Rule Allowing More Mountain Biking in National Parks No Big Deal
Like the recent debate over allowing more guns in national parks, the upcoming rule allowing more mountain biking can divert our attention away from more critical national park issues.By Bill Schneider, 10-22-08
 |
|
 | |
| Can't we all just get along? Photo courtesy of the Montana Mountain Bike Alliance. | |
|
Before I launch once more into the endless mountain biker vs. hiker controversy, I want to reaffirm that I’m still not a mountain biker. I commute around town on paved streets on my mountain bike, but it has never been on a trail.
Even though you could say I don’t have a dog in the fight, I have to ask, why do we have so much heartburn over the proposed rule to allow mountain biking on more trails in our national parks? Is this really worth the stress it creates?
Hikers and mountain bikers agree that they should be natural allies in wildland protection, but of course, this never happens unless hiking groups agree to something less than “big W” Wilderness--i.e.something that’s “bicycle friendly.” Witness the International Mountain Bike Association’s (IMBA) recent success in convincing California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to veto the California Wilderness Act because it prohibited mountain biking on several state parks.
Like the National Rifle Association in its success in stopping the erosion of gun rights, IMBA has been extremely effective in preventing new Wilderness bills from passing. I’ve already written au nauseam about that ongoing debate (click here if interested), but now we have a new wrinkle, the proposed Bush administration rule to give national park superintendents more authority to open up selected trails to mountain biking.
Hiking groups will oppose the rule when the administration officially releases it, but I say, for several reasons, they shouldn’t fret about it.
First, the rule won’t translate into a wholesale opening of national parks to mountain biking. It will only allow park managers to open selected trails on a case-by-case basis. In any scenario, the vast majority of trails and many parks in their entirety would remain off-limits to mountain biking.
Second, most if not all national parks with a significant mileage of hiking trails have most of the park designated as Wilderness under the Wilderness Act of 1964. Even with this rule in place, park managers couldn’t open the vast majority of backcountry trails to bicycles unless Congress reversed the Wilderness designation, which has never happened, not once in the 44 years since the Wilderness Act passed.
Third, most trails that could be opened are so-called “frontcountry” routes that probably used to be roads i.e. not the cream of the crop for hikers.
Fourth, everybody seems concerned about the steady decline in national park visitation, so perhaps allowing mountain biking might help reverse the trend and greatly increase the constituency for supporting proper funding of our national parks--something mountain biking groups don’t really prioritize now because they can’t ride there.
Fifth, there are a lot of weak knees around nowadays, but still a lot of interest in staying healthy and fit. As the population gets older, baby boomers like yours truly and President Bush and his Trek “Mountain Bike One” (viola, we do have something in common) have turned to bicycling as a low-impact alternative to running and hiking.
Sixth, throwing this “bone” to mountain bikers might make collaboration on issues that really mater a lot easier. So, hiking groups, in lieu of opposition or silence, how about actually supporting the proposed rule?
I’m sure the rule will go into effect during the last lame-duck days of the administration (along with several other rules as is always the case i.e. remember the Roadless Rule?). I’m also sure the rule will eventually result in more national park trails opened to mountain biking, but is this a social or environmental problem? Not for me.
I happen to live adjacent to a large city park that has heavy use from both hikers and mountain bikers. Are there conflicts? No. Do hikers hate seeing mountain bikers? No Do mountain bikers create more erosion or environmental damage than other trail users? No. Do mountain bikers ride out of control and cause safety problems? No.
The same would be true in national parks.
It’s already true, incidentally, in a few parks like Canyonlands where mountain bikers peacefully coexist on some park trails, which are really old jeep roads. A few years ago, I hiked every mile of trail in Canyonlands, often with mountain bikers on the same trail with zero conflict.
I’ve also hiked almost every mile of trail in Yellowstone National Park, and believe several frontcountry trails such as the route up Mount Washburn could be opened to mountain biking with no safety, social or environmental issues. Even if every trail in Yellowstone opened to mountain biking, it wouldn’t create one percent of the impact--social and environmental--private and commercial stock parties already cause in places like the Lamar and the Thorofare where relentless pounding by pack trains has ground a single track into a six-foot swath that gets so dusty you have to hike twenty feet apart to breathe or so muddy you can hardly walk.
