“Damn those mountain bike hooligans!!!”

Multi-part reply here:

1. Whatever we do, don't let Mr. Mike Vandeman discover this forum!
2. I sometimes am in a role reversal. We have limited hilly areas where I live and variety is important in getting me out hiking so I have been known to hike on Mtn Bike trails. So I'm one of those D*mn Hikers! I quickly get out of their way well in advance. Occasionally there's situations where they are approaching slow and quiet from behind and they need to make their presence known but I have never been harrassed. Perhaps that's the notorious "MN Nice" at work?
3. From my observation (upper midwest USA soils) the erosion issue is very real.

Jim, if you know about that convicted felon, you know he scours the internet for mention of his name –and has been here in 2012. I agree with you that BPL is much better without him. Here, he would find plenty of weak minds quick to drink the kool aid and other weak minds, quick to argue. The "cranky winter doldrums on the internet" haven't even fully settled in and you can already see where this thread lurched off to.

(To the weak-minded, note that I've referred to both sides of the simple issue in the same manner, but that I mean it less for your particular side. This refers to you if you took offense at being rightly noted as weak minded.)

For me, lightweight backpacking is appropriately discrete from trail access issues and best remains so for what I view as the best interests of a fine website, like this. This thread is CHAFF, at best.

"…secretly cut up to 30 miles of trails in the last decade…"

Uh oh! That's 3 whole miles of trail a year, or 52,800 square feet of 10' wide trail! Oh wait that's only about 1.2 acres of directly impacted land. But what about all those metric tons of run-off into the local watersheds?! Actually let's not, because even if it's an order of magnitude snowballed, or several orders of magnitude larger, it's peanuts. That shining example of how awful the "problem" is is pure sensationalism. Let's even hypothesize that all 30 miles of trails were cut in a rather confined space, let's say "the only space" available to outdoor enthusiasts. The bigger picture; shouldn't we be more concerned that these outdoor enthusiasts have only a handful of places left to even adversely impact?!

And frankly what's 30 miles of trails in 10 years really equal? About 2 days worth of hiking for an average BPL'er? Perspective is what the whole specific anti-trail-cutting issue could really use at times because, again:

A simple development of suburban homes disturbs and causes generations worth of damage to a wild area (mind you, it was ALL wild area once, even your suburban mall)….

A well built road causes more air, sediment, and noise, and light pollution than any small network of trails…

This is the exact in-fighting that keeps the environmentally damaging industries and even just suburban sprawl in the money while enthusiast communities organize against each other with pitchforks and shovels like Martin Scorsese's "Gangs of New York."

*** Incendiary Statement Warning ***

If you enjoy the suburbs, moved there, built a home there, raised your kids there; you're far from blameless for wild areas disappearing. This country has a problem with sprawl. Everyone wants their homestead safe from the big scary cities, but in doing so, in failing to innovate and work towards more efficiently dense living, you and the infrastructure and all the businesses to support your suburban lifestyle, has caused more damage to the outdoors than any group of fun loving hikers, bikers, or whomevers taking part in their hobby. Don't tell me about your BS low carbon footprint when your McMansion or split-level stripped clean an acre of trees and replaced it with pointless sod and long commutes.

The lake is an extreme example. i believe the refill rate is about 700 YEARS. The clarity has dropped from Mark Twain's 100+
feet where he describes "ballooning" when floating in a raft on it, quite a bit due to sedimentation. The entire community is responsible for the decline as you say, but is also taking that responsibility seriously, bikers and developers included. Adding a garage to your home there means you may have to plant grass on your roof or tear up your concrete driveway and replace it with a permiable surface as mitigation. Or more likely it won't be allowed at all.

Trails that drop straight down the mountains deliver a lot of moon dust straight into the lake. These are the kind of trails being
built by the scofflaw heavy bike riders. The bulk of the mountain bikers do not approve.

Sure, piss in your own pot and someone else's too. You are justified because others trash places.

