanks. I'm dyslexic and can't spell to save my life. Corrected it. Much appreciated.
One thing you may have missed, and I could have been more specific - the Summit/Eagle Companions designations are non motorized. I am referring to non-motorized usage. Lumping mountain bikers in with the OHV crowd is an archaic argument. We're human powered! And to be clear - EVERY use has an impact. Even hikers & backpackers who camp overnight, defecate in the forest, and cut switchbacks or tread off trail. This isn't about user impacts though... I'm not trying to single out any one particular use or user group. If I were to blame anything, water is the trails worst enemy. Poorly designed and/or maintained routes cause the most damage. USFS studies as well as studies conducted by hiking clubs have concluded that a fat tire does no more damage, and in some cases less, than a hiker's footprint.
Your statement "mountain biking is not about communing with nature and/or appreciation of wild places" is purely your opinion. One of the very reasons I mountain bike is to commune with nature and to say that I do not appreciate wild places is a straight out lie. In fact, our local fat tire group has logged hours upon hours of volunteer trail work over the last 3 decades (SFTS predates IMBA).
You also state that the mechanical advantage given by bicycles cheapens the experience. This is bunk. What about the mechanical advantage provided by Vibram soles, anti-shock hiking poles, ski bindings, oar-locks for rafts, pedal-powered propellers found on some kayaks, climbing ascenders, even horse saddles? These items are all legal in Wilderness.
Your argument about mountain bikes shrinking the landscape is pure bunk also. Equestrians can often travel the same distances as those of us on bicycles, but who's impact is greater? Bicyclists are in & out visitors and we stay on the trail, the same cannot be said of those on foot, be it hooves or boots. Want to shrink the landscape, how about development, logging, mining, drilling? I'm talking about simple, silent, human powered activity that Congress intended to promote with the Wilderness Act. Congress NEVER meant for Wilderness to become a religion.
A 1961 statement by Senator Clinton P. Anderson of New Mexico, made when Senator Anderson introduced a prior version of the Wilderness Act in the Senate. In a passage titled "Wilderness Recreation," Senator Anderson stated, as relevant here:
"Yet we must recognize and emphasize more than we have the values of wilderness recreation in providing for the health and vigor of our citizens. "
Do I want to ride my bike in all Wilderness lands? No. But on a case by case basis, depending on the area, allowing bicycles in Wilderness should be possible. I don't feel that the blanket ban of (non motorized) mechanized transport is the right way to manage Wilderness. Wilderness advocates are losing allies. I will oppose any new Wilderness area for as long as there are restrictions on fat tire bicycles.
I understand many of your arguments. I do not suggest that mountain bikes are say worse than horses or that matter cows (which are allowed in wilderness). But do we want to add anymore to the kinds of activities that degrade the land and wildlands values?
The problem created by mountain biking is that it would open the door to many other uses that collectively will degrade wildlands and eventually make it a pointless designation.
What about electric mountain bikes? Should they be allowed? Maybe you could argue they are no worse than muscle powered mountain bikes. Or skateboards? There are "land skateboards" now that are used on trails. Who knows what new inventions will come along that will compromise the idea and values of wildlands. I do not like using the tired phase about the camel's nose under the tent, but that is how I feel about mountain bikes.
I think allowing mountain bikes in wilderness is an invitation to the destruction of the entire wilderness system--not necessarily from mountain bikers, but how it creates an opening for many other users to argue that their use is also legitimate in wilderness as well. The collective impacts of all these new uses will ultimately be the death of wildlands.
Again I would hope if you love wilderness that you can enjoy it without riding a bike and therefore support wilderness designation. Most Americans support wilderness and don't even venture in a wilderness. But it's not about whether one gets to "use" the area. I hope that is what you will conclude at some point.
Mr. Wuerthner, your article shows a disheartening amount of bias - it reads like yet another dogmatic innuendo-laden treatise from old-guard Wilderness advocates.
Mountain biking is not the enemy, yet Wilderness advocates have chosen to portray it as so. Let me see if I have this right; you would rather risk potential development and resource extraction on our public lands than bring the MTB community (and its considerable voice) squarely on your side by admitting that some (not all) trails are appropriate for shared use?
You may want to consider that you and your inflexible approach are increasingly perceived as the real roadblock when it comes to public land protection.
It's time for Wilderness B (Wilderness with bikes) a designation that allows silent human-powered recreation so that like-minded stewards (not necessarily closed-minded ones) can get past these petty squabbles and link arms in the interests of public land protection. Think of what could be accomplished TOGETHER.
Silent, human-powered protector of wild lands (with the hours to prove it),
Mike McCormack
Frank Church said it best:
"As the floor manager of the 1964 Wilderness Act, I recall quite clearly what we were trying to accomplish by setting up the National Wilderness Preservation System. It was never the intent of Congress that wilderness be managed in so "pure" a fashion as to needlessly restrict customary public use and enjoyment. Quite the contrary, Congress fully intended that wilderness should be managed to allow its use by a wide spectrum of Americans."
Thanks, Frank. Unfortunately, someone slipped in "mechanized transport" and the rest is history.
It is public land paid for by all Americans. It should be open to other uses, period.
I have worked in the outdoors, and led many extended, expedition level trips into the backcountry, and the worst impact in the woods is from hikers, period. Hikers use trails when they are wet, hike off-trail, and bring food, trash, and all sorts of problems into the woods with them. Despite these facts, walkers are the group that are protected most fiercely by Wilderness advocates. There is no consistency in the so-called "ethic" of Wilderness advocates.
Mountain biking is a quiet, low-impact, human powered recreational activity. It is dependent on technology, but so is hiking, as long as it isn't survivalist style. Think about the environmentally conscious, motivated, and involved people that you are alienating with statements like "more and more wildlands are being compromised by mountain bikers who are nothing more than non-motorized thrillcraft."
Unless you are willing to advocate for humanity-free wilderness, your wilderness advocacy is inherently inconsistent. Lighten up, and allow other recreational groups a seat at the table.
"Land skateboards?" Seriously? Have you ever seen one? They've got 5-inch wheels. Completely impractical outside of a fairly groomed environment...and thus not likely EVER to see use in a rugged environment.
It seems as if all of your arguments against other user groups hinges on the fact that YOUR experience would be "compromised". Time to drop the selfless act. If preservation is truly your goal, then perhaps we should all agree to not set foot in these precious places. Because until you get some skin in the game (name just ONE trail in the entire country where hikers aren't allowed) your position smacks of selfishness and nothing more.
In other words, you simply don't want us there but can't come up with a better argument than the fearmongering threat of "opening up the window for electric bikes."
Just got done riding my mountain bike on a trail while I contemplated the arguments. I feel you are missing my points, but perhaps that is my fault.
I am not supporting wilderness so I can have a place to hike, bird watch, fish or whatever. I would support wilderness designation that did not permit many of the activities I love--from cross country skiing to canoeing. I support wilderness for the sake of the land, not to provide a "recreational experience" for myself or others--though I certainly believe nature observation and some forms of recreation are compatible with wilderness.
However, I would urge you to support wildlands protection whether you are permitted to recreate in your chosen manner. I welcome your support and hope that you can see a way to support wilderness without bike access, and help to protect areas that you may not ever get to experience first hand.
Arguing that unless you can mountain bike in an area you can't support wilderness designation suggests to me that the most important thing is the biking, not the land protection itself.
So we are starting out from fundamentally different perspectives about why designate wilderness. Though I have visited at least some portion of the lands proposed in each of these bills, I doubt I will ever explore even a fraction of these lands. But I still support wilderness protection for the reasons articulated so well by Wallace Stegner--what he called the Geography of Hope.
By contrast, I fully support, and have enjoy creation and designation of mountain bike trails in the appropriate locations--outside of major roadless lands and wilderness. There is a place for mountain biking--it's just not in roadless lands and/or wilderness.
I think that mountain bikes are a threat to the basic concept that is fundamental to the idea of wilderness. It's an increase in mechanical access. Not withstanding that i know there are exceptions in some places that allow airplanes, etc. in designated wilderness, I would argue that these exceptions degrade the value of wilderness.
I don't know how old you guys are, but when the first mountain bikes appeared, I and my friends who are all staunch wilderness supporters, were among the first to adopt their use. But we also recognized early on the threat that mountain bikes presented for wildlands.
And so my fear goes beyond mountain bikes. Mechanical innovation has created all kinds of new vehicles, machines, and ways to access the land. When I was a boy, four wheel drive jeeps were the only real off road vehicles. Today we have a huge assortment of machines from four wheelers to snowmobiles--none of which existed or were used extensively when I was a child.
Human ingenuity is endless. And if mountain bikes are permitted in wilderness, we will be forever fighting the next incarnation of machines and/or mechanical access--whatever they may be.
Again I would encourage you to think about this yourself. There are plenty of places to mountain bike--most of the country is not suitable for wilderness designation. Much of that land base is suitable for mountain biking as well as other pursuits. I hope you will reconsider your stances and join in the effort to protect wildlands for their own sake--not the sake of any particular user group. I sure would appreciate your help. Thanks.
As a Montana mountain biker, I just want others to know that the comments posted on this board don't speak for myself or generally reflect the views of all bikers. The dirty secret that hasn't been talked about on this board yet is that most bikers understand their is a time and place for wilderness and a time and place for biking.
I and many of my twenty-something friends cherish time spent in Wilderness. Those special places allow for amazing opportunities such as hunting, hiking, birding, camping, backpacking, fishing, wildlife watching, ice climbing, and skiing. Further, wilderness allows us to put away the cell phones and travel at natures pace for once - which is a thoroughly vanishing experience.
When I want to go a little faster faster, I'll go biking. It's a completely different experience though. I believe in wilderness 100% and I believe in mountain bike trails 100%. We should most certainly have new wilderness in the future but we should also couple that with new trail systems and designations for bikers too.
The Forest Service issued a nationwide memo stating they felt hiking and mountain biking were the SAME impact on our public lands. Horses on the other hand, mangle the landscape and spread noxious weeds with their excrement...but I don't see you politicking against them. Do you feel they align with the Definition of Wilderness where man is a VISITOR? I wouldn't invite visitors back to my house if they pooped in my yard.
By the way, you CAN XC ski and backcountry ski in the Wilderness - just another hypocritical, discriminating rule arbitrarily-based.
George, in the end here's something for YOU to think about: feel free to advocate Wilderness, but save us your "threatening" mountain bike rhetoric. The Wilderness community has stolen our public lands from us, give it a rest already.
"[M]ore and more wildlands are being compromised by mountain bikers who are nothing more than non-motorized thrillcraft."
But it appears you backtracked thereafter (a wise move). Now you say:
"The problem created by mountain biking is that it would open the door to many other uses that collectively will degrade wildlands and eventually make it a pointless designation. . . . I think allowing mountain bikes in wilderness is an invitation to the destruction of the entire wilderness system—not necessarily from mountain bikers, but how it creates an opening for many other users to argue that their use is also legitimate in wilderness as well. The collective impacts of all these new uses will ultimately be the death of wildlands."
If that's your current position, i.e., that mountain biking does not necessarily represent the destruction of Wilderness but could bring about other uses that are noxious, you and those of similar mind may rest assured that mountain bikers will not be the nose under the camel's tent when, inevitably, we are allowed in Wilderness, consistent with the intent of the Wilderness Act of 1964.
As I'm sure you know, but others may not, the Act prohibits every motorized conveyance (16 U.S.C. § 1133(c)) and every "structure or installation" (ibid.) that a nonmotorized conveyance that's heavier than a bicycle might need. The Act is quite bulletproof in those respects. There is no cause for alarm.
Now all you have to do is drop the qualifying adverb "necessarily" from your latest stance and we'll all be able to agree. Which will benefit, above all, Wilderness itself.
Additionally, the 'mechanized travel' restriction on mountain bikes makes no sense. I skied yesterday (legally) in the James Peak Wilderness Area. Ever seen a Dynafit binding? There's more engineering in that mechanism than my singlespeed mountain bike. This is not a valid reason to exclude mountain bikes from Wilderness unless every activity but nude hiking is also banned in Wilderness.
So why aren't mountain bikes allowed in Wilderness? Hikers and Equestrians- we are not daredevil thug throttle twisters looking to run over the wildlife you are watching, lay trenches in the trails or film a Mountain Dew Commercial on top of the Maroon Bells. We are like minded trail users with a different means of travel. We have seen a lot of tolerance of differences develop in my lifetime (I'm 38). It is time to see tolerance towards bicycles in Wilderness.
I agree with many of your points, but I would still insist that allowing bikes in wilderness would be a big mistake.
I'm actually just suggesting that people don't make the mistake of thinking your comments represent the beliefs of an entire recreational constituency. It's pretty clear your all activists who linked George's post on a facebook page that has a clear mission of putting bikes in wilderness.
As I stated before - we can have both and their is a lot of middle ground and opportunity to work together on these sorts of things.
"...Any man who has once acclaimed violence as his method must inexorably choose falsehood as his principle.” - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Better clean up your website, Mike. You are a hypocrite.
You state that "there are many places to mountain bike". Really? Those places become fewer and fewer as more lands fall under the outdated Wilderness designation. There are currently over 107 MILLION acres designated as Wilderness in the United States, each one of them off-limits to cyclists. Again I ask you, point to one trail, just one that's off limits to the hiking community. You can't. We on the other hand can point to tens of thousands.
There are some places that are appropriate for a Wilderness designation. Most of those places have already been designated thus. What's currently being advocated across the country are sub Wilderness grade parcels that do not meet the criteria and yet create massive impacts in terms of experience and connectivity for the MTB community. As the designation further encroaches on a shrinking trail network you can expect louder and louder resistance.
One final note - when you make statements like "I feel you are missing my point" you further underwrite the hubris with which many Wilderness advocates approach the dialogue, implying that there is but one valid perspective and that any other is the result of some sort of failure to understand of the part of your adversary. Intentional or not, it marginalizes and patronizes those of us holding a viewpoint different from your own. Failure to agree does not necessarily imply a failure to understand.
Mike
PS - MontanaBiker, do you mean that you have twenty something friends or were you oh-so-subtly implying that the Wilderness debate has many supporters within the 20-something demographic and therefore support among the youth segment? (Why are you guys so clumsy at this?) Respectfully, mountain bikers generally DO agree with the perspectives stated above and not your cut-and-pasted rationalization from the "Arguments for Wilderness" handbook. To suggest otherwise is...well, it's really just subterfuge planted to support your position, isn't it?
Except for one rather harsh characterization, I think mountain bikers' comments on here have been eminently civil and polite.
I hope I will not appear uncivil if I comment critically on two of your contentions.
First, you assert:
"The dirty secret that hasn't been talked about on this board yet is that most bikers understand their [sic] is a time and place for wilderness and a time and place for biking."
The reason the putative mountain bikers' anti-bikes-in-Wilderness movement remains so unobserved is that it is so feeble. In my experience, not one in a hundred mountain bikers believes that mountain bikes must be excluded from all Wilderness areas 100% of the time on every trail.
To be sure, there is a site called bike-wild.org that represents that point of view (meaning, incidentally, that it's hardly a secret). I know one of the signatories, however, and he is not a mountain biker, not really, although he owns one. I question his credentials. No doubt some of the Bike Wild signatories have mountain bikes sitting in the garage and meander about on them from time to time on a mellow dirt road. But I have a white cotton robe in my clothes closet, and yet that does not make me a martial arts expert.
Now, your next point:
"I and many of my . . . friends cherish time spent in Wilderness. Those special places allow for amazing opportunities . . . [and] wilderness allows us to put away the cell phones and travel at nature's pace for once—which is a thoroughly vanishing experience."
The error here is to assume that you'll lose the experience of traveling as you prefer if everyone else isn't forced to visit Wilderness the way you want them to. Such an argument reminds me of the thinking of the same-sex-marriage opponents (we've just gone through a long debate on this issue here in California) who claim there shouldn't be same-sex marriage because it will ruin their traditional marriages. It's an absurd argument. Yours, with all respect, is analogous and is simply unpersuasive.
