Mountain Bikes Being Allowed On Natl. Park Trails

And therein lies the basis for challenge; the narrow definition of "mechanical support" will need to be refined, which I am pretty sure any enlightened judge will do happily in our greening America.

A simple slide show, pictures, of the surface damage done to trails and the increased erosion effects of the "recreation" activities of ears-laid-back-hair-on-fire mountain bikers should be sufficient to sway any enlightened judge. A cost projection for the hauling of these idiots and/or their victims out of the boonies should support a common sense ruling as well.

Mountain bikers are dangerous to themselves and to others. I know. I am one. But I do not ride in the wilderness and I do not ride on hiking trails and I do not think it my right to do so.

We walkers will not fail to secure regulatory protections against the abuse of our wilderness by the thundering herds.

Period.

John,
The time is at hand….

This Just arrived:

From: IMBA
Date: Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 5:58 PM
Subject: Take Action to Increase Bicycling Opportunities in National Parks
To: xxxxxx@yyyy.zzz

Take Action

Dear XXX,

The U.S. National Park Service (NPS) has proposed an important rule change that will make it easier for parks to open trails to mountain biking. IMBA urges mountain bikers to register comments in support of the new rule. We have been asking the NPS to make this change since the 1990s — we now enter a 60-day commentary period to make the change official.

Take Action Now!

We know that several groups are working hard to defeat this proposal. It will take thousands of comments supporting the NPS to ensure the rule is approved. Please lend your voice to the discussion today.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Granted this is only National Parks, but you get the drift.
Follow along at the IMBA.com web site.

Thanks for the update.

Alrighty then! Let's get this stopped right now, folks. There has been enough stupidity/apathy for far too long, regarding far too many issues. Exhibit A would be the current condition of our country. Sad image, is it not? Indeed. This is what happens when stupidity is let to run the show. Yes, stupidity/apathy is in sufficient supply.

Understand that one voice is always more important than the hundreds of thousands who remain silent. Believe it. Practice it. Let your voice be the one that is heard.

Save wilderness for wilderness.

Think it through.

I'm new here but threatening to shoot people because they want to enjoy the same basic rights and freedoms as you? This sounds more like a Solder Of Fortune forum than a Backpacking Lite forum. One small earthquake will do more destruction than 100 years of hikers or bikers. Have you ever seen a land slide or heavy spring run-off. What about lightening induced forest fires. There is good and bad in any group. Lead and teach by example. Anger will get you nowhere. I have been mountain biking and ultralight backpacking since the late 70's and I'm only forty. In all those years or countless thousands of miles I've never felt unsafe in the back country till reading this post. This sounds like a my god is better than your god forum. Tread lightly and we can all get along. Peace out my brothers

Snowboards vs. skiis.

LOL

Those darn cyclists… Terrorists I tell ya, terrorists!

-Tim-

I know what the trails around here look like at the end of
the season. The mountain bike trails that parallel the
PCT are ankle deep in dust.

I like to ride too.

Jesse, Greg, et al,
I agree, mountain bikers deserve to have a place to ride, just not on wilderness trails. This whole idea that everyone gets everything they want without any restriction as a price for us getting along has gone too far, IMO. There are already many restrictions in place separating different means of locomotion, e.g. bikes on freeways, ditto walkers, horses, pogo sticks, etc, for the same reason bikes should not be permitted on wilderness trails; the difference in speed is too great. There are 1000's of miles of logging roads and areas open to off road vehicles available for mountain bikers already, not to mention just plain striking off on their own cross country in national and state forests. Why the need to go after the nations crown jewels as well? Maybe leave a few places for those of us who prefer to travel on foot undisturbed by someone yelling out "ON YOUR LEFT" to shatter our tranquility? Please? Not to mention the impact aspect. Trails first, but inevitably the adventurous ones will start going off trail in pristine areas to devastating effect. I've seen enough of that with horses already; bikers will make it much worse because they will go further afield, especially those of the cyclo cross persuasion, for whom the remote and difficult will be just one more challenge. If you truly want us to all get along, leave a little bit for the hikers, too.

