Mountain Bikes Being Allowed On Natl. Park Trails

[Tom Clark]

BPL,
It sounds like you have some potential podcasts here. Why not redirect this and other forum strings that have brought out some strong feelings to get some real 2-way discussions and education. How about a debate/discussion/chat with:

-Mountain bikers – International Mountain Biking Association
– Horse riders – American Trail Horse Association
– ATVers – West Coast ATV Riders Association?

I have opinions about some of this, but let's hear what the leadership of these user groups have to say when tough (but courteous) questions are asked. BPL should set up a gorum thread to solicit questions from this shy bunch.

Call it a crazy idea, but let's talk.

[Brian UL]

Its just common sense that you cant have someone going 30 mph on the same track as people on foot. Any public official that tries to do so will be bulldozed by complaints and stories of injuries.
Why dont you take your bikes on the freeway? Your taxes paid for that and you have far less impact then they do.
Oh thats right, because the speeds they travel put you in harms way- imagine that.
As long as there are separate trails for bikers and I dont care.

[Anonymous]

Tim,
If the end goal of IMBA's organized, financed , motivated agenda is unrestricted access to the pristine backcountry areas of NP's, we're probably headed for a real confrontation. Not meant as a threat, just an educated guess as to how things are likely to turn out. Wheels and hikers in pristine wilderness areas are not compatible, and the reasons have been very well presented in numerous posts to this thread. NP areas close in to trailheads are one thing, true wilderness areas are another. Can't you guys settle for half a loaf? I don't think anybody here is looking for looking for trouble, but it's pretty obvious there are very strong, even passionate, feelings on both side of the issue, and that makes me real uneasy. As for trying to
"call a ranger next time you encounter reckless riders?", when is the last time you tried to find a backcountry ranger in a real remote part of any NP? At least the western ones. I sure haven't had much luck when trying to report especially egregious instances of horse packer behavior and, on the 2 occasions I did run across a ranger, when I started to explain what I had observed they just threw up their hands and told me to save my breath because they couldn't touch them-too much political clout. I mention this because they are a prime example of another organized, financed, motivated group. As far as I am concerned, one is enough.

[Doug Johnson]

Fair enough Brian- your points are valid, but your information is inaccurate. 30mph is extremely fast on a mountain bike- downhill race speed and those bikes would never be found in the wilderness. More accurate would be 10-15 mph on challenging trails. 20 tops. That may still be too much of a difference, but the speeds you suggest are extremely high.

Consider this- when riding the North Umpqua trail (the only trail in Washington or Oregon that is compatible to this argument, in my opinion) during top season in mid-July, I saw a grand total of 4 hikers, 2 fishermen, and 2 cyclists in 3 days. During each encounter, the bikes slowed or stopped, and except for the fishermen, we exchanged trail info and food. Now, I may not be the average biker, but I'm not far off for what you're talking about.

The X-games folks that most of you mention- I'd ask where you met these riders. I'd guess it was at a BMX park, lowland trails, that sort of thing. Because the backcountry cyclists have very few opportunities, at least in the west. The places we get to ride in most of Washington are places that very few would ever choose to hike.

My point is that when it comes to user groups, it's important to be open to different groups within the larger group, and to question a perception against a reality.

For example, there are several studies that show horse usage having far more impact than mountain bikes. My experience says this is true. But we allow horses in many wilderness areas. Is it speed? Is it history? Is it erosion? Or should human feet be the only things allowed?

[Doug Johnson]

Taken from the IMBA web site:

Expected Rule Change Would Benefit Bicycling in National Parks

Action Alert

For Immediate Release
11-19-08
Contact: Mark Eller, IMBA Communications Director
[email protected]
303-545-9011
An upcoming National Park Service (NPS) rule change could greatly benefit mountain bicycling by improving the administrative process for opening trails to bicycles. IMBA has been asking the agency to revise its policies since 1992, because the current "special regulations" process is needlessly cumbersome and treats bicycles like motorized vehicles.

The NPS has said the proposal for new rules will be formally announced later this year. IMBA hopes the enhanced procedure will allow park superintendents to make trail access decisions locally, instead of being tied to a Washington-based, multi-year regulatory journey. The new rule would treat bicycling like other non-motorized trail users, such as equestrians.

The suggested NPS rule change would only apply to places where including bicycling is non controversial, and would maintain current requirements for environmental review and public notice. Opening a trail to bicycling must be in compliance with the National Park Service Organic Act, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Historic Preservation Act, and all NPS General Management Planning processes.

Proposed Rule Subject of Misunderstandings

Recently, the American Hiking Society (AHS) published a national action alert opposing the as-yet-unreleased NPS rule. This alert is based on the incorrect assumption that requirements for comprehensive environmental review and public commentary about opening a trail to bicycling will be discarded. In fact, these safeguards will remain in place, as required by federal law. IMBA and AHS leaders met nationally on this issue last week.

Unfortunately, the alert has rippled through the hiking community, causing consternation and confusion amongst the shared-use trails community. Some hiking-based groups have expressed concern that mountain biking will infringe on foot travel in national parks, but IMBA remains confident that shared-use trails can succeed in national parks, as they do in countless public land settings around the globe.

The alert also suggests that this regulatory change could affect how Wilderness, or areas proposed for Wilderness, will be managed. In fact, these issues are completely separate. IMBA recognizes that cycling is not allowed in areas designated as Wilderness. The NPS proposed rule change would have no impact on Wilderness regulations.

National parks that are not interested in expanding opportunities for bicycling will not be affected by the rule change. The new proceedures will not force mountain biking on any park unit, and superintendents that do not see opportunities for mountain biking in their parks will not be asked to adopt it.