Of course, as you experience bicycle-accessible Wilderness you'll have to yield mentally a bit, i.e., to the extent of perhaps seeing a bicycle on a Wilderness trail from time to time in a week's backpacking trip. It is not too much to ask. You already do that when you see a jet contrail over a Wilderness area, and I don't think seeing the occasional bicycle will ruin your experience unless you're doggedly determined to let it do so.
There's a balance to be struck here. Often these things are resolved through the political process. I do think that the position you take would fail in the court of public opinion, and eventually policymaking will reflect that.
In essence, Wilderness B IS the middle ground you so sagely suggest. It would allow a large and vocal conservation group to rally behind the Wilderness concept instead of in opposition to it while still allowing the Wilderness ranks to declare victory top their internal stakeholders and corporate supporters.
We're all activists? I'm a father of two with two jobs and barely enough time to eat, read or sleep. I'm simply crying foul on an outdated policy. But instead of lobbing potshots in from the perimeter I'm offering a solution, one that could potentially DOUBLE the amount of land protected at a Congressional and therefore inviolable level. What solution have YOU offered?
Implying that us "activists" are imply are simply a fringe group and not top be taken seriously actually says a fair bit more about you than it does about us.
When I said you are missing my point I said it may be my fault--not a fault of yours. I may have not presented my perspective in a way that was clear enough.
The problem with mountain biking which is similar to the problem we now experience with ORVs. There was no public hearing or government EIS to determine whether use of these trails by mountain bikes and/or ORVs was appropriate. In most cases, use was established without any oversight. Basically if you could go there, than you did. Routes were established without any kind of public oversight.
Unfortunately this failure on the part of the government agencies has created the situation you experience today whereby you feel you are being denied access that you thought you had.
Look at the cogent arguments and thoughtful statements from the mountain bikers commenting here. Arent those the types of people you want advocating for the protection of public land? Jeez, don't you want Mike McCormack on your side? What a great ally he (and we) would be! Unless the point of Wilderness is to protect land from all people (it isn't), then exclsuion of mountain bikes from Wilderness isnt supported by the language or intention of the Wilderness Act.
I wont reiterate the arguments but I will say this. The anti-bike Wilderness advocates keep citing some nebulous and nostalgic notion of 'communing with nature in a quiet way.' This is entirely a subjective concept and frankly a meaningless and judgemental argument.
What I'd like to see are some concrete arguments explaining the misty cloud of emotional Wilderness experience, where it was the intent of the Wilderness Act and why mountain biking "threatens" it. When I read the Wilderness Act I see a pretty clear picture of intent, and today, hypocritical and discriminatory enforcement.
With our society today becoming so increasingly disconnected with nature, I find it deplorable that some fight so hard to further deny access. Or is that the very problem causing the disconnect?
The most important purpose of wilderness is not recreation — as important as that is -- it is the preservation of intact ecosystems and natural processes. This is all the more vital as we begin to recognize the impacts of climate change. From a biological standpoint, the less we do to hinder native ecosystems in wilderness areas, the better. These areas are already seriously compromised by many internal and external impacts. Adding mountain bikes to existing uses, such as livestock grazing and horses — which never should have been allowed in wilderness in the first place — would just make things worse.
That said, I do think that mountain biking advocates have many legitimate points. And as someone who falls in the wilderness advocate category, we could do a lot better job of working with mountain biking advocates toward common goals. As has been pointed out, there are alternate designations for land protection. For example, National Preserves are basically National Parks with a few specific exceptions provided for in the authorizing legislation. There are numerous areas across the country where we could designate a large area as a National Park and Preserve with a wilderness overlay for roadless areas. There would still be plenty of space for mountain bike trails -- and a limited road system, for that matter. This is the approach that was used with most Alaska parks, and it could work in many other places.
So I think there is a third way, instead of the wilderness-or-nothing approach. If wilderness advocates had reasonable assurance that they could protect most of an area’s wilderness values in a well-managed National Preserve, they may be more likely to compromise a little wilderness to protect the larger whole. And if mountain bikers knew that they might have to give away some trail mileage for wilderness, but would be assured permanent access to vast National Preserve lands outside of wilderness, they might feel the same way.
Just a few thoughts to add to the discussion.
But today wilderness designation is ever more critical to the present and future well being of North America; Wilderness now stands to play an ever greater ecological role, one that can work at slowing green house gas emission rates, slowing the crisis of biological diversity, and providing refuge for humans and wildlife from the escalating human population, industrialization, and special interest demands to satisfy every corporate scheme and agenda, such as that promoted by dealers and manufacturers, and their paid promoters, of mountain biking.
The strategies of hypocrisy and distortion are evident amongst those opposing wilderness designation, and those favoring the destruction and disintegration of existing wilderness. Like shoddy reality TV, the opponents of wilderness and advocates of mechanization (like mtn bike vehicle use) abide by no standards and respect no traditions or definitions.
I too favor equal access and human powered recreation. Even mtn bikers, I suspect, can walk, so they're welcome to walk and hike into wilderness, but they seem not to be honest enough to admit they want to take their machines with them. Walking and hiking is the greatest form of human power know, and it always will be. Mechanical advantage to power mtn biking is distortion of human power, although not a mtn biker has the courage to admit it.
One thing mtn bikers are very good at is blatant promotion of selfish interests. "Share the trails", ladies, gents, kids, with a hurtling chunk of metal and flesh on wheels at 35 km per hour, they bleat. They also excel in denial of conflicts with peaceful nature respecting walkers and hikers, and they are dogmatic in their ignorance of the environmental impacts of biking. In this regard they equal the climate change denialists, and behind the scene, they are fueled and funded by the same kinds of corporations and narrow minded commercial interests.
Anti wilderness groups have intimitdated many agencies and their personnel, including the Forest Service and some of their staff. If environmental , landscape protection standards are low, and poorly enforced, agencies are inclined to accept, in the name of "managed" use, environmentally destructive activities. They did it with the grazing industry in the mid 1900s and the timber industry in the 60's-80's; they caved before the motorized off road onslaught in the 90's, and they've folded before the oil and gas industry in many parts of the west. In some public lands they're allowed the kitchen sink to be thrown into the mix, with mtn bikers invading some national FOrest lands. Wilderness and roadless lands stand as a bulwark, as a safety network, as a scientifically and socially honest line of defense, against the complete collapse of ecosystem and lands protection standards.
You do a great job of explaining why Wilderness is important, but your post still falls short of explaining why mountain bikes (save some popular media images of chunks of metal moving at blazing speeds) will bring it all to its knees.
I have no experience with this, so that is where well thought out lawyering is needed, hence the need for the above mentioned non-profit corporation. That corporation needs to raise money from companies like Trek, SRAM, Schwinn, etc., and just plain folks willing to contribute tens to hundreds to thousands of dollars. (A good bicycle costs thousands, so why not devote a percentage of every bike sale to trail access issues?) This corporation would also be involved with lobbying efforts, perhaps a PAC that would send money to political office candidates, etc. This legalized form of bribery is what runs our country.
Money Talks, Bulls**t Walks. End of story.
I appreciate the effort you have gone through through to inform us on the status on the Omnibus Wilderness Bill, but I have to admit I was shocked by the utterly gratuitous slam at mountain bikers. The whole post could be written without the derogatory aside, without impacting the rest of the post.
Now the column is open to being hijacked to the bikes in the Wilderness feud which I feel a need to contribute to.
As you have mentioned in the comments, many wilderness advocates consider themselves mountain bikers, most mountain bikers consider themselves wilderness advocates.
Just a few of my comments. As far as I can tell none of the mountain bikers posting here are advocating riding in wilderness.
The Colorado group is supporting the designation of more wilderness where they can ride.
While most of the population supports more wilderness, most of those supports assume that wilderness is open to all human powered endeavors. Also it is easy to support to wilderness if it has no impact on life. I could support wilderness designation for Central Park since I don't ride there.
Arguing that we will only lose a few trail is not always true. Under NREPA the area around where I live would lose the majority of the trails (especially the few remaining scenic trails open to bikes) in a county the is already 1/3 wilderness.
Using mountain bike assisted hunting as a rationalization is out there. Yes there is some truth there, and some of my friends do it, but on FS roads not trails. Getting an elk out on by bike on a wilderness trail is stretching it. Especially compared to horse supported hunting camps miles into the backcountry.
I get concerned when people determine what is the appropriate way to enjoy the outdoors and wilderness, placing their biases in place of actual impact.
There is a spectrum of bikers from casual around town riders to shuttle supported free riders, with the differences between the motorized crowd blurring at the extreme downhill edge. But these aren't the people riding hours into the backcountry. No one goes for a 10 hour ride carrying your bike when the trail get to gnarly if all they want are thrills.
Finally I have to take issue with the idea that getting a thrill, enjoying an adrenaline rush or an endorphin rush is less appropriate way to experience the backcountry than reverential contemplation. I still confuse my firs with yews and have a hard time differentiating the various lichens. I admit that I like to go fast. I like to sweat. That's why I telemark rather than tour, kayak rather than flat water canoe, and why I prefer biking to hiking. Still I have had rides interrupted by an excellent huckleberry patch, and once when we discovered a patch of lady slipper orchids. Until then I didn't Montana had orchids. I believe our differences are a matter of degrees and emphasis rather than absolutes.
We also want wilderness and to protect to land for future generations, while also wanting to have a little low impact fun along the way. Just because we have different ways to have fun doesn't mean we can't work together to protect the land.
Your impact system could be based on mass and acceleration since we all know that F = ma. The amount of force is going to determine how much the trail and environment degrades.
So on Day X you may be behind 3 horses, 10 hikers, and 7 bikes which translates into the maximum set impact for a trail and told to choose another trail.
A place like the Sawtooth Wilderness seems a lot less like a wilderness when you get behind 20 horses on a 5 foot wide trail and are walking through 6 inches of dust.
Wilderness advocates need to get behind an impact based system for lands before they can truly say they are protecting the land.
A true wilderness supporter does not tout what they have done to "improve" the wilderness for their own benefit.
A true wilderness supporter cares about preserving wildlands for preservation sake. The goal of Wilderness designation is to preserve these rare ecosystems for all flora and fauna that need an intact landscape to survive.
Can we as human beings, put our ego-centrism aside for a change and support Wilderness for the sake of wilderness?
Spin it any way you like, but you bias could not be any more obvious when you close your article with yet another mention that "more and more wildlands are being compromised by mountain bikers who are nothing more than non-motorized thrillcraft". I am a 40-something, professional, nature loving man who is very much more than a "non-motorized thrillcraft", which doesn't even make sense. Yes, I get a deep and spiritual thrill from being in the woods on my bike, for I have found no better way to appreciate the beauty of the world than astride a simple human powered device that has remained fundamentally unchanged for over a century. Your concerns about bicycles being the Pandora's Box for the doom and destruction of our wilderness is disingenuous and preposterous. If you really believe that, then you better put a fence all the way around our wilderness areas and not let any human spoil them. A simple human powered machine like a bicycle could not be more appropriate for traversing the great expanses of our glorious wilderness, it certainly is no less so than by hiking or on horseback. Clear your mind of your selfish prejudice and think about what all of us together are trying to accomplish. It is certainly not excluding a single user group from participating in the preservation and enjoyment of our wilderness.
As it stands, mountain bikers have everything to lose from having more wilderness designations. Why would we campaign for it? In the lower 48 we currently have around 50-54M acres of wilderness. This alone represents anywhere from 10 to 30% of all public open spaces (depending on what definition you use for open spaces) suitable for hiking, biking and horseback riding. So, the wilderness inane ban on cycling is a big deal. Of course, if you're one of the unlucky whose historical trails are about to become off limits then it's even worse.
it reminds me of all the mtn bikers in Nepal i see every year who think they can ride to Everest basecamp, or around Annapurna. Yeah rite! they mostly push the damn things, or pay a porter to carry them. its just too steep mostly.
we mtn bikers have plenty of places to ride already without jeopardizing the most sacred protection system the world has ever seen, The Wilderness Act of 1964. So, i say NO Bikes in designated Wilderness.
Other people think that nature should exist for its own sake, wild and untouched by human hands. Strangely, those people want to visit that wilderness (using a car, or a plane, or both) and hike in that wilderness (trampling flora, if off trail, leaving feces, urine, etc) and, any way you slice it, having a significant impact on the land.
Wilderness advocates that enjoy traveling in wild places have fundamentally compromised their own ideal. Live with that tension, and allow other people the opportunity to use some "wilderness" areas in a low impact way.
If you don't want to live with that tension, kill yourself, and allow mother earth to return to her unpeopled state.
You obviously missed my point. Wilderness is not for our recreational enjoyment.
You said it was easy for me to take the "high road" when I am not excluded. I ride a mtn bike but would not think of riding it in a wilderness area. I do not mind being excluded from wilderness as there are many other places to ride. And if you can walk, you are not excluded either.
The "what's in it for me" mentality has no place in the Wilderness discussion. If this is taking the high road, then by all means, take it.
The issue is as much or more about losing historical access as it is about gaining access. Mountain bikers are very passionate about protecting our precious wilderness, but they are also aware that there is an injustice in the way it is being done. There was no such thing as a mountain bike in 1964, if there had been we would not be having this discussion. Mountain bikes should have never been excluded, including them will in no way allow future invasions of non-human powered machines. Your passtimes may be frivilous, mine are very important. Nepal. Really?
You first. Don't go to any wilderness areas, or even any wild areas that haven't yet benefited from an official wilderness designation. Preserve them for the native flora and fauna. Set an example for the rest of us to follow. Please advise after you've done this for a few years. It's a small sacrifice to make for the principles you espouse.
The key to ecosystem protection is size, not which mode of transport one uses. With a larger wilderness, a smaller number of people will enter deeply into it. One could argue that bicycles would make it easier for more people to get further into the wilderness, but you could also argue that, since bicycles are useless off-trail, don't construct any trails where you don't want people.
The last time I rode a bicycle in the Boulder-White Cloud mountains, just south of the Frank Church Wilderness, there were some interesting looking trail-less side canyons, but since I was on a bicycle with my gear strapped to it, plus my shoes were cleated and impractical for walking off-trail, I stuck to the designated path. If I was walking with pack and boots, off-trail travel would have been a piece of cake. (Also, you can carry more trash producing stuff in a backpack than on a bike. I've been doing both modes for 40 years or so.) I will argue that, since bicycles are pretty much restricted to trails, in areas where you don't want people walking into sensitive areas, allow only bicycles on the trails, no foot or horse traffic, and construct trails that steer clear of places where you dont want people trampling the plants and animals, maybe leading to a viewpoint where you can look at those places from a safe distance.
I can't hike into Wilderness. I am only in my forties, but my knee was surgically repaired 14 years ago, and hiking is just a recipe for long-term agony. My bike however, allows me to travel deep into the woods - further in half a day than any of the day-hikers and further than all but a smaller percentage of the other mtb'ers.
On my rides I enjoy all of the same experiences that hikers like Mr. Wuerthner claim is unique or apparently reserved only to hikers. Sure, I get a pretty good workout going 40+ miles into the mountains, but that is just one of the multitude of benefits.
NEWSFLASH: Use of a mountain bike doesn't lessen the variety OR quality of pleasurable sensations people experience when deep in the mountains.
Because of my knee issues it has occurred to me that there are many other folks including handicapped folks that care about experiencing our nation's beautiful wild lands, but Wilderness legislation greatly diminishes their opportunities. Why do hikers think they should be the only ones to enjoy and have access to the wild lands of our beautiful country?
At the end of the day this is still a free country and bikers are Americans with the same rights as you.
The bias against mountain bikers demonstrated by statements (such as those above) that suggest bikers don't have reverence for nature or take stewardship seriously undermines efforts to preserve these lands by putting prejudice before preservation. It also shows that there are many who claim to be experts who have no idea about the issues on the ground. WV - and many another area - has a vibrant community of mountain bikers doing outstanding work to preserve not only access to wild spaces but the spaces themselves. Shame on those who in their ignorance and fear choose to spread stereotypes and misinformation rather than working to preserve existing access and increase preservation for the future.