I support continued use of horses and other stock animals in national parks, but I point out the real impact they have to put the issue of mountain biking in perspective. Compared to many other uses of national parks, the impact of mountain biking will be hardly noticeable.
Last month, I wrote about the proposed rule to allow more guns and loaded guns in national parks. I said it wasn’t an issue worth our time and energy. Those of us concerned about the future of national parks have much bigger fish to fry. The proposed rule to loosen up the authority to allow more mountain biking is exactly the same deal--or I should say, the same no-big-deal.
Correction: On September 27, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed legislation that would have, in the opinion of IMBA, prompted the designation of more wilderness areas in California, not the California Wilderness Act.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Exactly, and mountain biking impacts are several times as great as hiking impacts, in spite of mountain bikers' propaganda.
Bicycles should not be allowed in any natural area. They are inanimate objects and have no rights. There is also no right to mountain bike. That was settled in federal court in 1994: http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtb10 . It's dishonest of mountain bikers to say that they don't have access to trails closed to bikes. They have EXACTLY the same access as everyone else -- ON FOOT! Why isn't that good enough for mountain bikers? They are all capable of walking....
A favorite myth of mountain bikers is that mountain biking is no more harmful to wildlife, people, and the environment than hiking, and that science supports that view. Of course, it's not true. To settle the matter once and for all, I read all of the research they cited, and wrote a review of the research on mountain biking impacts (see http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7 ). I found that of the seven studies they cited, (1) all were written by mountain bikers, and (2) in every case, the authors misinterpreted their own data, in order to come to the conclusion that they favored. They also studiously avoided mentioning another scientific study (Wisdom et al) which did not favor mountain biking, and came to the opposite conclusions.
Those were all experimental studies. Two other studies (by White et al and by Jeff Marion) used a survey design, which is inherently incapable of answering that question (comparing hiking with mountain biking). I only mention them because mountain bikers often cite them, but scientifically, they are worthless.
Mountain biking accelerates erosion, creates V-shaped ruts, kills small animals and plants on and next to the trail, drives wildlife and other trail users out of the
area, and (worst of all) teaches kids that the rough treatment of nature is okay (it's NOT!). What's good about THAT?
For more information: http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtbfaq .
How shall access and protection for the elderly, young under supervision, handicapped, et. al. be protected and allowed to enjoy and learn from their Park visits? Cut down the number of trails available to them?
"...I happen to live adjacent to a large city park that has heavy use from both hikers and mountain bikers. Are there conflicts? No. Do hikers hate seeing mountain bikers? No Do mountain bikers create more erosion or environmental damage than other trail users? No. Do mountain bikers ride out of control and cause safety problems? No."
I love to bike, including on backcountry roads. However bikes, with their speed and gears and oily chains and disruption of the peace and get-through-it-now approch, don't belong in our few remaining wild places, including (but not limited to) those in National Parks.
What is next are we going to ban someone from all of the trails because they like to wear red boots.
Maybe old age caught up with me but I hike now and I have nothing against Mtn bikers.
I think bikes should be allowed on some dirt trails in national parks, as well as leashed dogs.
Other countries such as Canada and Argentina allow for mountain biking with in parts of their national parks. What is being proposed is a change of rules that would allow for some biking in areas that would be condusive to such recreation. Yellowstone front country is not wild. I don't understand why you can hike to cell phone towers on "trails" that are really access roads but can't ride a bike. What you want is only to have your very selfish vision of what wilderness is enforced by law. It is very self rightous that you have appointed yourself as a "protector" of wilderness.
If I want to see nature at its best, I go to a national park. If I wanted to see bicycles and other large pieces of machinery, I would stay in the city....
Cheal thrills. Rational Society. Nothing of value. Wow.
As a fellow with some pretty bad knees from years of basketball, skiing and various other activities, biking and specifically mt biking provides the exercise and therapy needed for me to manage pain, 'smooth' the surfaces, and maintain a healthy and happy lifestyle. I think its quite fun and invigoratinig, too. My knees don't hold up well to uneven trail hiking and I've had to all but give up any serious hiking and backpacking to my regret. I like to walk. I protect environments and wild places personally and professionally. I bike.
