The inevitable bike legalization of the JMT

"My question to you is: Why do you, a quintessential lover of wild places, advocate introducing mechanical means of transportation into areas where the creators of our wilderness preserves, most especially our national parks, never intended them to be? It just doesn't compute, Dave, from what I have learned about you here on BPL."

A well put question, Tom, and one I appreciate you asking.

As I hope I've stated, my own opinions on mountain bikes in Wilderness and wilderness are decidedly mixed. What bugs me and motivates me to keep stirring the pot is that the debate is so often reduced to what I see as knee-jerk statements like "the creators of our wilderness…never intended them to be" (forgive me the ellipses). I don't see the necessary connection between "alternative" (read: non-hiking) modes of transport and any violation of the spirit in which our juridically protected wild lands were created. I'm perfectly open to discussions as to why bikes, or any other use, might be a bad thing in this day and age, but can find little patience for ideological arguments and attacks. The subject is simply too grave.

For example: why not put a singletrack on the Esplanade? Lay it out well and you'd have a bike trail touching nothing but sandstone. If the environmental objections could be dealt with, what objection remains but base prejudice?

To put it another way: transport Muir, TR, and Bob Marshall to the present day and at least 2 of the 3 would have a very robust interest in shredding singletrack, hucking cornices, and running rapids. The notion that intimacy with wild places can only be achieved via some quintuagenarian hagiographic contemplative fantasy is not only offensive, it is (much worse) historically without base.

"Those long, cold Montana winters do strange things to a man, Tom. Next thing you know Dave will be advocating to make it legal to ride his grizzly bear in the HOV lane."

LOL Sounds like the makings of a Robert Service ballad: "Strange things are done, 'neath the Montana sun, by the men who ride the bears…."

One thing for sure, he wouldn't have any trouble getting hikers to yield the right of way.

So this what this thread looks like on my iPhone. It is more important that RJ fix this than us debating wilderness and bikes.

LOL Nick. You think my heritage is a coincidence?

"When you see bikies coming down a hill towards you, with their back wheel locked up so they are digging a groove in the friable mountain soil…"

Skilled cyclists don't skid. Holding up backpackers who leave burnt food tins and beer cans in a fire ring isn't a good way to construct a robust argument either.

Wilderness Act of 1964
section 4(c)

Prohibition of Certain Uses

Except as specifically provided for in this Act, and subject to existing private rights, there shall be no commercial enterprise and no permanent road within any wilderness area designated by this Act and, except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of this Act (including measures required in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the area), there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any such area.

Dave, I'd argue that bikes clearly falls under the auspices of "mechanical transport." Skis, snowshoes, packrafts, do not. In 50 years perhaps someone will have invented the successor to the bicycle which allows for an even more efficient form of mechanical transport – and it will be banned under the original text of the act, just as bicycles are now. How can one argue that is not part of the intention of the original Act? The fact that mountain biking was not a popular sport in 1964 is, by my account, irrelevant to the discussion and does not diminish the original purpose of the law.

Edit for blockquote for readability.

Wow French ladies Nick! Lucky you! That's some high class targeted advertising!

The all knowing all seeing internet has such low expectations of me that it keeps suggesting that I need a Sugar Momma to take care of me here at BPL.

For the record, I love my wife.

Also for the record, if a Sugar Momma wants to adopt me and pay my bills while I take a sabbatical to hike the PCT… (no apologies for ellipses #beastmode), well I'm all ears.

I think everyone knows where I stand in the discourse.

Dave C, does enjoy stirring the pot. So don't assume anything he posts in this thread is not 'tongue in cheek.'

And interesting quote, that I don't agree with, but does hit home here in this conversation:

“A man on foot, on horseback or on a bicycle will see more, feel more, enjoy more in one mile than the motorized tourists can in a hundred miles.”