IMBA Encourages Clubs to Reach Out to Hiking Groups and NPS Leaders

IMBA encourages mountain bike organizations to reach out to their local hiking trail partners and NPS local leaders with our fact sheet on the issue, to address concerns and answer questions about the rule change.

Creating opportunities for mountain biking will not diminish experiences for existing users such as hikers or equestrians. Park staff are skilled at selecting appropriate trails for shared-use experiences. Hikers and bikers can work together to repair eroded trails, get kids exercising in parks and build excitement about our national parks.

More on What the Rule Change Will Achieve

The current "special regulations" process for opening NPS trail to bicycling is onerous and cumbersome, often typically taking years to complete. Only two of the roughly 24 parks that allow singletrack mountain biking have managed to complete special regulations, highlighting the unrealistic and unnecessary burden it places on NPS staff. The special regulations process required for bicycles also applies to snowmobiles, jet skis, airplanes, commercial trucking and other similarly intensive park uses. IMBA believes local park management, using the inclusive NEPA process, can best make decisions regarding bicycle use on the trails that they oversee.

In one real-world example, Tennessee's Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area, trail users and park staff worked for many years to open two existing routes to bicycling, detailing the process publicly in environmental reviews, park planning documents and rigorous scientific research. Regardless, the trail opening was prohibited because special regulations had not been completed. While bicyclists, NPS staff, hikers and equestrians all support opening these trails to bicycles, the opening date is likely several years in the future, at best.

Another example can be found in Washington, DC, at Fort Dupont National Park. IMBA affiliated club Trips for Kids has been bringing inner-city youth to the park to ride the existing network of singletrack trails for many years. This program helps build self-esteem, get kids exercising and exposes an often underserved population to the benefits of bicycling and national parks. Technically, these trails are out of compliance with this bureaucratic, special regulations process – although all groups involved would call this program wildly successful.

For more information on this issue, please contact IMBA's Government Affairs Director Jenn Dice ([email protected]), or Policy Analyst Drew Vankat ([email protected]).

[W I S N E R !]

"My point is that when it comes to user groups, it's important to be open to different groups within the larger group…"

Well stated Doug.

[Anonymous]

Doug,
You are right about my impressions being gained from contact on lowland trails here in western Washington, most egregiously in off limits to bikers sections of the Tiger Mountain complex, which I use occasionally on training hikes. My question to you is quite simply: If they behave this way on lowland trails, would they suddenly become enlightened disciples of LNT and backcountry etiquette in the cathedrals of true wilderness beauty? Please forgive me for being skeptical.
No question horses have far more impact, but as I have mentioned in several posts, both in this thread and others, they have both history AND a huge amount of political clout in their favor, particularly in the Western USA. If I had my way, they would be restricted from fragile areas entirely, by which I mean areas that, once damaged, will not recover for many years, if ever. My experience in this regard is primarily in the higher areas of the Sierra, where the damage is extensive and growing by the year. Here in Washington it does not seem to be as bad, at least not where I hike.

[Anonymous]

Doug,
First off, many thanks for posting this info from the IMBA website. I think hikers of good will may see cause for hope here:
"The suggested NPS rule change would only apply to places where including bicycling is non controversial."
"IMBA recognizes that cycling is not allowed in areas designated as Wilderness. The NPS proposed rule change would have no impact on Wilderness regulations."
I do not know whether the true backcountry areas of NP's are considered wilderness areas by the bureaucrats, or IMBA. As far as I am concerned, if such areas will remain off limits I am not only a happy camper, but will be a supporter of IMBA's efforts to expand multi use trail networks in non sensitive areas. Doug, Greg, et al, can you offer some clarification here? I can't speak for the community at large, but I know recognition of this distinction would make me rest a lot easier in so many ways.
Then maybe we could even work together to bring some sanity to the regulations governing the use of horses in the backcountry.

[Joe Westing]

According to the NPS (http://wilderness.nps.gov/wilderness.cfm), over half of National Park lands are designated as wilderness under the Wilderness Act. I believe over 95% of Olympic National Park and 93% of North Cascades National Park is designated as wilderness.

I have no problem with opening a limited amount of trails in national parks for bikes. Certain trails are wide enough to be able to accommodate both bikes and hikers, but small single-track trails could probably only be open to either bikers or hikers. I think many here, including me, are just afraid of all national park trails being opened to biking without restrictions.

[SPAM]

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://mjvande.nfshost.com/mtb10.htm . 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://mjvande.nfshost.com/scb7.htm ). 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://mjvande.nfshost.com/mtbfaq.htm .

[Eugene Smith]

"…but scientifically, they are worthless."

Really?

[Erik Basil]

Eugene, and everyone: don't engage the guy who posted above Eugene. He is a notorious internet troll with a long history of filth behind him on numerous internet forums, a criminal rap sheet and I assure you: no backpacker.

I suggest you google the guy's name and then avoid posting it here–he likely found this old thread via google searches and will return over and over again unless Forum Moderators put a quick and sure throttle on his behavior, which will steadily escalate from that first trolling he's engaged in.

It is a bad day for BPL when this dude arrives, trust me. THE BEST THING IS TO DELETE THE FEW LAST POSTS AND CLOSE THIS THREAD. MARK MY WORDS (and do a google search if you doubt them).

[Daniel Cox]

Talk about an axe to grind… the guy lets loose a tirade on thread that's been dead for THREE AND A HALF YEARS??

Sheesh.

[David Chenault]

Marked as spam and left for the historical record.

[Author]

Posts