This is a discussion that always fascinates me. I'm no different, I have my own biases and favorite outdoor pursuits…

When I am hiking I simply HATE to come across stock on the trails. I hike with my dog, he's afraid of horses and so if horses are allowed, I have to leash him. Now, others hate unleashed dogs no matter what and will say my unleashed dog ruins their outdoor experience.

Leashing my dog in certain circumstances (I do not wish to start another flame war, just using this as an example – I am VERY careful and choosy about when I allow him to be off leash and when he is restrained) ruins MY outdoor experience because my dog simply loves to run around, swim, play, etc and that makes my trip that much more enjoyable. Who gets to have "their" wilderness experience unspoiled??

Bikers don't want hikers, hikers don't want roads, bikes, 4-wheelers, etc. No one wants stock except the horse people. Dog people want their dogs to run free and enjoy the outdoors (as dogs should…IN SOME CASES…please let's not get into this!!), non-dog people don't want dogs on the trails. We all want to pursue our own pastimes and are bothered by those whose pursuits interfere with ours.

As I said, I'm no different…when I'm on a bike I hate pedestrians, and when I'm a pedestrian I hate bikes, and when I'm in a car they both get in my way…..etc etc.

It's also no different than business interests who want to drill in pristine places…jobs vs wilderness preservation….

So how do we share what limited wilderness space we have so that ALL of us can safely enjoy the activities that make us happy???

nice troll.

Clarification: I don't actually think that because land owners and developers totally destroy the environment that irresponsible trail building has carte blanche to do whatever. I've supported groups like IMBA and low impact trail building initiatives in practice (i.e. maintaining trails and building new ones) and have seen what even sustainable downhill trails can look like when done correctly. They do exist and they aren't straight down the mountain like a double black diamond ski run. However, do I think there's bigger fish to fry that requires coming together regardless of our individual penchants? Yes. Do I think we already have the knowledge and tools at our disposal to create sustainable playgrounds in the outdoors for whatever the activity? Yes.

Tahoe definitely seems like a delicate area where the balance of nature and things is easy to upset considering the alpine environment. I'm pleased to hear about things like eco roofs and permeable driveways. We need more of that awareness and less unchecked lowest-common-denominator style development.

But at the end of the day when we look back decades from now do I think that part of the narrative of why ___________ wild place disappeared or was ruined, won't likely include talks of cyclists, hikers, or even equestrians? Not at all. It'll be things like housing developments, climate change, mineral and oil development, etc etc etc.

Well I'm a road biker who is new to mountain biking and hiking. To me they are complimentary activities rather than mutually exclusive as it appears for some others. I work to follow the rules and yield to hikers when present (and stock – agree with just about everyone here that I do dislike horses quite a bit for a variety of reasons)… I will say that the yield rule from a practical perspective – all biases aside as I'm more of a hiker than mtber – doesn't make much sense depending on the terrain. On 'flowing' trails it is fine – but anything with real up and down it is much harder to stop/start on a bike than on foot. Just saying. I yield anyway because that is the rule unless waved through.

I can't speak to the erosion issue but otherwise agree that mountain biking is pretty low impact – all my trips have been in and out – whatever minor waste we have is carried out and that is a power bar wrapper generally. Bad campers/hikers seem much worse to my eye from a litter/animal/waste and general leave no trace perspective (again erosion aside as I simply don't have enough experience to comment).

How about we all gang up on the horses?!? :-)

I don't see anyone with a horse sized pooper-scooper or a plastic bag picking up after their horses on the trail. Few things worse than barreling through horseshoe*t on a bike and it leaving your socks smelly at best, and a huge streak up your back and up in your face at worst.

I am opposed to mb's on trails not designed and/or intended for mb recreation.

Why?

Because too many bikers have too little common sense (not a slam, I personally understand what it is to go flyin' down a single track so fast it makes your eyes water, max enthusiasm, peak adrenaline) to not exacerbate the hazard that they are to themselves, other bikers, hikers and stockmen. They ain't safe. Yeah, the wilderness contains an adequate supply of risk without adding lunatics on bicycles. Lunatics? Yep. I'm one of 'em, been one for more than 30 years. Annadel. Look it up. You cannot BS me.

