“Damn those mountain bike hooligans!!!”

"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."

---

Environmentalism or Conservationism or neither? Pick your position, I guess. Any area classified as Wilderness generally does not allow anything mechanical on the trails. And I hate horses worse."

+1 to your entire post, Nick, but especially the parts I copied. It puzzles me as to why this thread even got off the ground, as the subject was pretty well covered in Dave C's original thread. The main difference I can see is that Dave's thread was downright civil, whereas this one has turned decidedly nasty, which is why I have mostly avoided it up until now. But I can hold my tongue no longer. All the reasons why MB'ers should not be allowed in real wilderness areas have been well stated, by a number of folks with exptensive backcounty experience, so there is no need to repeat them. The tenor of the thread is another matter entirely. Greg has already rightly called out Alex for his rudeness, so I will move on to Erik Basil. Below are excerpts of two highly offensive posts that do, indeed, belong in CHAFF, at best:

"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."

Weak minds? Rightly noted? Most of the folks on both sides of the argument are at the very least your intellectual and experiential equals, and many are your superiors, judging from your posts, and theirs over a much longer period of time than you have been a member of BPL. What ever gave you the idea that you could set yourself up as the judge of the cognitive abilities of your peers in the forums in the first place? As for your comment about lightweight backpacking being totally unrelated to trail access issues, all I can say is that someone who is unable to connect those two dots would do well to examine his own cognitive deficiencies before loftily holding forth on the "weak mindedness" of others.

"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."

Again the disdain for your peers. Kooks and loonies? Mindlessly repeating? Lack of understanding of trail work? In the face of first person experience of MB damage to trails by Roger Caffin, Nick Gatel, myself, and doubtless many others who have not bothered to post it? You mention unnamed studies. References please, along with an accounting of the source of their funding. No matter, the "studies" will not trump what I have seen with my own two eyes. In any case, it is not what you say that I take issue with. That is legitimate fodder for debate. What I take issue with is your arogance and lack of respect for your peers. Get over yourself, Erik. There is other intelligent life on this planet.

To me this is not a question of philosophy or politics but a simple matter of practicality and safety.
How can you have traffic on feet share the same narrow path as people on a metal wheeled machine potentially going faster than the fastest man?
The trails in question may be different from the ones where Im am, I can't see whats around the next corner most of the time and anyone going at any speed can't be expected to either.
The trails have slow moving familys with children and the elderly included.
I would hate to see our nations hiking trails become the exclusive domain of fast moving youths who either bike or are fast and alert enough to dodge them all day pushing the weaker and slower people off the trails to a less dangerous activity.
It just seems to defy common sense to me?

My only physical altercation as an adult involved me hiking and a mountain biker that hit me on the trail. He walked out.
Edit: That was nearly 25 years ago. I've mellowed.
The two are incompatible on the same single track of trail.

Keep it civil folks. Disagree w/out being disagreeable, etc. This isn't chaff unless you make it that.

As I've said before (Nicks link), more than anything I want the mindless blanket rules repealed and management decisions made on a reasonable case by case basis. There are plenty of Wilderness areas and national parks which should allow mountain bikes on some trails. There are crowded, pseudo-urban areas (Tahoe) which will require more intrusive management. California rules shouldn't be applied to Montana, and vice versa.

In reference to the area of the CDT mentioned in the OP, I think the anti-MTB arguments are a red herring. The level of traffic is low enough and the terrain mild enough that there would be little conflict.

As for Monarch Crest, you'd find plenty of MTBers willing to build a second trail in the major sections. It'd take 6 weeks start to finish with proper lead time for recruitment. This is a good example of why people without experience with a given place should refrain from commenting, and how overly general statements are simply not useful here.

Poor Tom Kirchner. He saw himself and took the bait. Yes, Tom, you've been registered on this site longer than I have, and you've reportedly seen trail damage/wear from bikes. I think we might presume you've seen trail damage/wear from hooves, feet and motorcycles, too. We all have, and that tread wear is both a function of the nature of the tread contact and the frequency of it.

This is the nature of how such Chaff-type threads go: folks with limited experience maintaining trails or dealing with access issues (but quick to opine who they'd like to keep out other than themselves) reinforce themselves be repeating things they've heard over and over until they're sure they've convinced the internet that the world is flat and anything to the contrary is heresy. For those of us with experience dealing with trail building, trails maintenance and access issues, it's all old hat and fairly predictable — ergo, my comments that included goading references to those who'd hyperventilate: I only defined you as weak-minded if you chose to define yourself as… weak-minded. Res Ipsa Loquitur, Tom.

Bike-packing is cool and I am impressed by those who can do it well, on trails. They take UL to a level beyond even hikers. My characterization of this thread topic as CHAFF is because the issue isn't one of access for hikers — we have access everywhere — nor of specific area access for cyclists, but rather a generalized "should there be bike access". That's not "backpacking" and it quickly devolved into postings about trail damage, entitlement and repetition of old saws without correlative basis.