Despite what some may think, the arguments for more Wilderness don't fall upon deaf ears. Speaking personally, I hope that the reverse is also true. Some would argue that what's really at stake is the concept of preservation itself and the we should feel ethically obligated to support the blanket ban, even though it means forgoing access forever. To that group I would say this; if conservation is truly your goal, then let's also enact a "Wilderness C" designation. Except unlike "Wilderness B" (which is Wilderness with bikes), this designation would strip all human beings of all access. Not a chance in hell, right? Because that's really what it comes down to, isn't it? Foot access and equestrian access being positioned as somehow more reverent, more appropriate?
I'm sitting at my desk as I write this and imagining what COULD be. The desk itself is approximately 30x72, so roughly 2200 square inches. Imagine that each of those inches represented a square mile. Now the desk I'm sitting at is one of those faux-Mex cheapos - it looks great from afar, but is actually far from great. It's heavy, poorly constructed and a bear (an oso?) to move. What it DOES have however is a beautiful fine grain running through the entire topsheet.
What I'd like you to picture next in these 2200 square miles of hypothetical "Wilderness A" is the tiniest, most subtle grain that runs haphazardly across the desk, following imaginary contours. Imagine it traveling more or less from one end of the desk to the other. Realize that given the scale that we're talking about that even that is way, way, WAY out of proportion, but for argument's sake, let's theorize that this trail is about 150 linear inches (or in this case 'miles') long. From a height of even 50 feet in standard forest canopy the trail itself would be all but invisible.
Let's say for argument's sake that this trail is designated "Wilderness B", or in other words, it allows all silent and human-powered recreation. For our purposes today let's all agree that we're talking about bicycles. Traveling at an average of 6-8mph.
The nature of a 150-mile trails dictates that it won't see much use, after all, there just aren't that many people qualified to ride it, kind of like most hikers aren't capable of trekking in several days to bag a remote fourteener. Certain variables like proximity to large population centers would of course need to be taken into consideration.
Now think about an imaginary corridor - maybe 24 inches on each side designated from the centerline of our 150 linear mile trail itself. Our hypothetical 4-foot wide, 150-mile long trail would have a footprint of about 3,168,000 square feet. Sounds like an abomination, right? It is. Until you consider that the "Wilderness A" area surrounding it is roughly 60-trillion + square feet in size. The trail itself would claim roughly .00005% of the total square footage.
Let's break that down into square miles to see if we can resuscitate the abomination argument. A square mile is about 28 million square feet. Our trail is a bit more than 3 million, so roughly .11 square mile. (Go ahead and check...I'm right.) Now our "Wilderness A" parcel is 2160 square miles...that makes our theoretical trail a bit more than one-tenth of just one of those 2160 square miles.
Let's put that in perspective. That would be like you having about $22,000 dollars. Enough to buy a new car. And us having one dollar. Enough to get one of those gumballs from the machine at the grocery store.
That's what we're fighting for. As taxpayers. As fathers, mothers, brother and sisters - our RIGHT to protect that .0005% and enjoy it silently, with little to no impact and with respect and open arms to other human-powered users.
Ok. And horses.
Ceding the moral high ground that suggests that somehow allowing cyclists access to that .00005% will equate somehow with mutually assured destruction, barren lifeless landscapes and dreary film noir cinematography is the price the "Wilderness A or Nothing!" lobby will have to pay to bring MILLIONS of mountain bikers from the ranks of the opposed into fanatic supporters OF the Wilderness movement.
Because the truth is, we don't harm the flora or fauna. The trail is already there. We don't harm the wildlife...if anything, we're lower in the food chain than some of them are.
You see, it's not about users, at least certainly not the minimal number of them qualified to access our hypothetical trail whether on foot or on a bicycle - ask ANY USFS district ranger - if there's food, the animals will eat. It's about biology. They'll coexist. They'll adapt...as they already have. And if you believe otherwise then we need to immediately restrict ALL human activity in these ecosystems, not just bicycles. Singling out one group just doesn't jibe with the science.
We're taking about one-tenth of one square mile. Out of 2160 of them. That's what it's going to take. Because you can have your "Wilderness A", Wilderness or NOTHING! ethic. Or you can have peace. But you cannot have both.
Or...
Now imagine those 2160 square miles surrounded by 2160 MORE miles of Congressionally-designated National Conservation Area or National Scenic Area. Imagine doubling the amount of land falling under inviolable federal protection, forever off limits to drilling, to timber (Yes, Mr. Tester...I said "NO TIMBER") and to all resource extraction.
Because that's what we'll give you for your .0005%. Political base where such things are as valuable as currency. The removal and 100% conversion of a vocal, critical and sensible opponent of your cause. The ability to demand and expect to receive MORE. We'll give you millions upon millions of brothers in arms marching up Capital Hill demanding MORE from our elected officials, no matter which side of the aisle they keep their doodle pads on.
One-tenth.
Think about it.
The romantic notion of a human-free wilderness is entirely a Euro-American invention, which only existed on this continent for a very short time. This was the time between when the native humans were exterminated and when the newcomers resettled the continent. North America has been populated by humans since before the retreat of the last ice-age glaciers. The ecosystems here were influenced by people to a great extent. Some argue we were partly responsible for the extinction of some of the megafauna that lived here. The most recent evidence shows the use of fire to prevent tree growth and encourage grasses in order to attract ungulates that the native people hunted for food. Read "Wilderness and Political Ecology: Aboriginal Influences and the Original State of Nature" by Dr. Charles E. Kay, published by the University of Utah Press.
If you really want a human-free Wilderness, evacuate the entire continent for a few millennia and see what happens. It hasn't existed for many thousands of years. The place was entirely different. Oh, well, that's evolution for you. Please remember that human beings are also a product of nature. We just need to learn to live within our means, and the question of excluding bicycles from trails should be the least of our concerns.
Heaven forbid that bicyclists want to continue to ride their quiet, human powered bicycles on the (w)ilderness trails that we have enjoyed for decades - while also wanting these trails - and associated eco-systems - permanently protected. What a concept!
MontanaBiker:
As for your statement that "(w)ilderness allows us to put away the cell phones and travel at natures pace for once - which is a thoroughly vanishing experience."
Might I suggest that you and your twenty friends just simply leave the cell phones at home, practice modicum of self control out on the trails - and if going at nature's pace continues to be a problem - more fiber in your diet could be helpful. Maybe Ritalin too.
Your personal journey out in the (w)oods is what you make it - just don't inflict your twisted 'ethic' on my ride.
Whatever.
BTW, it was quite funny to read the backtracking of the OP when others debunked his arguments.
While I appreciate your thorough analysis of the possible legislative inclusions under the failed system (Omnibus Bill) and your extensive knowledge of the proposed areas is certainly admirable, the mention and endorsement of NREPA makes me question your grip on reality. NREPA is the most socially and environmentally irresponsible pipe dream to come down the pike.
You state ' As a consequence, they (NREPA is) controversial in the states affected, though they have significant support across the nation. NREPA legislation would protect 24 million acres of the finest wildlands in five states including Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Washington and Oregon.' In Montana we are struggling to get 660,000 acres of (W)ilderness appoved – NREPA’s 6 million acres for Montana is a non-starter.
Can you name one politician in any of the aforementioned states that supports NREPA? Without such support - how is this concept ever going to fly? By being introduced by a New York politician and sneaking it in under cover? Please!
A bigger question looming on our public lands is how we handle the millions and millions of acres beetle killed trees that will eventually bury our trails systems. Protect it as (W)ilderness and we'll be buck-sawing our way into the backcountry for the next millennium. It will be true (w)ilderness alright as only the truly motivated, retired or unemployed will have the time or energy to venture there. Maybe that is the answer - that no human ventures into the (W)ilderness.
NO WAIT! - didn't the legislative language in the new Hidden Gems (W)ilderness Proposal in Colorado just allow chain saws? In proposed (W)ilderness? Hmmmm! Why-oh-why would the (W)ilderness proponents want chainsaws but not continued bicycle use in this WILD place? Could it be that the two tiered class system hypocritically favors hiking and equestrian use over the equally quiet, low impact and human powered bicycles on our PUBLIC lands?
The logical progression here is that (W) + B is a politically and environmentally viable solution to end the land conservation / access gridlock we have suffered through for far too long. Well written legislation that provides the same permanent protections as (W)ilderness but allows bicycles could protect more land than a (W)ilderness designation ever could - and would have a MUCH larger base of supportive and voting conservation activists (bicyclists). Hello?
Bicycles, and possibly chain saws, will be key to any successful future land protection legislation - permanent protection. National Protection Areas or Conservation Management Areas are not precedent setting ideas but rather conservation solutions that are available to us now. Let's embrace this concept and get to work protecting our treasured landscapes. Enough time, money and good will have already been squandered.
I won't be able to respond to all the questions you raised in your post, (I have to do other work for my job) but I will take a stab at your NREPA question.
Lack of support in affected states is not a reason to believe such legislation is unrealistic. A reading of conservation history demonstrates that nearly all worthwhile conservation legislation was opposed by the locals--whether that is in the state or region.
You ought to go back and read the commentary by western senators when national forests were first established. There was the universal opposition using the very same arguments one hears today used against wilderness, national monuments, and so forth. Indeed, the arguments are remarkably similar--and haven't changed in a hundred and thirty years. You'll read about "lock up" and "lack of access" , how these forests will "cripple" economic development and "selfish easterners" and so forth.
Similarly there was no state Congressional support for the creation of Grand Teton NP, Olympic NP, Grand Canyon NP, Canyonlands NP, Glacier NP, Wrangell-St Elias NP, Gates of the Arctic NP and so forth. My list would get quite lengthy if I were to list every conservation success that was created without widespread local support.
In fact, it seems to be the norm. In other words, the best conservation legislation is usually legislation that is opposed locally. Why? Because most locals have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. If the legislation does not propose any major changes in management--why bother with it? So naturally you find limited local support for good legislation.
I suspect if you were honest, you would have to conclude that all of these parks and our system of national forests, etc. is on the whole a good thing.
Interestingly, Senator Jon Tester's Forest and Jobs bill is far more radical in what it proposes than NREPA--other than the size of NREPA. It calls for mandated logging quotas (which is why it is having trouble garnering support outside of Montana). By contrast, all NREPA does is codify the Roadless rule by giving permanent wilderness protection to the roadless areas which Congress has already shown it supports as well the majority of Americans.
When viewed this way, NREPA seems very plausible and certainly worthy of support.
One difference between mountain biking and logging, mining, etc., is that at least the FS or BLM goes through a public review and environmental review process before it permits any logging, oil drilling, etc.
There has been little review of mountain biking prior to use. MB have simply started using trails, creating trails, and so forth often without any public participation or environmental review. In most cases, I suspect, in most places, MB would raise little or no opposition. But in some places such those areas long proposed for wilderness protection, if such a process were in place, the use would never have gotten started.
The resultant conflict is unfortunate, and largely a consequence of how public lands agencies have failed to manage the growing use of mountain bikes. It's very difficult to tell someone that they can't do something they have gotten used to doing--and that is the situation we have now.
The trouble with Wilderness advocates is that they LIE constantly!
I have checked the map (the detailed parts you have to dig for) and NREPA will declare Wilderness right up to city limits and private property borders near Ketchum, Idaho. Have NREPA advocates told all the people and businesses that are supported by mountain biking that they will have to pack up and leave? NREPA advocates need to be HONEST with people. Tell them, "We are kicking you out for the good of the environment." If they were honest, NREPA wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell.
George, you seem to believe that no local buy in is necessary. If anything the experience in protecting land in the third world has show the necessity of local buy in to be successful. As far as opposition to previous NPs and National Forests, it shows that there is a need to different levels of protection and and a need to get some local buy in. Timber extraction didn't end with National Forests, and lodges were built to attract tourists in National Parks. The whole west wasn't designated a National Park. Not all public lands are National Forest, some lands are BLM.
The debate is not about preservation versus exploitation, but about the best way to to protect the land.
Regarding Omnibus Bills, they aren't quite the porkfest that they used to be. During the Obama Administration's first year, the Omnibus Bill failed to get the votes it needed in the Senate. So, the Democrats attached the entire Omnibus Bill into an amendment on a bill that had already passed the Senate, requiring only a 50% majority. Included in that amendment was a trade of Forest Service prime forestland for cutover lands elsewhere, to allow a mega-developer to build a new ski resort on Mount Hood.
At the risk of further side track, let me suggest that local buy in would be great, but it shouldn't discourage people from advocating good legislation without it.
The end of slavery in the South did not have local buy in. But was it was a bad thing? And certainly the Civil Rights battles of the 60s were largely done again over opposition from many in the South, particularly politicians like George Wallace.
To bring it closer to home I can remember when locals in Columbia Falls Montana opposed efforts to reduce fluoride pollution from the aluminum plant there--despite evidence that it was affecting people's health. In the Silver Valley of Idaho, locals opposed regulation of smelter emissions even though their kids were being poisoned by lead. And so it goes.
In fact, I think we can generally agree that a lot of the best and most progressive legislation passed in this nation was done over the objections of locals.
So I ask you to consider do you really think the creation of Grand Teton NP a bad thing? Check out the history of the park--the Congressional delegation in Wyoming went so far as to introduce a bill to designate the park. Today, I think most people in Wyoming as well as the rest of the nation are glad that the locals didn't win that one.
Was the creation of Glacier NP a bad thing? Read the comments from Montanans at that time, particularly in the Kalispell area about how this was going to ruin the economy and how it "excluded" people "locked them out" from the land.
Was the creation of national forests a bad thing? I will be happy to send you some comments from various western senators who predicted the creation of national forests (some of which by the way go to the borders of towns) was going to ruin the economy of the West, and so forth.
I think in retrospect we find that these were all worthwhile and most of us today don't even debate about these places.
My point is that the weight of history is on the side of NREPA. And if NREPA never gets passed, I guarantee you that future generations will view it as a missed opportunity.
When has there been a public review of the impact of hiking and horse impacts? All users are guilty of creating trails, hikers generally create trail to the top of peaks or other view points. There are many miles of hiking trails that go straight up peaks with no regard for grade. Horse users do not want to be restricted to trails and feel they are entitled to go anywhere at anytime. During the Wilson Creek EA process the BLM tried to restict horse users to the existing trails, but the horse users fought this and forced the ammendment of the EA. Mountain Bikers were simply happy to use the trails. Just google Wilson Creek EA.
It is ridiculous that wilderness advocates are always quoting that a majority of people are in favor of wilderness or that every single wilderness advocate that comments or talks in reference to mountain bikes always say they are avid mountain bikers just because they have a bike in the garage.
Read through one of those wilderness surveys that is conducted and you will not find an instance where they actually explain what wilderness is and what restrictions it imposes on the land and users. They don't do this because they are afraid of the results, because the fact is that most suburban dwellers have no idea what wilderness means. I was one of those people, before I moved from New England to Idaho in my early 20s I always assumed wilderness simply mean't no motors.
I will try and find a wilderness survey that was paid for by a wilderness group to illustrate my point.
The wilderness debate is changing, there are more kids who bike then backpack. Frankly if a bike can get a kid away from an xbox and into a wilderness then we would be stupid to turn him or her away. The framers of the original wilderness act wanted these areas to be enjoyed by all Americans not a select few.
Are you seriously comparing a solution and consensus-building minded on-the-ground movement to find a practical middle ground, one that would actually protect far more land and all the landscapes, flora, fauna and wildlife contained therein to the opposition slavery and civil rights faced?
we've lost enough roadless country all ready!
If NREPA and other proposals allowed mountain biking within it's boundaries they would have literally millions more supporters. Think about that.
If you are opposed to mountain biking, you support clear cutting and strip mining.
Wilderness designation is difficult enough without your opposition.
I would greatly appreciate your efforts in helping conservation efforts along. Perhaps I am not up to speed, but I can't recall a significant conservation proposal from the mountain bike community (which doesn't reduce wilderness potential designation).
Aren't there some lands we are not going to argue over about wilderness designation that could satisfy your desire for single track trails and so on, but which might otherwise be compromised by future and/or even past development? Certainly it appears to me there are opportunities on many of our public lands for such proposals. Lands that would never qualify as wilderness, but have high conservation values. Lands that may have been logged, mined, or whatever in the past, but could with time recover their conservation values.