My gooodness - why the vitriol against mountain biking, trail biking, pedaling off-pavement. Lets not confuse the act, with whether or not pedaling a bike in an area you don't want to see a bike pedaled in should be allowed.
As to evidence that mountain biking is a greater threat to wildlife than hiking, it is easily accessible to anyone who really cares: http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.
As to "exclusion", NO ONE has ever suggested excluding mountain bikers from the national parks. You have EXACTLY the same access as everyone else: ON FOOT!
"...most if not all national parks with a significant mileage of hiking trails have most of the park designated as Wilderness under the Wilderness Act of 1964."
Not all --the famous wild backcountry of Glacier and Yellowstone National Parks, for example, is recommended for wilderness designation but Congress has yet to act on these parks' long-standing wilderness recommendation.
Thank you for amusing me. I'm off to swim home from work....
I rode my bike yesterday on trails that cross Mount Helena City Park -- Much as I love hiking and riding Mount Helena, its a city park --and not at all comparable to recommended wilderness in Glacier or Yellowstone National Parks.
Wild Bill suggests that conservation groups endorse the bikes in parks rule change sought by IMBA --an interesting thought that begs another question --in exchange for what ? Would IMBA in turn support wilderness in yet-undesignated parks?
for the wilds of Montana
jg
Allowing bikes on trails greatly increases the number of people in wildlife habitat, as well as the distances that they travel, multiplying human impacts on nature and wildlife several times. We can't afford that. The huge list of endangered species is proof that our impacts are ALREADY too great.
Can anyone name even ONE good reason for allowing bikes in natural areas? I've been asking for 14 years, but I've yet to hear one good reason. Mountain bikers can walk, JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE!
That's interesting. Maybe you should get out and talk with more mountain bikers. I'd say the majority of people I know that mountain bike also pursue lots of other outdoor activities (including hiking - I know, shocking...) and are active conservation advocates.
"Mountain bikers can walk, JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE!"
Great. When the park service starts requiring that everyone leave their 50-ft. motorhome, towing their Cadillac Escalade, at the park boundary, I'll start thinking about getting behind that agenda. In the meantime, I'll be putting my energy into opposing all the far more impactful things that our public lands mgmt. agencies allow to take place on our land.
In terms of impact - cars, RVs, hikers, are concentrated on about 1% of parkland in YS, this will change with bikes that can cover mores miles thereby changing the definition of what constitutes the frontcountry. Is the Slough Ck trail frontcountry - it is only 10 miles long? Is Hell Roaring? Bikes charging down the road from Washburn is not exactly an ideal scenario.
Bikers need to grow up and get over their sense of entitlement. You want to ride in the Park - ride the two weeks before traffic is allowed in or go elsewhere.
As it should be. I don't think anyone is arguing that bikes should be given carte blanche in nat'l parks, but that there be some discretion about where it would be appropriate and where it wouldn't. And I do think that there are some places where it would be perfectly ok, providing basic minimum impact guidelines are followed, just like any other other user group. We can all think of examples of clueless hikers, horspackers, etc. that created far more impact in a backcountry setting than they needed to. Obviously, that isn't grounds for dismissing all hikers or horsepackers as inconsiderate trashers of the backcountry.
By jdj, 10-28-08: "In terms of impact - cars, RVs, hikers, are concentrated on about 1% of parkland in YS, this will change with bikes that can cover mores miles thereby changing the definition of what constitutes the frontcountry."
By that logic, shouldn't the definition of "frontcountry" have already been redefined in areas that allow travel on horseback? A horse rider can get 10 miles into the backcountry as easily as a mountain biker - does that mean it's no longer "backcountry?" And if you want to talk about impact....
Btw, I have absolutely nothing against horsepackers (we had horses when I was young), just pointing out that that I don't see any consistency in logic being applied by the "no mountain bikes" to other user groups as well.
By jdj, 10-28-08: "Bikers need to grow up and get over their sense of entitlement."
Ha! I think a pretty solid case for a feeling of entitlement on the part of holier-than-thou hikers could be made just by looking at some of the comments here. You are trying to advocate a blanket mgmt. policy across the board, when in reality you are talking about many, many different environments and contexts, some of which can handle responsible mtn. bike use, in the same way that in some areas of nat'l parks, off-trail hiking is not allowed. But the simplistic, black and white, "us vs. them" mentality is certainly alluring...