On your left! Indeed. If only I have had a positive run in with a mountain biker on the trail. Been hit from behind. Been clipped as they go wizzing by without any warning. Have had to explain time and time again that they are on a trail that is NOT open to cylcists only to come within moments of physical interaction. I personally don't wish to see them in the backcountry .Speeding,rude,selfish,a-holes, is unfortunately the picture I get in my head when someone says mountain biker. My 2 cents.

"I find it impossible to be nice when I'm driven off a trail by a pack of yipping, chattering youths dressed in their sisters' underwear"

Harvey Manning :-)

Yeah, their mommas dress 'em funny.

Which goes to the issue by way of Peoria. Your investment in your vestments, in your marvelous titanium bicycle, in your designer sunglasses, in all the stuff (which I would argue is just more crap) that attends your pursuit of downhill exuberance does not entitle you to mangle the wilderness experience for the rest of us.

Obligation is the front side of freedom.

We tend to forget that. We are free to roar down the mountain so long as no harm comes to the mountain or to those on the mountain. I argue that most adept cyclists are capable of understanding this very simple axiom as they are typically bright, successful, competitive people in real life but that they willfully ignore the obligation part it because to do otherwise would limit their "fun".

When did the abandonment of self-restraint and responsibility in deference to "fun" become defensible? Does the investment of $2,500 for a bicycle and $1,000 for the underwear buy some indulgence that I am not aware of?

I do not think so.

As to whether or not "we can all get along", well, no, we can't. I will not forego our freedom, with all its attendant obligation, in deference to your "fun". I just ain't gonna' do it. I will not concede our rights and I will not tolerate your abuse of the mountain.

There it is.

>>"And therein lies the basis for challenge; the narrow definition of "mechanical support" will need to be refined, which I am pretty sure any enlightened judge will do happily in our greening America.

A simple slide show, pictures, of the surface damage done to trails and the increased erosion effects of the "recreation" activities of ears-laid-back-hair-on-fire mountain bikers should be sufficient to sway any enlightened judge. A cost projection for the hauling of these idiots and/or their victims out of the boonies should support a common sense ruling as well."<<

John, the same argument can be used to outlaw trekking poles or even tell people what kind of shoes they can wear on the trail. I

I believe the comparison with trekking poles to be rather ridiculous—haven't sticks (also known as staffs) been used for centuries?

If we want true wilderness we should obviously limit our travels in such areas to only foot and maybe hoof. The option of staffs is the choice of the wilderness trekker—especially us older ones!

Bikes should be allowed on all forest service roads—where the damage is already done and the chances of surprising a hiker or horse rider are less likely. As previously stated, you can't have a multi-use trail and have it work for everyone. Once bikers take over a single track wilderness trail, wildlife and hikers will go elsewhere. If we're not careful, even “elsewhere” may become “multi-use”….

If it wasnt for a joint effort between cyclists and hikers we would never have the Tahoe rim trail.

After keeping them off the trails, then we get them off roads, then sidewalks, then school parking lots, then any type of pedistrian walkways, then skating board pools, etc.

Better yet, I say we keep 'em where they cause no harm – in the gym propped up on only one wheel?

Only kidding so save flames. But these are all other area's I have heard people complain about. Kinda makes you think if everyone had their way…

Chuck

Alan, this is America. Of course you will continue to pay for trails you cannot ride on. But you can walk on them, so your money is well spent, is it not? You pay for subsidies to oil companies too, though I'm not entirely clear just what it is you get from that money. Is that what you think this is? You are being ripped off ala oil company subsidy?

The argument that you should not have to pay for things that you cannot use comes out of a pretty narrow view, one that frankly fails to understand the importance of the notion of the greater good and your obligation to it.

As for joint-venture, appropriate multi-use trail building/maintenance, well I suppose I'm for it, but my experience here (Annadel State Park is my weekend stomping grounds) is that those who beat the hell out of the trail (typically, yes, mountain bikers) are not those who fix the trail.

Yeah, I know, it's a revelation.

My experience tells me that mountain bikers will always tear up hiking trails even when those trails are posted "Hikers-Equestrians Only".

Why?