I am thinking of many lands in the Oregon Coast Range, parts of various mountain ranges in the Rockies like the Whitefish Range by Glacier, the Deer Creeks near Big Timber Montana, portions of the Big Belts and Little Belt Mountains in Montana, parts of the Bighorn Range in Wyoming, portions of the Sierra Nevada in California, much of the land around Mt. Shasta in northern California, parts of North Idaho's national forests, much of the land on the Boise NF outside of Boise, Idaho, quite a bit of the Malheur NF in Oregon, and so forth.
These are only a few places where I suspect there would be great opportunities to make new conservation designation that would generate support from folks like me, and that would help to establish MB as a major conservation force. The opportunity is there, and it might be more fruitful for all of us if we could focus on those opportunities.
I am familiar with such areas that I could name. Places that I know are not within anyone's wilderness proposal, but which nevertheless would benefit from more protection as some non-wilderness status.
Instead of trying to prevent wilderness designation, could you put your extensive energies towards more protection? There are certainly a lot of opportunities. And as a mountain biker myself, I would love to see more of these opportunities for both mountain biking and conservation goals.
Why do we not have our own proposal? Possibly because our energies as volunteers and those of the comparatively young advocacy organization IMBA are consumed with demanding accountability from the well funded (in the words on one of the members of the Hidden Gems executive board "Whatever it takes."), strategically overreaching (we'll ask for a million acres just so we can get 300,000), "just us, not anyone else, not now, not ever" proposals you guys keep firing out into the political ether.
Invest in true compromise instead of insisting that we swing all the way over to your way of thinking and you'll start seeing Congressionally protected acreage double.
(As a side note, the 200th anniversary of the invention of the mountain bike is in 2017. Karl von Drais' invention was intended to patrol the forests he was in charge of in Germany. Bicycling is not a recent use in (w)ilderness)
The International Mountain Bicycling Association has engaged in numerous cooperative ventures with Wilderness advocates along the lines you propose. I don't work for IMBA, though I'm proud to be an IMBA member, and I have only vague recollections about these joint ventures, but I think one was undertaken in Virginia. IMBA has in fact established mountain bikers as a major force for conservation at the national level.
Most of us would prefer not to oppose capital-W Wilderness designations, but the Wilderness purists insist that any new Wilderness legislation not permit bicycles to be grandfathered in, and that a legally unjustifiable 1977 Forest Service rule be kept in place to keep us out of existing Wildernesses. These stances reflect dogged prejudices like the bikes-as-thrillcraft notion that George Wuerthner began this thread with. You can hardly expect us to give up treasured trails simply to satisfy such prejudices.
There is something quite strange about the purist Wilderness movement's crotchety obsession against bicycles. It reflects a temperance-movement attitude in which the wheel plays the part of demon rum. As Arne Ryason observes, no one is going to yield a single inch in service of such loony tub-thumping. Bear in mind, please, that you can't even get people to give up oversized vehicles or Caribbean cruises in furtherance of the legitimate goal of stopping the liquefaction of the Arctic ice shield. So you're not going to get people to give up the physical and psychic rewards of the salutary sport of mountain biking just because some Carrie Nations demand it out of a quixotic and Puritanical fixation on the evils of the wheel, a fixation that's wholly out of sync with both empirical evidence and human experience.
There have been some excellent posts on this thread. My thanks to those who've made them. As for those who insist they're avid or adamant mountain bikers who just happen to favor excluding bicycles from existing and new Wilderness everywhere, I frankly don't believe your stated credentials, and I doubt anyone else does either.
NREPA would be an economic disaster for Idaho. The recreation and hunting industry in Idaho would collapse within years. Towns like Stanley, Lowman, Salmon, and many others would become ghost towns. All of the lands in NREPA are already protected under the Idaho Roadless Rule there is no threat from logging or mining.
If the New York delegation wants a NREPA they can create one right there in New York first.
Thanks for the thoughtful responses.
So here we are at the cusp of 2011. Mountain biking has been established and cherished in wild, backcountry areas that have been long sought after for (W)ilderness protection but legislative bills have languished unresolved for decades. We cannot turn back the clocks to address land management decisions made decades ago - we can only move forward in a way that draws wisdom from the past with a new view of what legislative land protection can be in the future. Failing to do so will doom society to the gerbil wheel of previous missteps and mistakes.
So what are we going to do?
Keeping in mind that (W)ilderness is not a religion or first amendment right but a land protection tool - what are WE protecting with a Congressional (W)ilderness designation that cannot be accomplished with a well written, strongly worded, legally binding and collaboratively supported companion designation that offers the SAME protection from mining, logging, new roads, structures and expanded motorized use but still allows bicycling on SOME important routes within the proposed landscape? Are these not the goals of the (W)ilderness advocate? What IS the argument here? Anybody? Is it the color of my skin – er – mode of quiet recreation you reject?
It must be pointed out that nowhere in this thread have I read a position from a (w)ilderness bicycle advocate who spoke of opening existing (W)ilderness areas to a bicycle free-for-all. So much time, money and good will has been spilled over this battle line - it has been beaten to death. The message that the (W)ilderness advocates are hopefully hearing from the cycling community is that there is a better way to manage bicycles on public lands – and that the bicycling community is a HUGE conservation community that can help protect more deserving landscapes – including new bicycling banning (W)ilderness areas. We do, however, want to be at the table when future access is discussed about trails we’ve ridden for decades without issue. Just because questions are being asked of the sacrosanct Big W, Wilderness advocates should not circle the wagons with fear mongering and saber rattling. Now is the time to identify and unify our common interests.
So like it or not - bicycles have a twenty five + year history on some of our most precious backcountry trails around the country – why not embrace that collective (w)ilderness experience and expertise by bringing bicyclists to the table to create something we can all support and pass on to future generations? The bicyclists that venture into the backcountry do so for the same reasons that hikers and equestrians – to seek solitude, savor the beauty, to enjoy a physical challenge. Please keep the thrill craft gymnasium analogy to yourself – we are talking about an invested citizenry that cares deeply about their local (and distant) watersheds, wildlife and forest health because they have been to these areas on their bicycles – and will return again in the future. I can’t think of a better bunch of folks to help keep an eye on our public lands.
As far as National Parks – Kudos to IMBA and the Park Service for signing an agreement to explore more bicycle options in our Parks. Not in my wildest Jellystone dreams do I want to ride on remote trails into sensitive areas but I’d rather be torn to shreds by a grizz on a ride along a quiet power line cut or access road than be squished out on the pavement by a Hawaiian shirt wearing, RV driving motorhead.
You ask what has the cycling community done in the name of Wilderness? Montana cyclists under the banner of IMBA submitted written testimony at the initial hearing of Tester’s Forest Jobs and Recreation Act on December 17th that supported 95 percent of the proposed Wilderness acreage – despite grave reservations about the process that excluded bicyclists from the table. The remaining 5 percent consisted boundary adjustments and corridors requested by the cycling community to protect important routes on a trail-by-trail basis – not just a broad blanket banishment. Of the 1000 +/- miles of trails to be closed to bicycles in the bill, the cycling community asked for roughly 70 miles of trails to be excluded from Wilderness consideration but protected under a companion designation. As of today only about 15 miles of consideration have been given in the current FJRA maps to the cycling requests – other simple suggestions and conversations remain in limbo – like the bill. I don’t know about you – but this DOES feel like a big shout out of support to the Wilderness folks by the cycling community that was not reciprocated?!
I’m glad that you site the Civil Right Act, which was also passed in 1964, and was subsequently strengthened and tweaked years later by the 14th and 15th amendments because society had further evolved and matured. Maybe its time to look at public land management through the same looking glass.
Come up with some proposals and let's see them. If you avoid areas that have been proposed for wilderness, I bet we'd have some agreement. I was just thinking of the Bangtail Hills between Bozeman and Livingston as the kind of place that could be given some strong conservation protection, is not part of any wilderness proposal, yet could be designated a mountain biking area--indeed, it could be one of the major reasons for some kind of protective designation.
Surely there are many other opportunities like that around the country. Come up with 10 or 20 areas like that around the country to work on, and I bet you would find a lot of support.
As Mike McCormack already stated, maybe we could come up with a proposal to call our own if we weren't so busy already fighting the numerous current proposals that look to ban mountain bikers access on lands and on trails that we mountain bikers have helped maintain for decades.
Shoot - we aren't even asking for more access, just to preserve the access we already have. And you keep lobbing up arguments like "Well, you were never really intended to be there in the first place." and "Allowing bicycles in opens up a Pandora's Box of other unsavory types that might want in." and (this is my favorite) "My experience would be compromised if mountain bikes were allowed on my favorite trails."
I'm also glad that the fight for civil rights was invoked, because a lot of what you say, even in the face of well-reasoned arguments raised in respectful disagreement, amounts to nothing more than baseless bigotry against another user group. You've yet to offer one compelling or practical reason NOT to explore what appears to be an opportunity to align likeminded user groups in the service of protection even more public land at a Congressional level.
And your last argument? "If you want to convince me, go find some land of your own to protect." It seems as if you're grasping at straws. That's it? Really? "We saw it first!" THAT is your argument?
Settle in George. It's gonna be a long haul.
Maybe a couple other posters will up the ante and agree to some opeds.
I wandered over the NREPA pages and found the map for around my home in Ravalli County.
http://www.wildrockiesalliance.org/assets/nrepaMaps/bitterroot.jpg
The county is already about 50% Forest Service. Half of the Forest Service is already wilderness. Under NREPA around2/3 of the FS not designated Wilderness will become designated, leaving I'm guess 10 - 15% open. You want us to then propose to set aside even more of the small portion protected to show our good faith.
Under NREPA, about the only remaining ride that I can find would be the 8 mile loop around Coyote Coulee. Even the well established partially pabed trail around the lake where motorized boating is allowed would be become wilderness.
We aren't talking about a few trails with bikers having plenty of places to ride. We are talking about the effective banning of single track mountain biking in the Bitterroot.
Every area we ride will be closed. Sleeping Child: Closed. Blue Joint: Closed Blodgett Canyon: Closed. Allan Mountain Closed. When you add in the closures in the Big Hole and the Sapphires Can you recommend where we else could possibly find an all day singletrack ride within a 50 mile radius?
I can't believe that 85% of the Bitterroot National Forest needs Wilderness designation, and that there isn't a single area within the proposal that could be equally protected with another designation.
This is what we are talking about. Nearly all the proposed lands deserve protection but making them all Wilderness dilutes the brand too much. Wilderness surrounding the most popular lake in the Bitterroots. This is what happens when people far away use maps to make proposals. This is why local input with all stakeholders is key, and why proposals from mountain bikers cut into the proposed wilderness; there is no where else to go.
A few years ago some cyclists I know were busted for riding on one of those ex-ranch roads by rangers in a 4WD vehicle. The rangers were there investigating a possible drowning, so their motor vehicle use is covered in the Wilderness Act, but it is ironic that a truck is allowed in a so-called Wilderness where bicycles are not. I urged the cyclists to fight their convictions and appeal, but they did not, probably due to the cost, trouble and intimidating nature of the federal legal process.
In this case I believe (W)ilderness designation was used as a political tool, so those who can afford to wine, dine and otherwise legally bribe their politician friends can exclude those who aren't part of their club.
An excellent analysis of the Point Reyes situation is found in this paper, published in the Yearbook of the Association of Pacific Coast Geographers, 1 January 2002. It is "The trouble with preservation, or, getting back to the wrong term for wilderness protection: a case study at Point Reyes National Seashore." By Laura A. Watt, PhD. A couple of quotes:
"One senator questioned the appropriateness of calling areas with so many human-made encumbrances and nonconforming uses "wilderness," suggesting that the original intent of the Wilderness Act had eroded to the point where any place, even downtown Manhattan, could be designated (U.S. Congress 1976, p. 308-9). Yet his concerns were not shared by the other representatives, the NPS, or the public."
"The tendency of wilderness management--and most natural resource preservation in general--to eliminate human history from the landscape makes for bad public policy. It negates our relationship with the land and creates an unrealistic separation between nature and culture. Cronon (1995, p. 85) writes, "The wilderness dualism tends to cast any use as ab-use, and thereby denies us a middle ground in which responsible use and nonuse might attain a kind of balanced, sustainable relationship."
This would be my first choice for re-opening formerly legal "trails" to bicycle use in so-called (W)ilderness, or at least "cherry stem" them out of such designation. Point Reyes is why I have had an interest in this subject for the last 26 years. I won't quit.
Teh country needs to suspend all land lockups, awards, grants, buying land, "non profits", hiking trails, ESA, etc. Tehn reevaluate when we get back on our feet fiscally.
Are you kidding?
Hikers do not descend on trails at high speed, where collisions can and do result in broken bones and life-threatening injuries.
Speed junkies, whether they are muscle or motor powered are disruptive and damaging to wilderness values. Both threaten the safety of hikers and both cause trail erosion. Yet both proclaim that they "love" wilderness and want to enjoy it on their own terms.
Bah! Humbug!
Hiking in Wilderness areas usually involves multiday backpacking trips, which means setting up and striking tents, building campfires, digging impromptu toilet facilities, washing dishes, engaging in resource extraction activities like fishing, and, of course, lugging the clutter that enables the foregoing to the trailhead in a motor vehicle. I know: I've done a ton of backpacking on the Pacific Crest Trail.
Mountain biking has a lighter footprint. Much lighter. I often ride to the trailhead; I don't need to drive there. Even if I do drive, mountain biking doesn't involve camping and all of the ecological and wildlife disruption it entails. We travel lightly and quietly and emerge the same day, having left nothing but tire tread marks that will disappear in a day or two.
And we haven't even talked about horses and packstock. People trying to construct the Wilderness Act of 1964 proposed building airstrips in Wilderness. The reason? The impact of using airstrips to bring in supplies, they thought, would be lower than the impact of horse and packstock travel! They were probably accurate in that estimation.
So you're basically right. Just not the way you think.
Correct cycling etiquette also dictates that a downhill rider yield to the uphill traveler, be they on bike, on foot or on floating on a rainbow like you.
OK, I'm done stereotyping now.
There are airstrips in the Frank Church, "cherry-stemmed" into the Wilderness. Some are official USFS strips and some serve remote private in-holdings. This is an unfortunate part of that Wilderness. Airplanes buzz overhead all summer, which breaks the silence with an ugly man-made sound, especially if you are close to the landing and take-off areas, where the planes are very low in elevation. Here's another interesting fact: The USFS uses saws and dynamite to break up log jams on the Middle Fork of the Salmon River in order to let commercial rafting outfitters through. If it were a real (w)ilderness, the pampered guests would have to portage around these blockages, perhaps not making it in time for their appointments in civilization, or even starving to death because they were unprepared, like the good old days. Airplanes, commercial outfitters (complete with wine and cheese), saws and dynamite are OK but bicycles are not. Wilderness? No, it's Wildernessland!
(All it takes is money slipped into the right pockets and a few good lawyers)
One way the MFSR and the Selway is managed to preserve wilderness quality is through use of a lottery system that seeks to limit the impact on the river corridors - really just large trails. In the good old days, we opposed the permits as an infringement on our personal freedoms. We learned, mellowed, and eventually admitted that the USFS got it right. Successful lottery winners plan far in advance, pay some user fees and conform to some minimal administrative requirements. Would the bikers who insist on access to every wilderness area be willing to subject to a similar plan? Would you agree to limit use to a few bikers a day for a set period of time, pay some fees, shape behaviors?
The use of all public lands comes with some responsibilities that change with land use designation. Can the bikers demonstrate they are ready and willing to step up?
jdj wrote "The use of all public lands comes with some responsibilities that change with land use designation. Can the bikers demonstrate they are ready and willing to step up?"
Mountain bikers have demostrate for years that they are willing to take care of the land through trail work. In the Boise area mountain bikers do the majority of trailwork on non-motorized trails. I think this situation is the same all around the country.
I have no interest in accessing current wilderness areas, simply any new wilderness areas that close out existing use.
Every trail lost is a compromise. Every acre designated as Wilderness when it doesn't actually meet the definition is a compromise.
We're not talking about all or nothing - we never have been. We're talking about vast "Wilderness A" tracts surrounded by large buffer zones of companion designations with the possibility of SOME of the trails being designated as "Wilderness B", and that designation snapping to the trail alignment ONLY.