You wear smooth soled shoes to go hiking?
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/overview
Apparently, Hiking boots, knobby tires, etc. are the same as strip mining. His Ph.D. thesis has to do with the chemical taste preferences of different ethnic groups. This makes him an expert. His insults about mountain bikers tend to discredit his rants, mostly referring to his own material. According to him, mountain bikers are all lazy liars.
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtb17
He is mountain biking's best friend, as his insults tend to discredit his position. He poisons his own well. Keep it up, Mike! You're good for a laugh.
Horses are a much larger impact on trail erosion than bikes. After designing many section where there is one off-shoot for horses and one for bikes and hikers; this is obvious to all really involved in trail design.
I am an avid hiker, mountain biker, equestrian, trail runner. Plus and avid environmentalist and trail builder volunteer.
I appreciate all sides. As stated above, trails should be designed properly and graded and water barred properly; with correct type of terrain for correct use. Harder rock surface for horses etc.
Water in one big rain typically does more damage than either horses or mountain bikes.
Gerr
Long Time Member: Sierra Club, Wilderness Society, Nature Conservancy, National Parks and Conservation Assoc.
That said, I have seen all parties that enjoy the outdoors harmonize and share trails. It is a simple matter of understanding and equality in action, with a sprinke of enforcement (self, peer, and/or patrol)! Ride/walk on, my friends...looks like we are all part of the great outdoors!!!
Gary next cited Chiu () and Kriwoken (), claiming that there was "no significant difference between hiking and biking trail wear". It is apparent he and the authors misstated the implications of the study. If we assume, as they claim, that bikers and hikers have the same impact per mile (which is what they measured), then it follows that mountain bikers have several times the impact of hikers, since they generally travel several times as far. (I haven't found any published statistics, but I have informally collected 72 mountain bikers' ride announcements, which advertise rides of a minimum of 8 miles, an average of 27 miles, and a maximum of 112 miles.)
Besides ignoring distance travelled, there were a number of other defects in the study. The biking that was compared with hiking was apparently not typical mountain biking. It was apparently slower than normal and included no skidding. Bikers who skidded (a normal occurrence) were not compared with hikers. Their erosion impacts were much greater than those of any hikers (judging from the study's graph labelled "Figure 3"). Bikers' impacts under wet conditions were also greater than those of the hikers, which probably would have been statistically significant, if the numbers (of data points) had been greater. One useful result was that the bikers tended to create a V-shaped groove, whereas the hikers' impact was spread more evenly across the trail. They admit that this "could act as a water channel and increase erosion" (p.356).
There is no benefit to nature or wildlife to having people in their habitat. Human presence is harmful, and more human presence is even more harmful. Bikes and other vehicles increase the human footprint. A bike, for example, multiplies the distance that one is able to travel by a factor of 10 or more! That also multiplies the impacts on wildlife. Mountain bikers also tend to get bored quickly with any trail they are given (because they travel so fast), and then want to build more and more trails. That destroys more habitat.
Mike doesn't want people in nature at all, because we are not part of nature. We were probably planted here by aliens. He is probably a part of The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement: http://www.vhemt.org/
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/overview
It's frogs versus hiking boots. Hiking, biking, strip mining. All the same. Any activity, including the electricity used to type this sentence, harms the environment. In this respect, Mike is absolutely correct.
The Jain Skyclad monks wear no clothes so tiny creatures are not crushed by the fabric folding. they sweep the ground before them in order to avoid stepping on the smallest mite.
Where do you draw the line? The world is not black or white, except in the minds and practices of some extremists.
"...destruction of nature for cheap thrills..."
No decency, indeed. Everything is black or white. You hurt your own cause yet cannot see it. Interesting.
Last word? I tire of this subject.
PS: I helped stop a freeway to West Marin in 1968. My parents, siblings and I worked on Pete Arrigoni's campaign for Supervisor. His opponent, incumbent Ernest Kettenhofen, wanted to continue the former Highway 17 (I think it's 580 now) from the Richmond Bridge to Point Reyes Station.
By the way, there are many things that are black or white, such as death and extinction. They are FOREVER.