– Edward Abbey

Here is another interesting quote that I like…

"Within a mile of the river we started running into hordes of river runners dayhiking up to see the scenery, fish, and in one case run the lower narrows in a creek boat. I’m not against motorized-access float trips per se, but there can be no question that such easy accessibility degrades the wilderness character, and it remains a curious thing that the trailhead of your Grand Canyon backpack has a decent chance of seeing fewer people in a calender year than the point farthest in mileage from it. No good solution exists, but it does put down my enthusiasm for the place, somewhat."

– Dave Chenault

"To put it another way: transport Muir, TR, and Bob Marshall to the present day and at least 2 of the 3 would have a very robust interest in shredding singletrack, hucking cornices, and running rapids. The notion that intimacy with wild places can only be achieved via some quintuagenarian hagiographic contemplative fantasy is not only offensive, it is (much worse) historically without base."

And you know this is true because…

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/107-hypothesis-contrary-to-fact

Edit: Also, I'm curious to learn how it is historically without base seeing as mountain bikes are still relatively fairly new to the outdoor world.

"Wow French ladies Nick! Lucky you! That's some high class targeted advertising!"

Sometimes I get ads for "Road Kill T-shirts" with a picture of a buxom lady in a T-shirt. And other times it is save money by installing solar, with no provocative pictures.

"What bugs me and motivates me to keep stirring the pot is that the debate is so often reduced to what I see as knee-jerk statements like "the creators of our wilderness…never intended them to be" (forgive me the ellipses)."

Do you seriously think Muir and TR would be into "shredding single tracks"? It sure doesn't track with any Muir or TR that I've ever read. Marshall I can't speak to, but if you lump him with the other two, I've got a pretty strong hunch he'd be shredding those single tracks solo, and drinking alone at the campfire afterward. ;)

The creators of our protected wildernesses specifically intended them to remain untrammeled by man, which MTBing most certainly does not do. The visual evidence to the contrary is overwhelming, no matter what specious studies purport to find.

" I don't see the necessary connection between "alternative" (read: non-hiking) modes of transport and any violation of the spirit in which our juridically protected wild lands were created."

The connection lies in the damage they leave in their wake, pure and simple, not to mention the disruption of others' enjoyment they cause due to the difference in the relative speeds of bikers and hikers. Speaking of MTB's here, but not limited to them as new toys come on the scene. Skateboards, anyone? How about rollerblades? As for the spirit in which our wildernesses were created, if you cannot see the violation involved in permitting MTB's, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. My own sense is that Muir is turning over in his grave as I type, but that is just my understanding of Muir.

"I'm perfectly open to discussions as to why bikes, or any other use, might be a bad thing in this day and age,"

Isn't your argument ideological as well? We are all arguing from a values based perspective; yours just happens to be diametrically opposed to most that of most backpackers here.

"but can find little patience for ideological arguments and attacks. The subject is simply too grave."

And I have little inherent patience with denigrating remarks like "knee-jerk statements" when directed at me, but decided to let it pass in the spirit of keeping the conversation on track; so maybe you could also exercise a little patience with those of us who disagree with you in turn? We all feel passionately about the subject, and if we are to keep the conversation civil and productive, a little patience on all our parts would be well advised.

"The subject is simply too grave."

A point on which I'm sure we all agree. :))

"Do you seriously think Muir and TR would be into "shredding single tracks"? It sure doesn't track with any Muir or TR that I've ever read. Marshall I can't speak to, but if you lump him with the other two, I've got a pretty strong hunch he'd be shredding those single tracks solo, and drinking alone at the campfire afterward. ;)"

Well, Marhsall wanted to make all of northern Alaska (north of Fairbanks) Wilderness and had a penchant for hiking so I think he'd be joining Muir and Thoreau in your statement. Nonetheless, its obviously all speculative.

A bike on the trail "could" impact a trail less than a hiker.
Does it? No.

However, a horse impacts a trail 100 times greater than a bike.
Horses don't just move some dirt around. They dig deep trenches and pummel what's left into poop laden dust.

I would love to replace the amount of horses I see for bikes.
If bikes were allowed the real number would not work.

What I really want is to just be able to bring my dogs out there with me.