Let me walk you through the math again;
Wilderness Advocate: "Let's all agree to protect these 100 acres. For the greater good, you mountain bikers are going to have to agree to never ride here again."
Cycling Advocate: "I've got an idea! Why don't we protect 200 acres using the Wilderness designation AND the most appropriate companion designation, one that allows silent and human powered activity but still protects against extraction and development? If we could do that, we can preserve mountain bike routes and get every single mountain biker behind the proposal. We'll meet for beers and pizza afterwards!"
Wilderness Advocate: "No. 100 acres. Wilderness only. You're out."
Now tell me again...who is incapable of compromise?
JDJ, yours is not even an alternative perspective that needs to be weighed, considered and respected. You're just flat-out wrong.
WE are offering a solution with an incredible upside. YOU, sir are stating that the blanket ban on bicycles is the ONLY solution.
Again, you are wrong. And in the course of being so inflexible are visiting a grave disservice upon the public land protection dialogue.
You said: "The mechanical advantage given by today's modern bikes cheapens and degrades the experience for others, and has potential negative impacts on the land (for instance riding a mountain bike might give hunters access to formerly remote lands that provided wildlife with a refuge)."
Is this not EXACTLY what horses do, and have been doing for decades, in our most pristine wilderness areas? What kills me the most about the unyielding support for the traditional wilderness designation is that wilderness allows horses to violently degrade the lands that its advocates are so eager to protect.
Yes, riding a mountain bike MIGHT give hunters access to formerly remote lands that provided wildlife with a refuge, but horses CAN and WILL do this, and to make matters even more intolerable, they do it for a profit. After ATVs, there is simply nothing more destructive to our trails than horses. They chew up the trails, they introduce hordes of biting flies, and they scatter massive volumes of feces indiscriminately. Outfitters are allowed to bring large numbers of clients and horses virtually anywhere, and they set up tent cities when they get there.
George, have you ever spent two days hiking through green piles of horse crap and swarms of flesh eating flies, to arrive at your destination, perhaps a secluded alpine lake, only to find it inhabited by a dozen stinking, grass devouring horses and the apathetic, beer-swilling tourists who paid thousands of dollars to have this experience served to them by phony cowboys? Welcome to the American vision of Wilderness, cheapened and degraded, and advocated by people like you.
I can imagine that hiking only folks would feel the same way if legislative proposals were to completely take away your trails and give them only to bikers (a proposal which would, in fact, be all or nothing and is not a part of this discussion). The MTB community has spent years doing trailwork and protecting these areas where people on bikes have the same kinds of transcendent experiences some believe are only available to hikers and those who ride horses. And now they face the possibility of losing access permanently, and hear that their experience is "less than" that of people who access the land on a horse or on foot. It sounds a lot like a stranger coming to your yard and saying, "hey, nice work on the landscaping, thanks, but you can't really appreciate it so we're going to take it over and now you kids get off my lawn."
Apparently, for us to "step up" we have to "step down" and allow trails to close to bicycle use.
I'm of the view that mountain bikers should have reasonable access to existing Wilderness. As a rule of thumb, I'd suggest that wherever a horse is allowed to go, a cyclist should be too.
That said, I have in mind there are some trails that horses can navigate that cyclists would find unrideable. As a practical matter, applying that standard would still find no cyclists on thousands of miles of trails in existing Wilderness.
Also, I have no problem with permit systems, including ones setting quotas on visitor access, as long as they're fairly applied.
I've been meaning to reply to Arne's suggestions about bringing a legal challenge.
The Wilderness Act of 1964 does not bar cyclists from Wilderness. Only federal agency rules, put in place in the 1970s and 1980s, do that. They rest on a thin reed, legally speaking. People don't challenge them in civil federal court because not only would it be expensive, but if one lost, mountain bikers could be personally liable for hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorney fees to the opponents, who would try to find a way to become parties and collect attorney fees.
Arne is correct that another way to do the legal challenge would be to simply engage in civil disobedience, have oneself cited, and challenge the law that way. In criminal court, I can't think of any problems involving attorney fees, at least not on the scale that would be involved in civil litigation. But a criminal defendant usually cuts an unsympathetic figure. Whoever is willing to risk it could wind up with a criminal record. Nowadays, with widespread databases, it could do you a lot of harm personally. I've heard of people with only a misdemeanor conviction being denied entry to Canada, for example.
And the merits of the case wouldn't be 100% of the necessary calculation before taking such a step. The notion of impartial justice is sometimes honored in the breach but not observed in reality. I know of at least one federal judge who has a reputation for giving the Wilderness purists pretty much whatever they want in his courtroom. I doubt he would be willing to find the agency regulations unsupported by the Wilderness Act of 1964, no matter how much this is in fact the case.
This post has gone on long enough, but in my next one I'll include an example of a federal appeals court decision on a Wilderness violation that illustrates the ways some courts have thought about these issues. It's not the way many of us think about them. I suspect people will be unpleasantly surprised to read it.
But in between here and there I'd simply settle for not losing any more trails. Because what I've posted below isn't science fiction.
1964 Trail Access: Hikers/Horses - 100%, Bicycles 100%
1984 Trail Access: Hikers/Horses - 100%, Bicycles 50%
1994 Trail Access: Hikers/Horses - 100%, Bicycles 40%
2004 Trail Access: Hikers/Horses - 100%, Bicycles 30%
2014 Trail Access: Hikers/Horses - 100%, Bicycles 20%
2024 Trail Access: Hikers/Horses - 100%, Bicycles 10%
2034 Trail Access: Hikers/Horses - 100%, Bicycles 0%
I do not want to engage in civil disobedience unless I already have a lawyer well versed in all of the above (etc.), hence the need for a lot of money and other influences. I need to find out if this is even possible without risking a long stay in the crowbar motel.
I imagine that many federal judges already have friends who are equestrians, (W)ilderness advocates, etc., so the deck is already stacked against you if you want to rock the boat a bit.
The Golden Rule: Those with the gold make the rules.
@Mike -- I hope you're wrong, but that's a cool table for pointing out to any fair-minded person the unfairness that's being worked against trail cyclists.
@Lizzie -- Thanks for clarifying.
If CIEDRA passes in congress, which would close the Grand Prize Gulch to the West Fork of the East Fork of the Salmon River in the Sawtooth National Recreation Area to bicycles, this would violate my right to ride a bicycle on "my" trail, thus violating one of my 9th Amendment Constitutional rights. (Last time I rode it there was NOBODY else on it. I was the "majority" in this case if that helps.)
Although mountain biking does not predate the US Constitution, I can show that it predates the 1964 Wilderness Act by 147 years. Just because it wasn't common doesn't mean it didn't exist then. Many "old timers" can attest to riding balloon tire bikes on trails in the 1950s or earlier.
What I would like to point out is that if (W)ilderness advocates don't compromise and they push for legislation that closes more trails to bicycle use, they might end up with a court decision that opens up ALL (W)ilderness trails to mountain biking.
We can all be a little thin-skinned on this one. Sounds like we owe YOU an apology.
Mike
Look at some of the remote mountain ranges in Nevada. I bet a lot of those are people-free by default. I was on a backpack trip to Arc Dome in Nevada more than 30 years ago and we were the only ones there. Many people think of Nevada as a wasteland, so that opinion means the mountain ranges between the desert playas see little human visitation, designated Wilderness or not.
Size and remoteness are the keys to protecting the wilderness, not what's on the trails.
I also remember that there are some people who think the only way to really experience the wilderness is to wear buckskin clothing and moccasins, carrying a knife only (maybe a tin cup), using ancient skills as outlined in books like "The Book of Woodcraft" by Ernest Thompson Seton. I need to read that again. Might need those skills someday.
John Muir walked to Yosemite from Oakland, California, one pocket stuffed with raisins and the other stuffed with dry oatmeal, or so the story goes ... We have "softened" a bit since his time.
There are other obscure constitutional rights few people ever hear about and that the courts rarely address (less even than they do the Ninth Amendment). Among them are the right to a republican form of government (small r) and the Third Amendment right not to have troops quartered in your house.
There are three kinds of laws:
God's law: Do what is right; do not trespass upon another's person or property.
Man's law: Do what you say you will do; keep to your contracts.
Vulgar law: Do what I tell you to do; I don't need a valid reason.
I will always believe that the law banning bicycle use in Point Reyes National Seashore, on former ranch roads, is right there in the third category, but there is nothing in the Constitution against vulgar law ... or is there?
So, turning to something I can grasp better, I was intrigued at your mention of the Arc Dome Wilderness. There are a bunch of them in the remote middle of central Nevada and I've wondered whether anyone visits them. I heard that parts of the Toiyabe Crest Trail, running south from Austin, haven't been maintained since the 1930s.
Quite right: people think of interior Nevada as a wasteland, but it's anything but that if one gets to know it even moderately well.
You wrote “arguing that unless you can mountain bike in an area you can’t support wilderness designation suggests to me that the most important thing is the biking, not the land protection itself.” One can just as easily argue that if you cannot consider companion designations that would offer the same protections to the land but would allow mt biking, then the most important thing to you is the removal of bikes, not the protection of the lands.
Mostly I'm a Nevada hot spring fan. Sometimes, when driving through on Highway 80, I take the "long cut" from Winnemucca to the Black Rock Desert, soak in Trego Ditch and watch the trains go by. It's so quiet you can feel the trains coming when they're miles away. Nothing like it.
(Sorry, I digress ...)
An earnest thank you to all who participated, pro, con, civil, caustic or otherwise. The exchange of ideas and opinions may be painful at times, yet I feel that we're somehow chipping away at the wall that divides us. Conversations like these MUST happen, as frustrating as they sometimes are.
Thank you George, for being a courteous and gracious host. Though we may not agree, you've certainly been eloquent in the defense of the ideas you hold dear.
For the record, I'm on the side of opening most wilderness to cyclists. Point Reyes, for example, has some wonderful trails to ride...
Something I'd encourage Wilderness supporters in Montana to consider is the fact that if Senator Tester and the collaborators (Montana Wilderness Association, National Wildlife Federation, Montana Trout Unlimited and few timber mill owners) would have accepted the US Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee's draft revisions back in May 2010, Montana would have likely gained about 660,000 acres of Wilderness designation because the ENR Committee draft would have been approved by the Committee and therefore included in the possible Omnibus public lands bill, which George references.
However, what transpired was actually what we predicted all along:
The bull-headed insistence from Senator Tester, Montana Wilderness Association, National Wildlife Federation, Montana Trout Unlimited and four timber mill owners in Montana for a minimum of 100,000 acres of mandated logging (with no max even established) and allowing motors in Wilderness cost all of us the opportunity to designate over 660,000 acres as Wilderness and get some good restoration and fuel reduction work accomplished as proposed in the ENR Committee's draft.
Perhaps Senator Tester and the collaborators learned an important lesson...but then again, perhaps not. It appears as if Senator Tester and the collaborators will continue to ensure that any Wilderness Designation in Montana is held hostage by mandated logging by reintroducing the FJRA, as is, in the next session of Congress.
I mean, the US Congress has proven itself to be such an excellent body why wouldn't we want politicians mandating logging on our public lands? I sure am glad that Senator Tester gave all these newly elected Republican members of the US Congress the great idea to introduce their own bills mandating logging, oil and gas development, coal mining, grazing on federal public lands in their own states. Man, once we get back the Triple R on the federal level in 2 years we can really start to Drill Baby Drill and Log Baby Log, etc. I mean for the life of me I can't figure out why in the world would the American people want their public lands managed through an open, inclusive public public process guided by the latest science and research when instead we can just have politicians pass laws mandating all this resource extraction?
i'm fine with Mtn. Bikes in NREPA designation.
Make it happen, rally those millions more you claim will support please!
Don't let Tester's logging bill kill any future hopes for NREPA.
NREPA won't affect local communities the lands are already roadless, NREPA will retain that.
How will NREPA affect local communities any different than roadless lands if we allow Mtn. Bikes?
If Mtn. Bikers truly care about conservation then rally them behind a Mtn. Bike inclusive NREPA.
Put your money where your mouth is and rally those millions of Mtn. Bikers who you claim would support a Mtn. Bike inclusive NREPA.
If that does'nt happen then your claim that "if you don't support Mtn. Bikes in roadless you support clear cutting and strip mining" will be false.
The timber industry for too long has eliminated this valuable material from the public.
So-called "marihuana" is illegal because of cellulose and tree-paper chemistry. Half the world's forests have been cut down as a direct result of cannabis prohibition. Read "The Emperor Wears No Clothes" by Jack Herer. The whole thing is online somewhere.
The environmentalists need to embrace mountain bikers and get behind this issue. Right now the Blue Ribbon Coalition thinks we're in their camp. If we are concerned with logging, bikes on trails is trivial. Get the mountain bikers in the same camp as environmentalists, not with the ATVs and "wise use" B.S. Larix, you need to write letters, too. Everyone write, bribe officials (campaign contributions), etc.
But on the subject of bicyles in wilderness what is the difference between the wheel chairs that the Feds already allow or for that matter the Segway some believe should be allowed for disabled veterans?
Dear Leader Reid,
The nation’s unemployment level, stuck near 10 percent, is unacceptable to Americans. Senate Republicans have been urging Congress to make private-sector job creation a priority all year. President Obama in his first speech after the November election said “we owe” it to the American people to “focus on those issues that affect their jobs.” He went on to say that Americans “want jobs to come back faster.” Our constituents have repeatedly asked us to focus on creating an environment for private-sector job growth; it is time that our constituents’ priorities become the Senate’s priorities.
For that reason, we write to inform you that we will not agree to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to any legislative item until the Senate has acted to fund the government and we have prevented the tax increase that is currently awaiting all American taxpayers. With little time left in this Congressional session, legislative scheduling should be focused on these critical priorities. While there are other items that might ultimately be worthy of the Senate's attention, we cannot agree to prioritize any matters above the critical issues of funding the government and preventing a job-killing tax hike.
Given our struggling economy, preventing the tax increase and providing economic certainty should be our top priority. Without Congressional action by December 31, all American taxpayers will be hit by an increase in their individual income-tax rates and investment income through the capital gains and dividend rates. If Congress were to adopt the President’s tax proposal to prevent the tax increase for only some Americans, small businesses would be targeted with a job-killing tax increase at the worst possible time. Specifically, more than 750,000 small businesses will see a tax increase, which will affect 50 percent of small-business income and nearly 25 percent of the entire workforce. The death tax rate will also climb from zero percent to 55 percent, which makes it the top concern for America’s small businesses. Republicans and Democrats agree that small businesses create most new jobs, so we ought to be able to agree that raising taxes on small businesses is the wrong remedy in this economy. Finally, Congress still needs to act on the “tax extenders” and the alternative minimum tax “patch,” all of which expired on December 31, 2009.
We look forward to continuing to work with you in a constructive manner to keep the government operating and provide the nation’s small businesses with economic certainty that the job-killing tax
I do write letters, sign petitions, blog etc.
We all now how small one can feel when up against the political machine like tester.
Tell folks if they want NREPA allow Mtn. Bikes period.
Folks really want NREPA and at this point I think they would be more willing to compromise; especially with the FJRA as the alternative. I know you alone cannot accomplish this, but the Mtn. Bike industry is very powerful so please lobby them.
I have read "The Emperor Wears No Clothes" By Jack Herer.
I am well aware that world wide Cannabis prohibition and world wide destructive foresty practices go hand in hand. Why do you think the timber industry is one of the main supporters to keep even industrialized hemp illegal.
Let's bring NREPA back for another round and include Mtn. Bikes.
I don't support the travesty of wilderness exemptions the FCRONR wilderness has become. Nor do I support opening existing wilderness to Mtn. Bikes.
With views like those I could call you a "Mtn. bike Nazi" just as you call people who don't want bikes in wilderness "Wildernenazis"
Your going to have to less polarizing and more middle road to hope to persuade Mtn. Bikes in NREPA.
My positions is more middle road than yours.
I support bikes in NREPA roadless lands, but not in existing wilderness.
If you want to accomplish anything your going to have to take that samne stance and tone down your anti-wilderness rhetoric.
It is up to the NREPA people to reach out and say, "OK, we love you, we don't want any more trails cosed to bicycle use, will you stand behind our cause?"