Now, if the goal is to fly as many helicopter extractions as possible of the wounded out of the boonies and into a trauma center back in the world what we'll all get for their personal privilege is a worthless wilderness experience.

Nope, I'm not putting up with any of it.

Bottom line is that we don't have these national trails so that idiots can go out upon them to test their gonads. There are plenty of opportunities for that. Lots of Youtube videos, plenty sufferin', make some popcorn, enjoy the show. Buy a skateboard, try the rail stunt.

But let bikers onto a national trail? Not gonna' happen if I can prevent it and I intend to try really hard.

HYOH

Ben

Wilderness managers assess the quality of a particular area's wilderness characteristics by considering "opportunities for solitude." That's gauged by measuring the number of other parties you're likely to encounter in a day. We all know that, the further you are from a trailhead, the less likely you are to encounter other hikers. But bikers can easily travel three times as far in a day as hikers can. That means that, in a piece of wild country that's open to bikes, your "opportunity for solitude" will likely be diminished. You're that much more likely to encounter another party. That's not because of anything "wrong" that bikers are doing; it's just the nature of the transportation mode. So, the effect of allowing bikes is to shrink the effective size of a wild area by a considerable degree.

John and Eric: Well stated comments.

I own and enjoy my mountain bike–but confine it's use to around town and forest service roads only. I wouldn't think of using it on a wilderness trail.

As the likes of Lewis and Clark have somewhat shown us, true wilderness should only be accessible by foot, hoof, paddle or sail.

If you allow horses you might as well allow bikes.

This is nothing that destroys the smell of wilderness more than horse shit and nothing destroys trails faster than horses on wet trail.

Eric, this is a curious argument.
What about distance runners?

If you slowly hiked for days to get into some "remote" backcountry camp to enjoy your "opportunity for solitude" you can't seriously be angry if a few runners blow through as part of a simple morning run…

So is it different for bikers? Why? The average Saturday morning MTBer rarely leaves the front country trail system anyway. For that matter, neither do hikers.

The the main reason I started distance trail running was to get away from the masses of hikers AND bikers choking every canyon and peak within 3-5 miles of a trailhead. I'm all for faster and further if it gets me to my solitude. It's how I can catch a sunrise alone on Mt. San Antonio and be moving on to bag two or three more peaks while the traditional hiking crowd is still lacing shoes at their cars. Do I have any more right to be pissed if a biker beat me to the summit instead of another runner or someone who just woke up earlier?

Incidentally, people are using the same argument you're making to try and keep people from (or at least disparage) ultrarunning or fastpacking famous trail systems and wilderness areas, claiming the inherent speed/mileage is "out of character" for a certain type of pre-defined "wilderness experience".

The more I think about the "bikes on trails" argument, the more I'm convinced it's based on emotion, an "us vs. them" mentality, and set notions on how others should "properly" experience nature.

As there are certainly reckless bikers, there are the droves of clueless hikers, and for every rut an MTB rider creates or person they clip I'm sure I can show you a tree some knucklehead tried to fell, cut switchbacks leading to trail erosion, a diaper left in a stream, or a festering pool of mule piss and $hit left because someone wanted to see the sites in luxury but not carry their own weight.

"I will say that the yield rule from a practical perspective – all biases aside as I'm more of a hiker than mtber – doesn't make much sense depending on the terrain. On 'flowing' trails it is fine – but anything with real up and down it is much harder to stop/start on a bike than on foot. Just saying."

I agree. It's why I've never made a big deal out of stepping out of the way. I don't know, but I imagine bikes are supposed to yield because they came to the party last?

So no, I'm not opposed to bikes on trails in general. While the bikes do tear up the trails, the biker groups, at least in my area, work hard to give back to the trails by holding trail work days.

The problem is the age old sports car syndrom.
take an average guy put him in a sports car, he's not the same guy any more.
same with bikes, take an average guy, dress him in armour, put him on a bike, especially going downihll, he's not the same guy anymore.