Threads like this tend to flare more in the winter, when we can't hike or backpack as much. It's common. Now, personally, I will be hiking in sunshine on dry trails this weekend (with horses, hikers, runners and bikes), so I certainly recognize we aren't all necessarily in the winter doldrums, but I sure see the effect. Next, someone post something about how Ryan has abandoned the site or something. Folks do need chaff.

I certainly don't consider myself an expert at any of this. I don't quote studies, I temper my sarcasm with [hopefully] enough self-effacing banter for those less prone to being butt-hurt to realize that it's in good humor and not an outright flame. Also, it should be noted that I'm pleased to see that this thread, which is actually quite civil by internet standards, even those higher standards put in place by communities of adults, really hasn't devolved into ad hominem attacks.

Anyhow, trail damage. I'd love to see some. I don't say that as a challenge, but as someone who has done a ton of trail maintenance in the past but in an limited (northeast USA) location. Whoever mentioned that at Tahoe the clarity of the water has been effected, while obviously not photographic, at least provides this conversation with a fairly measurable datum. However, there's a lot of "there was a rut that formed once" style comments that, while I appreciate, aren't exactly compelling. Moreover, statements about being inconvenienced or scared once, don't really justify the "Poland in the 1940's" tenor that has been fostered in this thread at times.

Back to what I know…. In the downhill community we tear up trails with high traffic but only in specific places along the trail. Corners get "blown out" from people overshooting them, and are typically rebuilt with, essentially, retaining walls made of rock (wood rots, unless you're lucky enough to be in the PacNW where cedar is common). Low spots that collect water need drainage and are address with simple troughs filled with rocks. "Snaking" is just as commonly created by hikers as it is bikers when someone wants to avoid mud or a standing puddle and decides to go around it creating alternate paths through foliage. But all of these things have solutions. Moreover the reason why maintenance trail days can do a lot of work with only a handful of people is that along multi-mile stretches of trail, it's uncommon to have to treat the entire trail. And so, from people saying that bikers "ruin trails" I'd love to be educated and see how they've destroyed entire trails, or even large swaths of trails.

Overcrowding and rude trail patrons come in all shapes and sizes. I also lend no credence to the "spirit of the trail" arguments because sentiments change over time and things that weren't invented were perhaps unlikely to be considered? Unless someone with a trail named after them, or in power decreeing something as a national resource and trail, specifically said at the outset "by foot only" then it's all convenient self-fullfilling interpretation.

Lastly, in my experience I can say that the worst trail damage I've ever come across was from dirt bikes. We're talking trails left unnavigable even by foot and hand because of 12" deep ruts down to clay that became an ice-rink when wet. Trees roosted with sand and dirt, that sort of thing. So I invite anyone to please educate me with some actual measurable impact by mountain bikers on trails you know and love. Pictures are great. A decent recounting will suffice even. Trail damage is obviously just one facet of this issue, but it's at least the most measurable in theory.

"Keep it civil folks. Disagree w/out being disagreeable, etc. This isn't chaff unless you make it that."

Wise words, Dave, as usual, which I will try to heed in the rest of this post. I began my previous post with exactly that in mind, as I stated at the beginning, but my anger at Erik's contemptuous disrespect toward those who disagree with him got the better of me. I apologize to the community in advance for those intemperate remarks.

Erik,

As near as I can tell, your main point is that mountain bikes have less impact on trails than hikers. You make vague reference to unnamed tread studies as proving said point beyond dispute. I responded with stated first hand reports by 3 backpackers with, collectively, more than 120 years of backpacking experience in a wide range of environments, on trail and off that contradict your position. I also asked you for specific study references and their sources of support and financing. So far no response to that from you. In the event you do choose to provide those references or other information that supports your position, I am perfectly willing to continue this discussion with you, as long as it is conducted in an atmosphere of mutual respect, because I think it might add something of value to the discussion. What I am not willing to do is be subjected to the kind of verbal abuse you have shown toward those who disagree with you to date. Yes, I have been on this website for some time, and have come to care about it, and the people who populate it, deeply. Enough so that I will not sit idly by and concede the forums to those who would destroy what has long been largely an atmosphere of mutual respect conducive to vigorous, but civil, debate and exchange of information that ends up benefitting all. You are new here and in the process of establishing your BPL persona, and you have a choice before you. You can continue on your current path and consign yourself to irrelevance, or you can conduct yourself with respect toward those who disagree with you and become a respected member of the community. Personally I hope you choose the latter path. There is always room for one more bozo on this bus.

I will close with two observations: 1) Consider reading through Dave Chenault's thread on this subject. It covered pretty much the same ground, with passionate views on both sides of the argument, but in an atmosphere of civility and mutual respect. It stands to this day as a model thread, IMO; 2) As for me "seeing myself and taking the bait", c'mon Erik, I'm not that weak minded. I was upset and took it upon myself to respond on behalf of the community at large. Rightly or wrongly is not up to me to decide, but that was it, pure and simple. A more relevant question is why would you try to bait folks in the first place?

> So I invite anyone to please educate me with some actual measurable impact by
> mountain bikers on trails you know and love.

OK – the Lakes Circuit in the Kosciusko NP in Australia. Very well-known, very popular.