And I will say "Yes, with enthusiasm, where do I sign? Where do I send a donation? What should I write to my congressman?"
Keep in mind that there might be more mountain bikers than backpackers, even though 99 percent of mountain biking probably happens in the local park or open space. The big, high country will probably not see a sudden flood of cyclists if the gates were suddenly thrown open.
The big picture of outdoor, non-motorized recreation has been changing for decades. Time to evolve. Do you want mountain bikers siding with the motorized crowd or the environmentalist groups? The former already welcomes us with open arms. So far, I don't want that kind of "hug."
it seems like it's as much about opening up existing wilderness areas to bikes as it is about protecting roadless lands with you.
Once again don't mess with the wilderness act or existing wilderness areas. That will get you NOWHERE.
It seems as though your claim 'if you don't support mtn bikes you support strip mning and clearcutting" is false.
It should say if you don't support mtn. bikes in existing wilderness areas, roadless areas, national wildlife refuges, national monuments, parks...then i'm against you.
Larix, would you support closing trails to ALL use, tearing them up and removing them from the map if that was he best for the environment? Would you give up your favorite hike for the good of the earth? Would you support removing or reducing trailhead parking lots in order to reduce the number of people on trails? If there is no parking left, you can't go for a hike. First come, first served. I am reminded of the John Muir Trail, which is three tracks wide and a foot deep in some places, last time I was there. Maybe that should be closed for a hundred years and allow the area to recover. Let's close Yosemite and Yellowstone for a while and give those places a break.
I'll keep beating this dead horse. The Wilderness Act originally did not ban bicycles. We rode bikes LEGALLY in designated Wilderness Areas up until an ADMINISTRATIVE RULING banned them from areas so designated in 1984, at least in Interior Department lands, i.e., Point Reyes National Seashore, Philip Burton Wilderness. I think the ban in Agriculture Department lands started in 1977, but maybe Ted Stroll can verify this. I remember the original little yellow signs at the (W)ilderness boundaries, back in the 60's and 70's. When I read them the only ban was on MOTORIZED use. It was very specific. There was graffiti on one I read in California, I think at the Yolla Bolly-Middle Eel border, referring to the governor of the state as "Owl Face Brown," Jerry Brown's father, who was also governor of the state. I have been following this issue for decades.
This page has a more recent, but pre-bicycle ban wilderness sign, a little ways down the page. It is very specific: no MOTORIZED use: http://ecorover.blogspot.com/2008/08/pintler-wilderness-rainbow-lake-warren.html "Mechanized Transport" is still defined, somewhere, is that which has a "non-living power source." What part of that isn't clear?
As Mickey Garcia has pointed out, there is no money for propositions like CIEDRA or NREPA. Protection for (w)ilderness needs to be local and grass roots, which means advocates need to embrace ALL non-motorized users against the potential onslaught of extractive industries and motorized ATV use. The ball is in your court.
Arguing on the internet ... (insert crude joke here)
Did I miss something in translation? As of right now NREPA calls for 24 million acres of new Wilderness in 5 states. It that would ban bicycles from most of the backcountry (wilderness?) trails we currently ride in 50-mile radius' of most of our homes in the Pacific Northwest. Or did the Alliance for the Wild Rockies magnanimously change their rhetoric and make it a 24 million acre National Protection Area that allows bicycles? That would be GREAT NEWS! But don’t get me all excited about positive change from the conservation community when it is just another ruse. ‘Don’t be selfish! Trust us and be happy– you will have plenty of old roads to ride your bike on!’
In reading through ALL the comments I don’t see an anti-Wilderness sentiment from a majority of those who have posted thoughtful, well reasoned and considerate comments but rather a pro-conservation / protection message for the future lands being debated under the Wilderness Only mentality. Big difference. Such sensationalism sure makes good sound bites for those who want to dismiss and marginalize the questions and solutions posed by the bicycle proponents.
A recent high level report has been released following extensive research into the ‘W Factor’ that explores why conservation organizations are so single minded to the detriment of the environment and any legislative solutions. View it:
http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/7165553/
With the recent changes in D.C., it’s going to be a tough time to be an unemployed union member of the Wilderness Workers of Amerika. Nice work Komrads!
What next? Suicide Bombers to advance Wilderness fanaticism?
“BREAKING NEWS - Another trail head destroyed, man wounded in pit toliet – video at 5 o’clock”
With all the crap going on in the world - is allowing bicycles on the TRAILS that we currently enjoy, value and maintain within a LARGER PROTECTED LANDSCAPE really such a problem? Let’s all get a LIFE – shall we?
I already stated that I would support bikes in roadless areas.
Bikes are not allowed in wilderness becuase wilderness only allows foot and stock travel period.
The more you try to convince people otherwise the more your and the mtn bikes community true intentions come to life.
You people are just as radical as the "Wildernazis" you whine about.
24 miilion acres of roadless NREPA land not enough?
I used to live in plumaas county, CA surrounded by the 1.2 million acre plumas national forest. Bike use was open everywhere and I used a mtn. bike to travel the endless dirt roads to my favorite nature study spots. Only 23,000 acres of a 1.2 millino acre forest was wilderness. This area is called the buck lakes wilderness area.
Despite over 99% of the forest being open to mtn. bikes all the ydid was whine and complain that they cant ride in the bucks lake wilderness. It will never be enough for mtn bikers.
For all your claims about wanting to work together where are you now.
I'm asking you to work together with conservationists on a mtn. bike inlcuded new draft of NREPA. Instead of doing this all your doing is whining about how bikes should be allowed in existing wilderness.
calm down your the only one who sounds fanatical get a grip.
Calling people commies who support wilderness.
You make me sick and are the reason mtn. bikers have the re.p they do.
Your anti-wilderness to the bone that's obvious.
"What next suicided bombers to advance wilderness fanaticism?" W. Smith
and you wonder why it's hard to work with the mtn bike community Arne?
This guy W. Smith is a nutjob who jokes about seriuos subjects.
This is about bicycles on traisl not suicide bombers you absolutey pathetic child.
it's a bigoted cartoon claiming all conservationists are ivy leauge trust funders.
Hey smith to loosely quote Andy Russel my education is
"light in academic, heavy in the Rocky mountain variety"
Andy Russel was a conservationist, do you even know who that is W. Smith?
thanks W. Smith for putting out in the opne the absolutely fanatical hatred by mtn bikers of conservationists.
you came unglued also with your fanatical questions about tearing up trails.
Personally i'm fine with an "Alaska type Wilderness" with no trails etc. I seek out the few trailess drainages/areas left on my own anyway.
That will obviuosly not work in 21st century America.
Your fanatical about openning up wilderness to bikes.
I try to extend an olive branch and work together on getting bikes into roadless areas and then you mtn bikers return the favor with prejducied assumptions and flat out fanaticism and hatred for the wilderness act.
Your claims was flase thats obvious all you care about is bikes not conservation.
oh how the mtn bike community never changes.
Why do you pretend your a man todd?
Why do yuo sit by your computer waitng for people to comment?
Why don't you have a life?
How would it be sharing if mtn bikes were allowed even in wilderness.
sharing means giving a little and getting a little.
BTW toddler the mtn bikers made refences to "suicide bombers" in comparison to conservationists.
They use the smae language as the wolf haters/ranchers
"commies"
"nazis"
Suicide bombers"
"wildernnazis"
you people are who use that kind of language are nuts and have no repsect.
I try to support mtn bikers, I stated I would work with them to open up 24 million new acres of roadless NREPA land to mtn bikes and what do they do?
They call me a "wildernazi", "commie", "suicide bomber" and demand all existing wilderness be open to bikes, I have every right to be upset and I am.
this is what real Mtn. Bike conservation groups look like
http://bike-wild.org/index.php/site/background/
perhaps Arne and the fanatic W. Smith could learn something.
Congress passed the Wilderness Act in 1964. Two years later, in 1966, the Forest Service issued a regulation allowing bicycles in Wilderness, though not naming them specifically. This regulation, which is still on the books (36 CFR § 293.6), is the only accurate rule regarding mechanical transport in Wilderness that the Forest Service has promulgated.
In 1977, the Forest Service issued a conflicting rule that specifically banned bicycles in Wilderness. (36 CFR § 261.18(b).) After that, and until 1984 inclusive, the agency issued still more regulations on the topic. As a group, the rules were rife with inconsistencies as regards bicycles.
It's the 1977 rule that is enforced today, alas, though it's in conflict with the 1966 rule.
Moreover, and this is quite intriguing, around 1982-83 the Forest Service started issuing documents that went both ways regarding bicycles. First the agency was going to allow them, then it wasn't.
All of these processes from 1977 to 1984 are mysterious, and they were carried in a closed and opaque way that would not be acceptable today. It may be, for example, that the circa 1982-83 flip-flop on Forest Service views occurred because a Sierra Club member was friends with a Forest Service employee, both the Sierra Clubber and the employee misunderstood the Wilderness Act and didn't know about the 1966 rule, the Sierra Clubber urged his views on the Forest Service employee, and the employee gave a fine-by-me response that resulted in the final crystallization of the no-bikes regimen, which came about in 1984.
1977 was a remarkable year also because members of Congress who were key to getting the Wilderness Act passed started telling the agencies, formally and informally, that their interpretation of the Wilderness Act was too severe. The legislators didn't mention bicycles (mountain bikes weren't much around then), but said that rules against primitive cabins, footbridges, trail signage, and similar rustic infrastructure were exaggerating the restrictions Congress meant to have in place for Wilderness. In addition, Congress meant for chainsaws etc. to be used in Wilderness for trail maintenance.
The documents containing these congressional objections are known to but a few, but I've come across them in public records and library collections and I should write another article on them—perhaps another law review article or, if it's interested, a piece for High Country News. My Aug. 27, 2010, op-ed article in The New York Times touches on these subjects: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/27/opinion/27stroll.html. *
The Forest Service, NPS, and BLM no-bikes-in-Wilderness rules thus rest on the flimsiest of legal foundations, but mountain bikers have not challenged them in court up to now. I think there are three reasons for this: (1) only a few thousand mountain bikers are fit enough to be able to take full advantage of what Wilderness trail riding would have to offer; (2) of this small group, some are already riding Wilderness trails and aren't motivated to take up a legal battle;** and (3) a legal challenge would be expensive and risky to one's personal finances. Indeed, the stakes would be so high financially that I doubt even IMBA could take on a protracted legal challenge to the agency rules.
* You can also read a bunch of letters criticizing my op-ed here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/05/opinion/l05wilderness.html. I might note that some of the responding letter-writers, either intentionally or in good faith, misinterpreted my op-ed as a plea to have my hand held as I venture into the wilds or for the wilds to be paved over for my safety. A particularly nasty criticism to this effect appeared in a Backpacker magazine online discussion. If the critics knew my record of adventures at high altitudes and in remote areas on multiple continents, some of them foolhardily life-threatening, they wouldn't have alleged this.
** By this I mean that some are riding Wilderness trails knowing it's against a Forest Service rule, while others aren't aware of any prohibition. I wish I could post pictures on this thread. I'd show one of a weatherbeaten sign, quite unreadable, on the Colorado Trail above 12,000 feet that may or may not mark a Wilderness boundary. No one could know one's violating a rule based on this unreadable sign. Similarly, this summer I may have come up against a Wilderness boundary in southern Colorado. But I can't be sure because all that was there was a walking-stick-shaped marker emblazoned with a Forest Service trail number. I suspect that some of the antibike Wilderness purists don't know the realities of such things because they rarely close to actual Wilderness and form most of their views about it while sipping a latte at Powell's Books in downtown Portland, Ore., or from their midtown Manhattan office.
It's hard to maintain composure when anti-wilderness fanatics like W.Smith hurl extreemly offensive insults at you.
and another post with the sole purpose of opening up wilderness areas to mtn bikes. Don't mess with the wilderness act it will only open up a can of worms.
What the heck are you talking about sippin lates in portland?
never going near wilderness...where do you come up with your delsuional, prejudiced views.
Your a bigot period.
Never once do you mention roadless or conservation in your anti-wilderness tantrum. Once again it's scathingly obviuos a large % of mtn. bikers just want to open up wilderness to bikes and don't care about anything else.
Real Mtn. Bikers support wilderness, anti-wilderness fanatics call names and make delusinoal, prejducied assuptions about conservatinosists.
http://bike-wild.org/index.php/site/background/
^^^^^^^^ A REAL MTN BIKE ORGANIZATION
You position is obvious and as are many others.
BTW, Bike Wild has only a handful of signatories, and that's because it represents the views of almost no mountain bikers. I wrote about this earlier in the thread. I know one of the self-described mountain bikers who signed the Bike Wild petition, and I doubt he has ever ridden on a singletrack or even a difficult jeep road.
http://bike-wild.org/docs/Bikes_and_Wilderness.pdf
24 million acres of mtn bike inlcuded new NREPA roadless lands is what I want to see.
Looks like it's not gonna happen with these anti-wilderness fanatics runnnig the mtn bike show.
so where's that apology ted?
how can you request civility when you can't even apologize.
your a hypocrite.
spelling jabs are what you resort to, I type fast sorry ted.
Montana landbase (acres): 94,109,542
Total Wilderness acres: 3,443,038
Percent of land base: 3.7%
Total number of Wilderness areas: 15
Total Forest Service Inventoried Roadless Area acres: 6,397,000
Percent of land base that is Roadless: 6.8%
http://www.wildmontana.org/resources/wildbasics/factsheet.php
Mtn Bikes have way more roadless land to ride than designated wilderness off limits in Montana, not to mention the other millions of acres of public lands open up to Mtn Bikes in USFS and BLM lands.
Yet they still cry bloody murder over the wilderness act instead of ensuring future bike access by working to protect roadless areas with mtn bikes included.
Wilderness and Public Lands Statistics
Total Acres in Montana 94,109,440 acres
Total Square Miles in Montana 145,556 square miles
Total Remaining Montana Wildland Base 9,839,100 acres
Total Wilderness Acres in Montana 3,443,038 acres
Percent of Land Base 3.7%
Total Number of Wilderness Areas 15
Total Unprotected Wilderness1 Acres in Montana 6,397,000 acres
Percent of Land Base 6.8%
Total Acres of Public Lands in Montana2 27,378,247 acres
Percent of Land Base 29%
http://www.wildmontana.org/resources/wildbasics/factsheet.php
Over 24 million acres of public lands open to mtn bikes in MT alone VS. 3.4 million acres wilderness lands off limits to bikes.
Most of the wilderness areas in MT have grizzly bears present so it's probally not a good idea to be riding bikes in these areas.
All I can say is WOW! Nearly speechless. Wound tight are we? You and your parents should be very proud!
You query - "For all your claims about wanting to work together where are you now?"
What esteemed organization would bicyclists contact to have such an enlightening conversation? Do you have an 'in' with one of these non-profits or do you work for one that you could slip in a good word for us? Do tell!
It seems that you haven't explained why you are personnally opposed to riding bicycles in existing wilderness areas. Afraid of sharing?
I am speechless - are you two unemployed or just fixated on bitch slapping each other over the e-mail? Or just like ragging on each other about wilderness and bicycles?
you sound like two kids in a sand box fighting over the magnet to pull the bits of iron out of the sand. When your done neither will have anything of value.
Hell, there are more important problems in your communities you could be working on.
Always remember the Golden Rule: Those with the gold make the rules. (Sorry for repeating myself, but it is worth repeating)
No more trails should be closed to bicycle use.
Not. One. Inch.
(Larix, get a sense of humor. It helps)
Many of us are old enough to have ridden mountain bikes in wilderness prior to 1984. There was collective angst when I picked up the Crested Butte Chronicle in 1984 and, under Paul Andersen’s by-line, read that the ban had been enacted. It felt as if a birthright had been taken away. I certainly was intimately acquainted with The Snowmass-Maroon Bells Wilderness and had done limited riding in the West Elks Wilderness, Grand Gulch Primitive Area and had even snagged a piece of the Appalachian Trail. That doesn’t mean my opinion is more important or wiser than anyone else. It does mean I was lucky.