Yup almost got run over this weekend again. ok so it was just our local wilderness park but still … we were going up hill they were coming down, we did not get out of the way to be polite, we got off the trail to save ourselves. one of the 6 actually said thanks, but that is unusual, the vibe I got was they felt they owned the trail and we were lucky to be there.

so I'm all for allowing bikes on trails, just no bikers :-)

I've heard that argument before too Craig.

I think the counter argument would be that relatively few people have the stamina to do ultra runs or fastpack deep into wilderness areas. So their impact would be relatively minimal. On the other hand their are probably a lot more people who could quickly peddle deep into a wilderness area on a bike so you might have crowding concerns.

Edit – Stock and horses can be annoying at times but use of public land helps ranchers. Environmentalist get annoyed with ranchers at times but in my opinion they should try to make sure they don't go out of business and sell their land for other uses. A cattle ranch is much more scenic and better for wildlife then a subdivision or a golf course.

Maybe we need to throw out the old signs. After all, they don't always make sense.

What does make sense is yielding to the user that will hurt you the worst if you don't.

I'll start running with a spiked baseball bat.

Yield to Craig. That's right.

As far as I know it's only ski resorts where downhill trails exist for a specific reason for a specific group of people. Other than that, I think it's a fair assumption based on even my limited knowledge to say that as a whole, hikers have more trails at their disposal than any other group. I mean afterall, you just show up and start walking. To the hikers being put in harm's way regularly, seriously, go find another trail, for you likely have many more to choose from. Better yet, challenge yourself and go hike a trail that's too challenging to ride a bike down OR up and you can HYOH all you want. We enter the woods at our own risk and we don't all exist in perfect little vacuums of solitude however.

What I'm bothered by are attitudes of entitlement when the only thing we're all entitled to do is enjoy the same areas as we each see fit. That said, the whole concept of banning people from one place or another is a permanent solution to some momentary inconvenience (unless a group is doing serious ecological damage of course). Of all the indignation on display here and elsewhere from hikers, one other consistent pattern emerges: I haven't heard a story of anyone actually getting hurt. Inconvenienced? Yeah. Sure, you saw your otherwise milquetoast life flash before your eyes, probably the same as the weekend warrior who almost made you scrape your knee, but as one cranky ol' troll up there mentioned, pull up a chair and watch youtube. There's a million fail videos posted of hair-raising accidents that while they hurt, weren't life-ending. Plus for every near-miss and the much fewer not-misses that do result in someone getting hurt, there's a far greater likelihood a hiker will twist an ankle, a cyclist will fall, or an equestrian will take a header, with no one to blame but themselves. So honestly, a whole lotta ya need to perhaps grow a lot thicker skin and stop being so fearful; and remember that humans naturally try to avoid accidents and pain as a reflex action despite what you may think.

…..but whining is easier. And so is my own superiority complex for that matter. This is after all, an internet forum and echo chamber.

But seriously, if a lot of you are going to talk about "sharing the trails" you aren't entitled to share AND dictate the use. It's like sharing your sandwich and then telling the recipient how to eat if they don't want you to take it back.

Alec,
Cut back on the late night caffeine. While there is normal some amount of humor in your posts, your rant above is an incoherent temper tantrum. You may find your witty little insults cute but any rational point was lost.

The issue sounds complex and differs from area to area. One size does not fit all.

Toolbox:
1. Alternating days for each type of activity (hiking, biking, livestock, dogs)
2. Shared usage with special days scheduled in (biking day, off-leash dog day, etc)
2. Complete ban on one type of activity or the other
3. Warning signage and educational materials for shared trails
4. Trail cleanup/repair programs funded and conducted by each usage group
5. other ideas??

Each trail is assessed individually and different combinations of these tools are applied according the needs of that particular trail/wilderness area. I know some trails which could benefit from #1, where folks might be happy just to go on certain days of the week and have a reasonable expectation of not getting run over. Other trails are so perfect for downhilling and have alternate hiking paths, those might benefit from #2 so that bikers get their own trail and hikers get their own. Still others are flat wide trails and really just need a little of #3 if anything at all. #4 just makes sense for any area heavily used for a particular activity. Different strokes for different folks. Why cant we be friends?