I think they would legalize dogs before bikes and I don't see the inevitable bike legalization of the JMT for a long time to come.

Skis are machines invented to make human travel easier and faster. The categorical side of this question seems pretty basic.

Tom (and anyone else whose mind might not be made on this point), I'd encourage you to think of the John Muir who climbed ponderosa pines to get closer to lightning storms, and bivvied in the steam vents on Shasta. I'd encourage you to think of the TR who rode a hundred miles a day for weeks straight hunting bison and Grizzlies while he was running Elkhorn, or who went on a poorly conceived, nearly fatal decent on an unmapped Amazon tributary after his presidency. I'd encourage you to think of the Bob Marshall who did 50+ mile dayhikes for no particular reason, and nearly died running a rain swollen stream in the Brooks Range. Or Ed Abbey (gumby hiker that he was) nearly getting himself stuck in a slot tributary of Havasu Creek.

There's a pretty robust correlation between being one of the leading intellectual contributors to how we think about wilderness today and wanting to have a regular and as visceral as possible intimacy with said place. In my mind it's axiomatic that adding gravity-powered locomotion to foot travel facilitates this.

I completely agree with Dave C. on this!

But I'm biased because my backpacks and trail runners share a gear room with bikes, skis, oars, and paddles.

I guess I need to get that JMT application in the works before its "ruined" by bikes. Please.

Let's ban 21' oar boats, AT skis, and mules from the wilderness while we are at it;) Leopold's and TR's mule train today would be a salsa fat bike loaded down for 2 weeks in Gila.

Is it only Californians who can't share trails even with a permit?

"Is it only Californians who can't share trails even with a permit?"

I think it's disingenuous to suggest that opposition to antisocial behavior makes someone unwilling to "share".

I am delighted to share the trail with anyone who
(a) Does not deposit faeces, or at least cleans up afterwards;
(b) Travels at a speed that does not risk causing serious injury to other users.

I'm not opposed to horses or bikes at all, in principle. Neither cause noise pollution. But I think horse users should be obliged to clean up their shit on shared trails; and bike riders should be obliged to ride at a safe speed on shared trails. If they are not willing to do this – well, it's not me who's being antisocial and unwilling to share.

As a mountain biker, I have to say that shared hiking trails make TERRIBLE biking trails. No sense of flow, people to disrupt your ride and dogs to worry about (take that peaceful hikers!), usually straight up or straight down. Plus those hikers walk around all the mud and widen the trail.

As a hiker, I have to say that shared mountain biking trails are TERRIBLE hiking trails. Lots of pointless twists and turns, no views, no real destination. Lots of crazy bikers bombing down hill ready to run me over and ruin my peaceful hike (take that crazy mountain bikers!). Plus those mountain bikers skid and rut up the trail.

When I go mountain biking, it's on trails built by mountain bikers meant for mountain biking. They are hard packed, well maintained by local trail builders and purpose built for it.

When I go hiking, it's on generally poorly maintained muddy, rocky, trails that are challenging and peaceful. The whole shared use concept is just a poor compromise, I'd rather stick to purpose built trails and areas. I like the wilderness wild and free of bikes and I like my local parks fun and open to well built trails.

"quintuagenarian hagiographic contemplative fantasy" this is the best phrase I've read in a long time.

From the Wilderness Act:

“A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.”

Sure … this is somewhat legislative legalese but it is a good start.

SO tell me, what is untrammeled about this?

Even without bikes.

Granted, I wouldn't be pleased to have a biker come around a blind corner out of control (control being defined as being able to avoid any obstacle you encounter, including me).

Horses? I have only a little experience with meeting them on trail … just not popular where I hike most. But the deer, moose and bears that leave scat on the trail … get them to LNT training!

What we value as wilderness ("we" includes myself) is really a somewhat artificial construct. Who among us would be willing would refuse a SAR helicopter evac if we found ourselves with a compound fracture in our favorite "wilderness area"? Who among us is willing to head out and survive on our foraging skills?