Because those trails are there, of course, and those trails are in pretty good shape, way better shape than the collections of rocks that now pass for the multi-use trails, thanks to mountain bikers. Sure, lots of "fun" can be had by flying down single-track hiking trails at 30 miles an hour, ducking low-hanging brush, locking up the rear wheel entering a turn, getting airborne, the satisfying sink of full suspension upon your return to earth, but it is not right to do so. Ethics, yeah. Go figure.

So, yes sir, I will strenuously oppose bikes in the wilderness however I can, and you sir will likely strenuously support bikes in the wilderness however you can. And that's fine; that's America.

But at the end of the day there won't be mountain bikes in the wilderness. I'm sure of that, just as I am sure that common sense is returning to our country and that a sense of common purpose accompanies that common sense.

We'll just have to await the decision.

In the meantime, HYOH.

John, You say that you are a mountian biker but that you dont ride on trails or in the mountains? I'm not talking about tax dollars, I'm talking about my personal time and money. The countless hours spent repairing trails used by hikers and bikers and the cash donations I make to keep these trails alive. I love that you use the internet to sling insults about spandex and full suspension at me. Do your reasearch before you call me names. I have a steel bike with no suspenion and no gears. Look at this picture of me running down a trail where no bicycles are ever permitted. You might notice as I did that I was the only person for miles and that even though no bikes are permited here the trail is torn and worn from thousands of boots kicking at the land. You talk of skidding tires? have you never slipped in your boots? Is that not the same equivalent to my tires ocasionally slipping? I am what I am. Sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me. :)~

Hi there,
First off I should say that I am both a hiker and mountain biker. For many years, thousands of miles, and hundreds of nights backpacking I shared the disdain for mountain bikers that many hikers have. I was convinced that bikers cause more damage and I was always upset when they spoiled my peaceful wilderness experiences by blasting by. I repeat, "MY" experiences, as if the world belonged only to me. Then I took up mountain biking because I eventually realized that everyone blasting by appeared to be having a hell of a good time. Since then it has occurred to me that both groups do damage and that both also have the ability to help. We need to remember that there are good and bad hikers, and good and bad bikers. As a mountain biker, I don't spend more than a few hours in the wilderness. I don't accidentally forget a tent stake at some pristine site, I don't leave my car at the trailhead overnight, tempting wildlife with the food I decided to leave behind in the car, I don't set up camp on fragile vegetation (anything other than bare rock suffers from campers), I don't scare little chipmunks from their favorite chill spot for more than a short lunch break, I don't leave a trail of turds, I don't make fires, the Park Service doesn't need to set up bear wires and clear campsites and build outhouses for me, and I don't make half the noise a pair or group of friends hiking along does. So there, everyone makes mistakes and everyone has an effect on nature. I personally prefer the quiet, slow pace of hiking over mountain biking, but it doesn't mean that either one is more ethically right than the other. I think we should all just be grateful for each other, because the more user groups there are to advocate for the protection of wild areas, the better off we all will be. So go have fun out there and try to stop whining. Maybe we can all start crying about dogs now too. Hugs and kisses to all, Lizzie

It is good to see that some are taking a deep breath and counting to ten.

Hikers, expecially UL backpackers here who operate at the pinnacle of your sport, have more in common with real mountain bikers (like members of the IMBA) than they have differences. Think about it for a moment… You both love the outdoors, are deeply concerned about the environment and are passionate enough to sepend hundreds to shave ounces off your kit. The list of commonalities goes on.

The cycling community is organized, financed and motivated to advance their adgenda. Why not do the same? I'll bet if you engaged the IMBA to educate, you would find a willing partner. Would you rather have a shared use model that suits both or a competitor for the same foot of trail?

Rather than threatening from the safety of an internet forum, why not engage cyclists in a conversation next time you are both gearing up at a trailhead on a Saturday morning? Why not post a flyer at the kiosk? Why not run that slide show at the monthly meeting of the local bike club instead of threatening to sue and show it to a judge. And why not just call a ranger next time you encounter reckless riders?

And my Swiss made ASSOS "Underwear" cost more than your sleeping bag!