Under very high pressure from the mountain bike lobby (pedal power) the Parks mgt allowed mountain bikes to have access to this loop. We were nearly skittled a few times by bikers coming downhill with their brakes locked, stones flying, and barely under control. Erosion of the track was swift and bad. Lesson learnt, and bikes were again excluded.

It cost an incredible sum to repair the worst-hit bits of this track and it took years of work. In the end they had to stone-pave the steeper bits as the damage from the bike wheels was just too great. And all this damage was done in just one or two years of biking, after 50+ years of walking had not created such damage.

> the worst trail damage I've ever come across was from dirt bikes.
Yeah, I can agree with that.
Mind you, cattle grazing and horse riding has been just as bad on anything not dead flat. I remember going up a track that was about two feet deep due to cattle and horse once.

Cheers

I put together some thoughts, pictures, and YouTube links. Because posting and formatting here is tedious with longish ramblings, I posted in on my website.

Click Here.

"I put together some thoughts, pictures, and YouTube links."

A very well thought out essay, Nick. The conclusions are hard to disagree with. I hope it leads to further discussion here.

"As I've said before (Nicks link), more than anything I want the mindless blanket rules repealed and management decisions made on a reasonable case by case basis. There are plenty of Wilderness areas and national parks which should allow mountain bikes on some trails. There are crowded, pseudo-urban areas (Tahoe) which will require more intrusive management. California rules shouldn't be applied to Montana, and vice versa."

This sounds to me like a more worthwhile approach to the discussion, because it allows for access where it makes environmental(perhaps also social?) sense, but also seems to concede that some areas should also remain closed to MTB's. How do all you MTBer's feel about this?

As a non MTBer, I will readily admit that my primary concern is MTB's in formally designated wilderness areas and the more pristine national parks, for both environmental and social reasons. Tehy are also a problem for me in less restricted areas close in to Seattle, where I do a lot of day hiking, but there is room for compromise there, IMO. Beyond that, it seems like some equitable compromises could be reached. My preference would be separate trail systems for each mode of travel, as I personally do not feel they are compatible, primarily due to the differences in the speed and attitude with which the two groups generally approach the wilderness. Lest I be perceived as focusing solely on MTBer's, I will go on record yet again as believing that horsepackers cause, by far, the worst damage to protected areas. In non protected areas, my vote would go to dirt bikes and ATV's.

"…it seems like some equitable compromises could be reached. My preference would be separate trail systems for each mode of travel, as I personally do not feel they are compatible, primarily due to the differences in the speed and attitude with which the two groups generally approach the wilderness. Lest I be perceived as focusing solely on MTBer's, I will go on record yet again as believing that horsepackers cause, by far, the worst damage to protected areas."

Very complicated issue. I think there are too many trails already. I prefer not to use trails, unless in an over-used area. It would be expensive to build and maintain two systems. Who pays for that?

"I think there are too many trails already. I prefer not to use trails, unless in an over-used area. It would be expensive to build and maintain two systems. Who pays for that?"

Let some revert to their natural state, divide the remainder by use in some cases, declare them multi use in others, and let the user communities pay for maintenance/contribute labor. Wilderness areas and national parks are a separate issue, and here things do, indeed, get complicated. I don't have any pat answers for them, except to say I think there is a category of national parks and wilderness areas that should be off limits to mechanical means of travel. Period. I include in this category SEKI, North Cascades NP, Mt Rainier NP, and abutting wilderness areas. There are probably more, but these are the ones I am familiar with.

I've got plans to do the Continental Divide bikepacking, and I've got plans to do the Long Trail backpacking. I do both. However, the five minutes of research I've done for the bikepacking trip led me to believe that it was a mountain-bike-only region, unique in it's allowance of MTB use. My trip is a long way off… so consider this Lesson 1.

Learning that this isn't the case seems like a recipe for disaster, to the uneducated me.

If I were making the rules, I'd ban mountain bikes from walking trails completely. As a cyclist, I've noticed two things:

1. I can get my kicks in areas nobody wants to hike in, like small trails on private property and the empty spaces around power lines, etc.

2. Even when I'm on a touring bike looking for a camp spot on the side of the road, my tires tear things up. I don't dare think about extended use on a walking trail- I imagine it's only JUST short of dirtbike damage.

Your humble cycle camper,

Max

I did a long section hike on the AT in VA this weekend and was amazed to see miles of tire tracks in the snow and mud. At every access point for the trail there are signs telling Mtn bikers to keep off yet here and other sections of the AT and PCT I have seen the bikes or evidence of them. I actually would like to see more trails open for bikes and hikes and design the trails to minimize erosion. But there will always be trails that shouldn't be ridden on and when hooligans do, likely to increase their rush, it tarnishes the entire biking community.

Now horses are a different issue. I saw first handle near the PCt mid-point the damage horses can do to a trail. A very nice couple had ridden in and we took a break together. When I hiked north down the trail they came up I was shocked at the damage just two horses could do. There were a lot of downed trees and they took the horses around them tearing up the trail. Moral of the story is that horses don't belong on the trail in the early season with conditions like we had. They should have known better but again they tarnished their whole community.

But getting the horses off the trail will be much harder. Many of trails were built by horseman so there is a historical "right" to use.