neilether
09-28-2015, 07:56 AM
Hey Everybody,
FIrst things first, I am an avid mountain biker so clearly my opinion on this topic is biased. Other forums to which I subscribe are mountain bike-centric so they share my same opinion and bias. I am posting here not seeking a fight or venom, but am genuinely curious to get a broader opinion on the matter.
Some technical details: in 1960-something, the Wilderness bill was signed into law. It prohibited "motorized" vehicles in National Wilderness Areas. This wording was changed in 1984 to prohibit "mechanized" implements within wilderness areas. This of course includes mountain bikes, but also deer carts, chainsaw, strollers, wheel chairs, hanggliders, etc.
I live in Logan, and am only a couple of minutes walk from the edge of the Mt. Naomi Wilderness Area. I consider this a blessing and a curse. All but the most popular trails within Wilderness areas have fallen into general disrepair. Around here, the Mountain Bikers and Motos, and equestrians with Chainsaws do all the trail clearing and maintenance as the Forest Service is severely undermanned. This lack of manpower is exacerbated considering that chainsaws can't be used (legally....) in Wilderness Areas. So, it seems a self-fulfilling prophecy that many of the off the beaten path trails will eventually disappear.
There are a number of spectacular backcountry routes in Logan that bicycles can access more efficiently than hikers that we could help maintain and keep open and clear, but are not allowed to do so legally. Not many people are willing to put in the effort to access these trails, and that's one of the reasons why we like them. They do offer a sense of solitude and incredible "one-ness" with nature. This isn't diminished by the fact that I got there on a bicycle vs. on foot or on a horses feet.
To further twist the knife, a recent Wilderness Designation in Central Idaho shut down 2 of the most incredible bike trails in the entirety of the U.S. Interestingly enough, they did this at the expense of a National Monument Status that would have protected a land area that was more than double the size of the Wilderness Area that was passed, albeit with a lesser level of protection.
There are a number of studies out there that show that Mountain Bikes are no more impactful to trails than hikers, and less so than horses. I guess I don't understand why they were banned in the first place. There doesn't seem to be sufficient evidence to put out a blanket ban.
There is a group now that is trying to gain funds to lobby congress in behalf of the mountain bike community. They are not seeking blanket allowance in all wilderness areas. They are seeking permission for local land managers to be able to make those types of decisions on a case by case basis. This would include mountain bikes, baby strollers, wheel chairs, etc. They are also seeking allowance, under special use permit, for FS employees and volunteer groups to use wheel barrows, chainsaws, etc. to do periodic trail maintenance.
To be clear, I do not think that new trails should be built all over the place in designated National Wilderness Areas, but I do think that local land managers that actually have boots on the ground should be able to assess and make decisions about the use of the land they are responsible for. I absolutely believe that a human powered bicycle fits the spirit of the wilderness designation and belongs in the backcountry.
As I said, I'm clearly biased in my views as I truly love the backcountry and want to be able to access it on my bike. I'm in a sticky position where even though I truly believe in Wilderness designation and preserving our land from future development, I can't support these designations as-is. I'm genuinely curious to hear the broader view on this topic. Let's keep it civil and express our opinions.
A view that is now forever lost to Mountain Bikers:
http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h206/neilether/Antz%20Basin%2002_zps9usht6li.jpg (http://s65.photobucket.com/user/neilether/media/Antz%20Basin%2002_zps9usht6li.jpg.html)
Thanks!
FIrst things first, I am an avid mountain biker so clearly my opinion on this topic is biased. Other forums to which I subscribe are mountain bike-centric so they share my same opinion and bias. I am posting here not seeking a fight or venom, but am genuinely curious to get a broader opinion on the matter.
Some technical details: in 1960-something, the Wilderness bill was signed into law. It prohibited "motorized" vehicles in National Wilderness Areas. This wording was changed in 1984 to prohibit "mechanized" implements within wilderness areas. This of course includes mountain bikes, but also deer carts, chainsaw, strollers, wheel chairs, hanggliders, etc.
I live in Logan, and am only a couple of minutes walk from the edge of the Mt. Naomi Wilderness Area. I consider this a blessing and a curse. All but the most popular trails within Wilderness areas have fallen into general disrepair. Around here, the Mountain Bikers and Motos, and equestrians with Chainsaws do all the trail clearing and maintenance as the Forest Service is severely undermanned. This lack of manpower is exacerbated considering that chainsaws can't be used (legally....) in Wilderness Areas. So, it seems a self-fulfilling prophecy that many of the off the beaten path trails will eventually disappear.
There are a number of spectacular backcountry routes in Logan that bicycles can access more efficiently than hikers that we could help maintain and keep open and clear, but are not allowed to do so legally. Not many people are willing to put in the effort to access these trails, and that's one of the reasons why we like them. They do offer a sense of solitude and incredible "one-ness" with nature. This isn't diminished by the fact that I got there on a bicycle vs. on foot or on a horses feet.
To further twist the knife, a recent Wilderness Designation in Central Idaho shut down 2 of the most incredible bike trails in the entirety of the U.S. Interestingly enough, they did this at the expense of a National Monument Status that would have protected a land area that was more than double the size of the Wilderness Area that was passed, albeit with a lesser level of protection.
There are a number of studies out there that show that Mountain Bikes are no more impactful to trails than hikers, and less so than horses. I guess I don't understand why they were banned in the first place. There doesn't seem to be sufficient evidence to put out a blanket ban.
There is a group now that is trying to gain funds to lobby congress in behalf of the mountain bike community. They are not seeking blanket allowance in all wilderness areas. They are seeking permission for local land managers to be able to make those types of decisions on a case by case basis. This would include mountain bikes, baby strollers, wheel chairs, etc. They are also seeking allowance, under special use permit, for FS employees and volunteer groups to use wheel barrows, chainsaws, etc. to do periodic trail maintenance.
To be clear, I do not think that new trails should be built all over the place in designated National Wilderness Areas, but I do think that local land managers that actually have boots on the ground should be able to assess and make decisions about the use of the land they are responsible for. I absolutely believe that a human powered bicycle fits the spirit of the wilderness designation and belongs in the backcountry.
As I said, I'm clearly biased in my views as I truly love the backcountry and want to be able to access it on my bike. I'm in a sticky position where even though I truly believe in Wilderness designation and preserving our land from future development, I can't support these designations as-is. I'm genuinely curious to hear the broader view on this topic. Let's keep it civil and express our opinions.
A view that is now forever lost to Mountain Bikers:
http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h206/neilether/Antz%20Basin%2002_zps9usht6li.jpg (http://s65.photobucket.com/user/neilether/media/Antz%20Basin%2002_zps9usht6li.jpg.html)
Thanks!