-Tim-

First they came for the mountain-bikers, and since I didn't own one, I didn't speak up….

This is me on a 3 day trip on the North Umpqua trail in central Oregon. See the beauty of that trail? It's like that the whole way and it's one of the best examples of true backcountry multi-use I've seen. What was the erosional impact? None that I could see, and I see a lot- especially after horses hit the PCT in early season.

Oh, and by the way, I'm on a full suspension rig. And I don't skid- never. And I can jump when I'm at a mountain bike park, but that's not what backcountry riding is about.

What you find in places like the Umpqua is that the riders who visit are experienced, often IMBA members like myself who spend a lot of time helping with trail maintenance and respect closed trails. We have good trail manners. It's easy to have a Mountain Dew/X-Games view of mountain biking when you aren't part of the culture and haven't had the experience. And I'm not saying that you should- I'm just saying that there's another perspective to consider.

I'm also not saying that the wilderness should be open to mountain biking. I'm not sure how I feel about that- definitely the lion's share should be closed (and always will be). But if you look at the North Umpqua (and there's nothing else like it in the northwest and I mean NOTHING), you might see that multiuse can be a reasonable option in certain situations.

Doug

I think the biggest problem is the different rate of speed while traveling. Hikers and horses are going under 5 mph whereas bikes are going faster. Just not compatible on a single track.

Alan,
I think you're taking this a little too personally. Nobody is talking about you and your riding style. What people are talking about is mountain bikers collectively as a group and the impact that they have on trails relative to hikers, again when viewed collectively as a group. Sure some bikers will have less of an impact than others on trails due to their riding style (and it sounds like you fall into this group of mountain bikers), but that doesn't make the hard-riders–the ones responsible for tearing out the corners of switchbacks, digging long ditches in the center of trails, and wearing down a trail's shoulders before the season's even ended–not exist, nor does it prohibit them from continuing to ride hard enough to cause these kinds of damage.

At the end of the day the issue for national parks is how can the most people enjoy these areas for the least amount of tax dollars. Considering that 1) many (though certainly not all) trails open to mountain bikers tend to get torn up faster than those closed to them, 2) torn up trails in the park system must be worked on when they go beyond a certain point of damage, and 3) it costs money to work on trails, I'd imagine that the decision has been pretty clear cut for park management the the past decades.

A few additional points only made the rule more logical from a park management perspective: 1) prohibiting bikes doesn't prohibit the bike riders access to these areas like prohibiting horses might (i.e. some people ride horses because they are not in-shape enough to hike the trails themselves, but the same is almost never true of bikers), 2) bikers are occasionally inconsiderate of the hikers and equestrians using the trail and there's no practical way, when in the backcountry, to hold an inconsiderate biker, who gets away, responsible for spooking horses or hitting a hiker (those are extreme examples, but the idea is that a biker might be going so fast that he doesn't actually realize it and the people inconvenienced are not fast enough to catch up to him), lastly there are undoubtedly 3) wildlife concerns, either for animals that might attack the speeding bikes (wolves, bears, possibly moose), or the speeding bikes spooking the animals (bison, migratory birds, or other species unique to a particular park that probably shouldn't be harassed too much).

"It's easy to have a Mountain Dew/X-Games view of mountain biking when you aren't part of the culture and haven't had the experience."
Hi Doug,
IME, you're right, but in a slightly different way. It's easy because the vast majority of mountain bikers I have run across, and sometimes almost into, are precisely that type of biker(X-Games). The thought of turning them loose in the wilderness provokes a very visceral reaction in me, I have to admit. As to whether or not the lion's share of wilderness trails will always be closed, I'm not so sure you speak for the majority of mountain bikers. Greg M. sure doesn't convey that impression in his posts. It's one thing to share access to close in trails, but when bikers start talking about venturing unrestricted into the national parks, I think the lines are pretty clearly drawn and there isn't a whole lot of room for compromise. The last time I felt this strongly about this kind of issue was back in the late 70's when Disney & Co got the bright idea of building a recreational complex up near Mineral King, overlooking the Kern Canyon in Sequoia NP. Fortunately wisdom prevailed in that case and I fervently hope the same is true this time around.