I used to think it was a ridiculous notion that we had any real impact. That was before our numbers rose exponentially. There is impact, as has been noted, by any human use. Consider what Moab was like before it became a circus. I definitively believe some areas should be off limits. Conundrum Hot Springs now has so many users, backpackers are being urged to pack out their own waste because of fear over bacterial contamination. The West Maroon Pass trail from Crested Butte to Aspen was recently likened to a Conga line because of all the hikers. Every time I open the paper it seems growth and development further encroaches on habitat and when deer eat people’s shrubs or bears overturn their trashcans they blame it on the wildlife.
That being said, I fervently believe that limited corridors of travel for mountain biking through wilderness make sense and should be established. The Hidden Gems proposal is a microcosm of the greater question and could purposely show that wilderness and mountain bikes can coexist through careful planning and management. It’s important to preserve the existing and historic access we enjoy. There is also an opportunity for government officials to work with local groups and the IMBA to plan and build trails. I have complete faith that the majority of mountain bikers, especially those devoted to trail design and management, care deeply about the environment.
In Gunnison County, the Gunnison to Crested Butte trail proposed by Gunnison Trails and others makes sense on so many levels and has lived in people’s imaginations for some time. It’s a chance to grow the local economy, enhance riding opportunities and link two great cycling communities. It’s not one or the other. Instead it could a model for rational land use planned by shared stakeholders. Wouldn’t it be great if people worked together and didn’t call each other names? That’s just this aging thrillcraft rider’s opinion.
@ the real mike - Read "Survival Arts of the Primitive Paiutes" by Margaret M. Wheat, Univ. of Nevada Press, Reno. On page 27 there is an old picture of Indians gambling. Apparently they did this often, so, in fact, it is a tradition of theirs and appropriate in Nevada. A "wilderness" administered by Native People would probably be far different than the romanticized notions held by the Euro-American. We'd have to stay out entirely, unless we agreed to live by pre-European invasion standards (no nylon, gas stoves, down sleeping bags, bicycles, etc.). Wheat's book is a good starting point.
I was actually being serious. If you break your leg, for example, better hope the medicine man is around. No antibiotics or "life flight." Strictly stone age.
Bless the fact that you've expressed your sole goal is to open up wilderness areas to bikes and not to protect roadless areas with bikes included.
Bless the fact that they claim all this land will be protected with Mtn. bikers on conservationists side.
Bless the fact that they never add, "we're only on the side of conservation if you gut the wilderness act and allow me to ride in every single acre of wilderness ever created"
Bless the fact that they think their "proposal" is a compromise.
Bless the fact that they think others "won't share", when it's obvious they don't want to.
Bless the fact that they don't understand that sharing is giving a little and gaining a little.
Bless the fact that "sharing to them" means unlimited access to wilderness areas that have never seen bicycle use.
Bless the fact that i'm fine with opening up some exisiting wilderness areas to bikes if there was bike use present prior to wilderness designation.
Bless the fact that the mtn bikers will call me a "wildernazi", "communist", suggest I use suicide bombers to advance my goals.
Bless the fact that the mtn. bikers don't respond to any of the facts i've presented about wilderness in MT complete with links.
Bless the fact that when presented with how little land is off limits to bikes in MT, there is no response.
Bless the fact that they will still call me a "wildernazi"
Bless the fact that they have no idea who's being unreasonable.
Bless the fact that ted stroll refuses to respond with any sort of facts or links.
Bless the fact that most existing wilderness areas in MT have grizzly bears, therefore it's not appropriate to be biking in these areas.
Bless the fact that ted stroll and others refuse to acknowledge these facts.
Bless Larix, so that he may see the light, acquire a sense of humor and use his real name. (Don't worry. We won't try to find you and put a rattlesnake in your mailbox)
Bless Mike Vandeman, may he receive a fair trial this week. (I miss his opinions, using his REAL NAME, even though he is like a broken record sometimes. But I suppose I am, too.)
Larix: all existing wilderness used to be opened to bikes. Reopening it would simply revert to the old status. What you're proposing is not really appealling:
- there is about 50m acres of existing wilderness, somewhere around 20 to 30% of all existing park land in the lower 48. Your proposal is to keep cycling out of it
- you advocate for keeping cycling in the next few millions acres of new wilderness in exchange for not accessing existing wilderness.
So, if we follow your advice, we at best maintain access to our current trails while giving up on 50m acres of open space. If you look at the number, you would see why it's not exactly appealling.
With the return of Larix - I am reminded of the outstanding question:
What organization would cyclists talk to about protecting the roadless lands you suggest? How would such a process begin?
Bless you for blessing me.
actually bikes were not allowed in all wilderness as you claim. the wilderness act was formed in 1964 before mtn. bikes. Wilderness areas such as the Gila and the Cabinets Mtns. wilderness and other early wilderness areas had no historic bikes use so you claim is lies. I already stated I would be ok with allowing cycling in wilderness where there was histroic use. You claim I want to ban it in all wilderness which is more lies. All you've commented on is opening up the wilderness act to bikes. You've prooved my point, tihs is the only goal you truly care about, not protecting roadless areas. Bless the fact that you refuse to akcnowledge what a small % of public land is off limits to bikes in MT.
W smith-
try starting with lobbying Alliance for the Wild Rockies for a new mtn bike included NREPA.
Let's break down what % of public land is open to mtn bikes vs closed.
Otherwise, Larix is starting to sound like MVD.
your refusal to even openly discuss and analyze how much land is open to bikes vs closed displays your willfull, bullheaded ignornace of the situation.
What you don't mention is that the agency that manages the most wilderness is the NPS. Are you statting you want to open up all national parks to bikes as well?
You did'nt even know that many early wilderness areas have no historic bike use. I question your real knowledge of the wilderness act and wilderness areas.
Again all you mention is openning up any and all wilderness to bikes and never mention conservation, roadless areas, historic bike use etc.
It's quite obvious what your goal is.
It's also quite obvious you will never change your position and are beyond reach.
Honestly i'm disspaointed by mtn. bikers. I did'nt think you were this hellbent on opening any and all wilderness vs. protecting roadless areas with bikes and possibly opening up areas of wilderness with historic bike use.
Your being unreasonable, selfish and pouty Zebulon.
"The Bureau of Land Management administers 264 million acres of public lands, most of it in the western states. The ecological, aesthetic, and economic value of these lands is inestimable. The BLM also manages mineral rights underlying 564 million acres of public lands"
"The Bureau of Land Management's National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS) contains some of the West's most spectacular landscapes. It includes over 886 federally recognized areas and approximately 27 million acres of National Conservation Areas, National Monuments, Wilderness Areas, Wilderness Study Areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers, National Scenic and Historic Trails, and Conservation Lands of the California Desert. "
"
National forests comprise the second largest area of public lands: amost 200 million acres, the equivalent of California, Oregon, and Washington combined. There are 155 national forests in the nation, mostly in the West and in Alaska. The Forest Service was established in 1905 and, in addition to national forests, it also administers 20 national grasslands covering four million acres.National forests are administered under the concept of multiple use for sustained yield, which tries to balance such diverse activities as grazing, logging, mining, recreation, and watershed protection."
"The National Wildlife Refuge System is made up of more than 500 refuges with each of the 50 states having at least one refuge. Established in 1906 by Theodore Roosevelt, the system now includes 90 million-plus acres. Refuges preserve habitat for endangerd species; large ungulates like bison and elk; and nesting and wintering ground for migratory waterfowl. Some refuges may be closed seasonally. Most are open for wide spectrum of activities that may include wildlife viewing, hunting, fishing, hiking, and environmental education programs."
http://www.publiclands.org/agencies/NWR.php
Don't know where you get your 50 miilion acres of wilderness in the lower 48 is 20-30% of all public lands. California alone has 43 million acres of public lands and one of the largest %'s of wilderness by state.
The USFS manages 193 million acres of forest land with only 18% of it's land base designated wilderness.
But Zebulon does'nt seem to beleive in backing up his/her claims with links or sources. Nor does he/she beleive in conceding when they've posted flase statements and lies.
you have absolutely no point. This is not about setting aside any more land for hikers. This is about inlcuding bikes in roadless areas and in wilderness areas with hitoric bike use.
You have no grasp of what's going on and your a TROLL.
Why do you pretend your a man marrion?
Why do you troll newwest endlessly posting hateful comments aabout wolves and the "evil greens".
i've never once mentioned opening up any additional land for hikers only. In fact no where is it hikers only, stock is allowed in wilderness.
Your lies and nonsense are clear to see toddler.
Depending on how you classify what, wilderness might be just 10% of all open public land, or as much as 40%. Regardless of actuall percentage, it's a very significant amount. Does not even take into account restrictions from the NPS in areas that are not classified as wilderness.
The goal is not to open every single trail everywhere. The goal is to open areas to cycling based on a reasonable rational approach. We all know that most of the backcountry in open public lands is empty except for specific trails that attract the bulk of the tourists. As such, we should continue our campaign to open existing wilderness to bikes. That would also take care of cyclists opposition to new wilderness as well.
the problem is that mtn bikers are hellbent on opening up and/all wilderness areas to bikes, even if there was no historci bike use. This their #1 Goal. There not concerned with roadless areas and conservation, they're concernced with opening up any/all wilderness including national parks to mtn bikes.
Zebulon-
i've yet to see you reasoned, rationale approach to the situation. In fact as a wilderness advocate i've been far more willing to set aside public land for bike use than you are to set aside land for wilderness.
We're talking 24 million acres of new NREPA roadless lands with bikes vs. 3 million some aught acres in MT that is designated wilderness with grizzly bears that the mtn bikers still feel is an appropriate place to adovcate bike use.
If people realized that in such a huge area you can (officially and legally) travel only via 19th-century means, I think they'd be unhappy. As it is, they sense that something is wrong with the valuable but also problematic wilderness model. Congress knows it too, which is why it keeps allowing nonconforming uses in one Wilderness after another, including wide roads, military operations, dams, weather stations, motorized vehicle operations, motorboats, etc.
The basic problem with the Wilderness Act's list of prohibitions is that it's specification-based, not standard-based. The government has a history of messing things up with concrete specifications in place of standards. For example, for decades we had to have sealed-beam headlights that were inferior to the Cibié, Hella, Maréchal, etc., nonsealed European headlights. Why? Because circa the 1930s sealed beams were superior to the leaky nonsealed headlights. But instead of setting standards for service life, illumination quality, and glare avoidance, the government simply banned all headlights that weren't sealed beams. When the nonsealed headlights became much better, we couldn't use them (except illegally, which of course many people did). The wilderness restrictions are similar. They should prohibit things that aren't quiet and that damage the environment. Then bicycles would be allowed and the luxury commercial horse-packtrain operations that have free rein in Wilderness today might find themselves in difficulty unless they can clean up their act.
I tried.
what are you talking about you are seriously delusional.
I'm not talking about closing any areas, hiking only is not found anywhere...you are absolutely off your rocker and don't know what your talking about.
Please dont lie any more and attmept to put words in my mouth.
Well mtn bikers now you have toddler arguing for you.
Good luck you people are absolutely unreasonable, unreahcable and ignorant to facts and compromise.
I give up, honestly you disspapoint me mtn bikers.
I'm all for setting aside wilderness as long as cycling is allowed in it. You keep on arguing that those 2 views are incompatible without giving any reason other than mountain biking was not around in 1964.
At any rate, Ted has explained the reasons why cycling should be allowed in wilderness much than I ever will, so please take a look at his articles.
try reading George's statements at the begining of the posts regarding mtn bikes in wilderness.
I have many reasons, but your not worth my time.
mickey your a TROLL go back to the ketchum street corner you absolute bum and failure.
Once again the mtn bikers have prooved my point, all they care about is opening up any/all wilderness areas to bikes period.
Whoever posed as me really exposes the dishonest nature of the anti-wilderness mtn bikers.
I can't wait to ride my bike in the Wilderness in violation of those antiquated and narrow minded laws.
Viva la revolution!
let me know when your done being a hypocritical nusance.
so mickey can suggest I belong in the asylum but if I defend myself and call him out for the TROLL, failure at public office etc. that he is i'm in the wrong.
You people are too much, you hurl insults like nazi etc. and then cry foul.
Can't wait to spread this thread around and show the true face of the anti-wilderness mtn bike crowd.
thanks.
BTW zebulon you failed when you won't even reveal what state you live in to analyze what % of public land is open vs closed to mtn bikes.
in case you did'nt realize i'm quite middle of the road on this issue. I even stated that I would be ok with mtn bikes in wilderness if there was bike use before wilderness designation. The likes of zebulon, ted stroll etc. are on the fringes.
If this is how you treat someone who is trying to open up certain wilderness areas to bikes, plus all new roadless lands; I can only imagine your relations to the hard core wilderness advocates.
Your never going to accomplish anything with your "opening biking in all wilderness" tantrums.
You might think i'm your enemy, but honestly i'd like to see mtn bikers rally behind roadless areas. In reality extremsist like zebulon, ted stroll are the worst enemies of mtn. bikers on public lands.
Someone above refers to 19th century transportation methods as being the only ones allowed in Wilderness Areas. Mountain Biking is, in fact, one of those 19th century transportation modes. It was NOT invented by hippies in Northern California, rather, it was invented in early 19th century Germany:
"Karl von Drais, who had studied mathematics and mechanics but had accepted the post of master of the forests of the Grand Duke of Baden, was intrigued by the hobby-horses with which people were experimenting as an aid to walking the streets. He though that they might help him and his men to get around in the forests. Now let us speculate, because the next crucial stage is unknown. On streets and sidewalks, only occasionally did an unsteerable hobby-horse have to be redirected, by lifting the front wheel; the lack of steering might have appeared to be a virtue. However, for negotiating forest paths and avoiding roots, boulders and holes, steering must have seemed necessary, and Von Drais, whose other inventions included a binary digit system, a meat grinder, and a typewriter, took this step. Our assumption is that he had no preconception that he could balance with front-wheel steering, but simply thought that it would would be a convenience. Presumably he or one of his workers discovered the possibility of balancing one day when going down a hill." - from "Bicycling Science," 2nd edition, Whitt and Wilson, MIT Press, 1982.
It is widely accepted that Von Drais invented the bicycle in it's current form, more or less. It had a steerable front wheel, specifically to negotiate curving forest paths. The first bicycle was a mountain bike.
Either 1816 or 1817 was the "year without summer" due to a major volcanic eruption. With almost no growing season, there wasn't enough food for horses in Europe. Elsewhere I have read that Von Drais' invention was in direct response to a need for an alternative to the horse. Mountain biking predates the Wilderness Act by 147 years. It pre-dates paved country roads and trails by many years, so everyone who rode a bicycle in the early days was a "mountain biker."
Here is the 1966 definition of "mechanized transport," apparently still in effect:
"Mechanical transport, as herein used, shall include any contrivance which travels over ground, snow, or water on wheels, tracks, skids, or by flotation and is propelled by a nonliving power source contained or carried on or within the device." 36 C.F.R. § 293.6 (2004). This regulation dates to 1966 and is still in effect. The key word here is "and." Mechanized means motorized. A bicycle, therefore, does not fall under this definition.
It used to be legal to ride a bicycle in designated Wilderness Areas. Period.
I am going to beat this dead horse to a pulp.
I've given you the link that categorizes all land uses in this country.
It probably only escaped you, but mountain bikers are not anti wilderness, we're anti blanket ban on bicycles in wilderness. Just because we don't share you point of view does not mean that we're anti conservation.
Again, let us know when you can articulate in a coherent manner why you oppose bicycles in wilderness.
I live in Montana, I mountain bike. I used to support Wilderness designations in spite of them being against my interests. No more. I have been push and shut out of too many places by people who claim to be reasonable and middle of the road. No more.
You want my support? Change the way you do business.
NREPA is dead.
my whole point was to promote a new mtn bike inclusive NREPA.
zebulon do your homework why mtn bikes change wilderness im not your teacher and it shows how little you understand the threats to uor wildlands.
since you refuse to lear on your own.
Reasons mtn bikes are inapropriate in wilderness areas.
1. Bikes shrink the landscape allowing a large increase in people and frequency to formerly remote areas.
2. Riding with any speed can set of a predator's instincts to attack. There have been documented cases of mtn lions, grizzly bears attacking mtn bikers in BC almost certainly due to their speed. similar to jogger being attacked.