As hikers, we have the "premium access" to trails, ie all public trails are open to us. Other user groups, be they human-powered, animal-powered or motor-powered have less. In terms of impact per person, we hikers have more impact on the trail than a single bike, less than a single horse and less than a single motorcycle — according to tread impact studies done specifically for this purpose. A similar study also concludes that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west and both will be contested by kooks and loonies. The nature of impacts to tread are different among the user groups, and there are different populations of each in different places.

If one were to leap backward into the 1990's, it would be very de rigeur to claim soft-tired bicycles cause more trail impacts than hikers and horses, but it was incorrect then, too. Now, standing where we are in 2013, that argument is an old hack that merely illustrates either the proponents' affinity for mindlessly repeating whatever sounds good, a lack of understanding/experience with trail work, or both. Although there are good arguments for limitation of access to user groups, including those infernal mountainbikers, this particular one actually cuts against pack animals and hikers more than it does cyclists.

This is not "backpacking", however. It's really a winter discussion for folks made cranky by their local weather and fantasizing about entitlement and exclusion to Trails Access.

Alec, I understand your point and your frustration, entirely. I just thing this isn't the venue for the discussion — at least not out of CHAFF.

You make some great points Eric.

I don't agree with you that this has nothing to do with backpacking, or that it should be considered "Chaff". I'm not even sure what it being "winter" has to do with the validity of the thread. It has just as much place here as discussing packrafting ad nauseum or backcountry skiing, because we all know how accessible that is to the average BPL member. ;-) A small, but passionate group of cyclists carry gear by mountain bike, self supported into wilderness areas, utilizing lightweight backpacking gear on their backs and on their bikes. These are enthusiasts, like yourself, that enjoy getting outdoors and taking in the sights, sounds, and life out on the trail off the typical "front range" recreation trails. Decisions made by law makers, opinions expressed by the overwhelmingly larger outdoor walking community, and land management groups all impact accessibility to these individuals. When it comes to discussing mountain biking and trail access, things always get emotional, both parties espousing why they should be allowed or who shouldn't, and to what capacity. It is a bit foolish and fruitless, but the issue is going to become more commonplace so no sense in sweepingit under the rug.

Have an admin, if you can find one, relocate the thread to chaff. I could care less.

Anyways, the weather is just fine here, in fact snow is in the forecast and I fully intend to lace up my trail running shoes and hit my local BLM governed wilderness area after work for a few miles, if that's okay with the walkers. I fully intend to be courteous to anyone I come across.

We had similar discussion last year when Dave C posted his articles on bike-packing.

So I went back and copied my post (I am lazy):

"I have hiked on trails that once never saw a MTB, and over time have seen the effects… and the early effects with minimal MTB traffic were quite noticeable right away. It is one thing when a bike simply rolls on a fairly flat trail… probably less damage than a hiker. But when you add in braking, skidding, quick acceleration, sharp turns, jumping over obstacles, ruts in soft soil, etc. the impact is there — big time. And we cannot quantify behaviors, but I will state that it is much easier for someone not "attuned" to wild places to get there on a MTB, than a hiker. So what I have seen does not compliment the conscientious MTBers who do respect the wilderness. I have seen in many places that the MTB community does fight the attempts to increase the expansion of wilderness areas, because that alone will decrease the number of available MTB trails. I like more wilderness areas. And of course often hikers and MTBs do not mix well on trails.

But we always get down to the basics of what to do with our public lands. Many groups want access and each has their agenda. So how do we meet the needs of everyone?

Then of course there is my solution… blow up all the roads going to wild places, starting with HWY 120. Stop all trail maintenance. Tear down all infrastructure. Quit building new trails. Let the wilderness go fallow. :) But that is only popular with folks like me and the likes of Edward Abbey."