I value our protected somewhat wild areas as much as most folks here and I will spend time, effort and (gasp) $$ to help defend them … but at the end of a long hard day on trail I still realized that in truth … I'm just a poser in search of therapy in the outdoors. Still perfectly happy to retreat to my hydrocarbon burning horseless carriage and natural gas heated home at the end of the trek.

Mike, I agree completely. I'm mostly a hiker now, but I've been an avid biker in the past, and they just don't mix well. If you share trails, you need to impose speed limits on the bikes, and I just don't see that working. I think the best solution is either dedicated bike trails or alternate use periods – and I think hikers have to be prepared to give up more walking trails for bike use in proportion to demand. As a hiker, I'd certainly be happy to give up more trails to dedicated bike use in exchange for the certainty that bikers won't come charging around blind corners at me on other dedicated hiking trails.

I think the relative amount of damage that's caused is relatively unimportant. Neither bikes, horses or hikers are totally annihilating the environment as (say) heavy off-road ATV use would. If a large proportion of the public want to use the wilderness for biking or riding horses, and this requires more trail maintenance, well so be it – let's have increased public financing for trail maintenance.

The problem, for me, arises with antisocial behavior from horses and bikes on shared use trails. Excessive shit on the trail is not a problem on a dedicated bridleway – but I think there's a burden to either clean up shit or limit horse use to moderate levels on shared trails. Similarly, riding a MTB at 20mph around a blind corner is unreasonably dangerous to others on a shared-use trail, but becomes just a technical judgement call on a one-way dedicated MTB trail.

"Horses? I have only a little experience with meeting them on trail … just not popular where I hike most. But the deer, moose and bears that leave scat on the trail … get them to LNT training!"

Animal shit is a quantitative problem. Wild animals shit fairly randomly, and a little of it ends up on the trail (perhaps a little more than a random amount, if a bear happens to follow a trail). Horses shit ONLY on the trail (except what goes into streams when they stop for a drink and poop at the same time). If it's a moderate amount, it degrades relatively quickly, and it's not a problem. The problem arises when you have a hundred horses or more horses a day. In some parts of the Sierras in peak season, you literally have to step off the trail to avoid it because the trail is continuously covered in shit.

How fast MTB would be going on the JMT bombing down from the passes. Having been nearly run over by an a-hole on a MTB on the PCT I would really be disappointed to see the JMT become a scary place. But I guess there would always be early season with hundred plus miles of snow. It would reduce the bikes.

If a large proportion of the public want to use the wilderness for biking or riding horses, and this requires more trail maintenance, well so be it – let's have increased public financing for trail maintenance.

Brief pause while I mount my soap box:

How about if we put some of our own skin into the game. We have a 300 mile trail in MN, the Superior Hiking Trail (SHT). If congress will get off their arses and approve the "Arrowhead reroute", SHT (and three other existing trails) will become part of the North Country Trail. Hikers I've met from other parts of the country all rave about what good shape the trail is in.

While the trail association does receive the occasional grant from the the state taxpayers (mainly in the form of x number of days worked by MN Conservation Corps crews), the trail is mostly built and maintained by two paid employees plus a very large boatload of volunteers. The trail association's budget is largely financed by membership dues, individual donations and now&then grants from foundations and friendly businesses.

I'm super lucky. The area I used to hike back home had trails that were shared by horses and hikers. As a hiker – that sucks. But, you live with it. Then, a few years ago they began a "shared use" program which then also allowed MBs. So, many trails in the Big South Fork are now trampled by horses, bikes, and hikers. This is the East so we have A LOT of dirt and 40in of rain annually. You can imagine what the trails look like.

Fight long. Fight hard. Keep MBs and horses out of your big W or little w wilderness places. Being called a curmudgeon is only a small price to pay for nice trails. :)

Ryan

SO tell me, what is untrammeled about this?

That certainly is untrammeled. Animals are free to roam. The small path is no impediment.

Untrammeled does not mean LNT.

Untrampled, maybe?