3. Wilderness designation is not soley focused on recreation. It is to provide habitat for widlife and the overall ecosystem. Apparently you think every square inch of public land should be soley focused on recreation.
4. There are numerous problems with the outiftting industry in wilderness as many bikers have stated. This is all the more reason not to allow increased pressure on our already used and abused wilderness areas.
5. The wilderness does not permit mechnzied transport period. It WILL open up a can of worms by allowing mtn bikes. The wilderness act is already under assualt by numerous groups.
6. Most people are ok with wildenress and don't want mtn bikes to be everywhere.
I can think of quite a few more, but I think you get the point.
So zebulon what stae do you live in?
If you sooo cnfident you have so little land to use why won't you reveal what stae you live to analyze how much public land is open vs closed to mtn bikes???
I can think of quite a few more
Total Acres of Public Lands in Montana2 27,378,247 acres.
So who's unreasonable, who does'nt want to share?
The facts are on my side.
I support bikes in all new roadless areas, possible new wilderness, in areas of wilderness with historic bike use and everywhere else.
But they still call me a wildernazi, suggest I should use suicide bombers to advance my goals etc.
Like i said folks like zebulon, arne and ted stroll are mtn bike extremsist hellbent on opening up any/all wildenress to bikes and thats it. They are not pro-conservation unless their recreational experience is above all else.
If you want solo recreation buy a ranch in a remote area with your own money and enjoy it by yourself. Ranchers have done a great job of preserving the land in many places. But do not use my money to force others out of land owned by ALL taxpayers.
"Apparently you think every square inch of public land should be soley focused on recreation."
No where in this entire thread do I hear any one supporting that statement.
It is important to note that there is a huge difference between trail based recreation (bicycles) and cross country hiking/backpacking or horse back riding. Multiple day backpacking / horse packing has a MUCH greater affect on Wild places than day bicycle use ever will.
Stop making up stuff just to fight with yourself!
Bicycles are banned because they are bicycles. They are not "mechanical" by federal definition.
"Yes they are."
"No, they aren't."
"Yes they are."
"No, they aren't."
"Yes they are."
"No, they aren't."
"Yes they are."
"No, they aren't."
"Yes they are."
"No, they aren't."
"Yes they are."
"No, they aren't."
Is that horse dead, yet?
By asking that question you reveal your ignorance. That 3 million acres is where the riding is and the trails are.
I am sorry if I am selfish because I don't want to ride my bike out in East BF Egypt.
I simply want to ride my bike where I have ridden for the past 20 years. I don't advocate opening existing Wilderness to Biking even though that IS the right thing to do.
And NO, the facts are not on your side.
1. Bikes shrink the landscape allowing a large increase in people and frequency to formerly remote areas.
The landsape stays exactly the same size, it only shrinks in your mind.
2. Riding with any speed can set of a predator's instincts to attack. There have been documented cases of mtn lions, grizzly bears attacking mtn bikers in BC almost certainly due to their speed. similar to jogger being attacked.
This takes place only in designated Wilderness? So I am safe in non-Wilderness?.............. Fail!
3. Wilderness designation is not soley focused on recreation. It is to provide habitat for widlife and the overall ecosystem. Apparently you think every square inch of public land should be soley focused on recreation.
Nope, a trail is merely a corridor or conduit through Wilderness. One any trail if you were to walk 100 yards to either side you have all the Habitat you could possibly want. Trails are NOT Wilderness
4. There are numerous problems with the outiftting industry in wilderness as many bikers have stated. This is all the more reason not to allow increased pressure on our already used and abused wilderness areas.
So Business/Outfitters have more rights than a private citizen? Interesting take on my rights.
5. The wilderness does not permit mechnzied transport period. It WILL open up a can of worms by allowing mtn bikes. The wilderness act is already under assualt by numerous groups.
Old tired canard. Fail!
6. Most people are ok with wildenress and don't want mtn bikes to be everywhere.
Fail!
You claim to be open minded and middle of the road and then spout the same talking points of the Hysterical anti-bike crowd.
You want help with creating more Wilderness? It will not come as long as you display the attitude shown here. I say that as constructive criticism and not to be an A-hole.
As far as NREPA, even if you allowed Mtn Bikes, that bill will never pass and not just because of Mtn Bikers. That idea is an unreasonable one that impacts way too many towns and people.
2. As I stated earlier most wildenress areas in MT have grizzly bears present. Riding a bike in grizzly country is not a good idea. Riding in any truly wild areas is not a great idea so you just proove my point.
3. You fail to understand how trails impact an ecosystem by fragmenting it.
4. You miss my ponit yet again. Lokk at all the probmes with wildenress. The outfitters should'nt have more rights but they do. airstrips, jet boats allowed in the frank church the list goes on.
5. I stand by my statement in #5 the wilderness act is already under assualt with bills like cIEDRA and tester's FJRA.
6. Most people ARE ok with wilderness, obviuosly mtn bikers are not.
Talk about hysterical why are you shout ing FAIL!
Get a grip.
W.Smith- mtn bikers like you want every square inch of public land open to them period. Your the one who suggested wilderness advocates use suicide bombers. Your a nutball extremist period.
I am middle of the road waning to allow mtn bikes EVERYWHERE except designated wilderness with no historic bike use.
I a me with hysterical anti-wilderness mtn bikers.
The world is watching and yes anti-wilderness you will FAIL! at opening up old wilderness areas os why not just lobby to be included in new wilderness/roadless.
You people refuse to look at the facts or reveal what stae you live in to analyze how much land is open to bikes vs closed. That is becuase your afraid and know your wrong.
24 million acres of public land in MT vs 3 million acres of wilderness. BTW fenske by claiming that all the trails are in wilderness in MT really displays you lack of knowledge about public lands and trails systems.
Arne- i don't know what your rnat about hikers getting attacked by grizz is about, but yes hikers are attacked also. They ARE not attacked at the same frequency as people jogging or biking however. You mtn bikers brag about breaking the law on this thread, who knows what you do in the backcountry? Oh no they hiked off trail to avoid a bear attack how dare they oh those hikers..
Basically you anti-wilderness mtn bikers attack me becuase I expose your rhetoric and fanaticism with opening any/all wilderness areas to bikes. That is your goal period. not conservation. Then you throw tanturm and attack. I've had enough I got my thread to spread around, there's no reaching you people.
thanks
3 million acres of wilderness in MT vs 24 million acre of other pulbic lands. Why is this 3 million acre so important them?
Becuase the mtn bikers have nothing but contempt for wildenress areas.
I'm finished and i'm not going to read your responses.
Thnaks w smith for your suicide bomber quote that will work real well for your goals mtn bikers.
Again thanks for the extreme anti-wilderness rhetoric it will be most enjoyed by others.
I agree with Bill schneider's points in the start of he article.
Guess what he suggests leaving existing wilderness alone, unless there was historic bike use before wilderness designation. Most mtn bikers/hikers agree with this. He also suggests allowing bikes in new roadless/wilderness areas which I agree with. Zebulon, W. smith, arne, ted stroll you are all in the minority and on the fringes of the mtn bike community. your just as radical and hysterical as anybody out there. Again I AM middle of the road on this issue and the articles, comments and facts are on my side.
A draft copy of the "Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2010", which is currently being circulated by Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.).
A copy of the draft is available here:
http://leftinthewest.com/diary/4505/draft-omnibus-bill-north-fork-flathead-protections-in-testers-mandated-logging-bill-out
CIEDRA will designate Wilderness in Idaho where there is mountain biking. It will close trails to bikes. Even though it is a National Recreation Area, forever closed to road building, logging and mining, that isn't good enough. This is why I am an "extremist."
Not. One. More. Inch.
"3 million acres of wilderness in MT vs 24 million acre of other public lands. Why is this 3 million acre so important them?"
There are a boatload of trails in the 3 Million acres that we used to be legally able to ride. Not any more. Many areas are Wilderness Study areas, that means they are NOT designated as Wilderness yet they are being managed as Wilderness and I can no longer ride my bike there.
I have ridden for 19 years in Grizzly Habitat. Still here, never had a problem. I ride in a group (egad!) make a bit of noise and the Bears do their thing and I do mine, I see bears quite a bit but it is from a distance. That is not to say there isn't some hazard but that is my decision to make, not yours. There are plenty of encounters between hunters and Bears every fall. I can't recall a Mtn Biker ever being mauled by a bear in Montana. The big cats scare me much more.
You are up in arms over stereotypes yet you engage in similar stereotypes and are fine with that. "Because the mtn bikers have nothing but contempt for wilderness areas."
BULLSHIT!
I agree with Arne, NOT ONE MORE INCH!
As for yogi and booboo: I ride with bear spray and a 44 mag, just like the accepted practice of the pony people. If a bear INSISTS on having a problem with me - I put a hole in it.
No Problem.
Thanks for your concern though.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/news/4440065/Bikers-let-on-to-Heaphy-Track
I hope we catch up one of these decades. Actually, I think we will. Most Americans are pretty fair-minded, and although our puritanical tradition is a significant factor in this debate, the extreme reactionary views on display here and in other threads probably belong to no more than a few thousand people nationwide.
2 comments
Post a comment Expand All Newest First
Oldest First clintnelson #2 06:26 pm Dec 09 2010
"Is this the reason that walking on the Heaphy and Able Tasman is increasing by 300% in the off season? I am not joking.
The ideological idiot Nick Smith is making it near impossible for kiwi families to use the tracks overnight just so some of his friends can line their pockets.
A real black day in our history - our National Parks are being privatised and access will be unaffordable in certain areas soon."
john1 #1 04:38 pm Dec 09 2010
"This is a really, really bad decision. Walking is really not going to be a pleasant option when you will be in danger of being run down by flocks of budgie coloured arrogant cyclists. It may not be the end of civilisation as we know it but you can see it from here. Besides, if Nick thinks its a good idea then on balance of probabilities its definitely wrong!"
http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/news/4440065/Bikers-let-on-to-Heaphy-Track
"However, Friends of Flora chairwoman and partner of Motueka-based guiding company Bush and Beyond Maryann Ewers said she was not happy with the decision.
Their company has been guiding through the Kahurangi Park for 17 years but had decided they would no longer guide on the Heaphy Track during the winter because of safety concerns.
She said some parts of the track were steep and narrow, and there was the potential for accidents on blind corners.
Feedback from clients over the years indicated they would not walk the track if mountainbikers were on it, and that was a real shame, she said.
"It's walkable for most people – and it's the flora walk of New Zealand.
"They can see more plant species on that walk than any other walk in the country. It's certainly going to have an impact on our business by cutting out that revenue."
Fenske said above:
"Larix I have lived and Biked in Montana for 19 years. '3 million acres of wilderness in MT vs 24 million acre of other public lands. Why is this 3 million acre so important them?' There are a boatload of trails in the 3 Million acres that we used to be legally able to ride. Not any more. Many areas are Wilderness Study areas, that means they are NOT designated as Wilderness yet they are being managed as Wilderness and I can no longer ride my bike there."
It's my understanding that new Wilderness has not been designated in Montana for over 25 years. Also, I thought the last Wilderness Study Areas designated in Montana were in the late 1970s (over 30 years ago) by Senator Metcalf.
I mention this because I'm not sure how those dates jive w/ Fenske's contention that in his 19 years in Montana "There are a boatload of trails in the 3 Million acres that we used to be legally able to ride." Thanks.
This, despite the fact that Senator Tester's FJRA never made it out of the Senate ENR Committee and never was even introduced in the US House.
While it is true that Montana has not had new Wilderness in 25 years, this is not to say that bicycles have not lost access to a more convoluted, but equally effective, threat - Defacto-Wilderness. Under the Forest Service Region One 'philosophy' to manage Recommended Wilderness Areas as Wilderness, bicycles were banned this past June from 400 miles of singletrack across the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest under the B-D NF Forest Plan including sublime sections of the Continental Divide Trail. (Plus another 100 miles closed in the Hyalite Porcupine Buffalo Horn Wilderness Study Area the same week under threat of further litigation from the Wilderness plaintiffs)
So at a local forest level landscapes are being 'protected' as defacto-Wilderness with NO guarantee that these will ever get the official Congressional nod. In some cases trails we have ridden and maintained for decades are being closed to bicycles without a trail-by-trail discussion - just a blanket landscape ban.
There are roughly 50 RWAs in Region One and if they are managed with the same disturbing bicycle ban - we are going to loose another 1500 + miles of trails in Montana. These are quality backcountry trails that certainly deserve some form of protection - just not from bicycles. These are established and cherished routes that are some of the best backcountry bicycle trails in the region. These experiences cannot be substituted by new front country replacements - even if the money is available. Telling cyclists to suck-it-up and go ride somewhere else doesn't work when the best of the high country deck is getting systematically stacked against us.
New front country trails systems are desperately needed around most of our communities - but these are in NO WAY a acceptable substitute for existing backcountry trail access.
The Region One RWA management policy is the largest single threat to future bicycle access to trails we currently ride.
Keep an eye on the politics surrounding CDT in Mile Creek in Lionhead just west of West Yellowstone which is a RWA. The Mile Creek trail on the Montana side of the border is one of the most endangered trails in the country - and also one of the best backcountry bicycle rides in region that was purposefully built with bicycles in mind in the mid-1990s at tax payer expense. This magnificent area certainly deserves protection - again just not from bicycles. Lionhead is an excellent candidate for a National Protection Area to protect the (w)ilderness character while providing continued quiet, non-motorized use on the existing trails. Cyclists - be prepared to participate in an public process to protect, preserve and expand the riding opportunities around West Yellowstone.
Check this Mile Creek video:
http://www.mercurycsc.com/blog/2010/10/montana’s-best-singletrack/?utm_source=mike&utm_medium=social-media&utm_campaign=promo
Bottom line? There is a better way to manage bicycles on our public lands!
Try this link for the Mile Creek video:
http://bit.ly/gWtNdF
Thanks for lying to the people of MT in order to get elected tester.
"I promise to work to protect ALL remaining roadless areas in MT"-tester
Guess that shows you what a promise from a poltician means.
Instead of compromising aspects of the FJRA, Tester has attached his bill to the CR bill. He has effectively eliminated the upblic, the forest serice and anyone who did not meet with him for his closed door shady meetings. This is absoutely horrible news.
and the assault on our roadless wildlands continues.
A loggnig bill for the BHDL, what a joke. It's NOT timber country, it's east of the divide.
Where is the mtn bike community protesting this assualt on roadless wildlands? I would much rather see all of the roadless areas in the BHDL, Lolo and Kootenai remain roadless (with bikes included) and wild without wilderness designation, than this get a little wilderness, give a whole lot of mandated logging and a lot of land in between the two categories. I already stated i'm fine with mtn bikes in new wilderness areas.
Tedd- so where you being calm and collected when you ranted about all enviros are latte sippin, portland based people who never go near wildenress? you a hypocrite, and you did'nt even understand the article you posted ted.
Don't allow tester's FJRA to take public lands decisions away from the PUBLIC.
who's rants are content free here?
Larix, Senator Tester lost my support with his FJRA. I voted for him once, I will not do so again. This legislation is a sham.
I hope you're old, otherwise, you might see the wheels of change turning fast enough to see cyclists enjoying the wilderness backcountry legally during your lifetime.
http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/reflections_on_wilderness_and_mountain_biking/C564/L564/
all you do is attck me and add absolutely nothing.
I have explained my reasons for opposition, but you refuse to digest the info.
I have posted facts/stats/articles/blogs backing up my position.
What have you provided Zebulon besides insults?
Please provide us with your wise "logic" to why Mtn bikes should be allowed in the 3 million acres of wilderness in MT vs the other 24 million acres of public land. Keep in mind most or all of the wilderness areas in MT have NO historic bike use.
I am very middle of the road on this issue. I have promoted bikes in all new wilderness/roadless areas and any wilderness area with historic bike use. With that position i'm not advocating for any more bike free wilderness yet you attack me like this.
You refuse to reveal what state you live to analyzre the amount of public land open to bikes vs closed. You refuse to provide a single thread of logic to why bikes should be allowed in MT wilderness areas with no historic bike use.
All you do is take cheap shots and claim others dont have logic in theri arguments.
Earth to Zebulon- You don't even have an arguement.