Bicycles in Wilderness.....amongst other things??

[neilether]

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:


Thanks!

[Scott P]

There are a number of studies out there that show that Mountain Bikes are no more impactful to trails than hikers

I also bike (road and mountain), but I would disagree with that part. Do you have links to the studies? Overall, mountain bikes definitely do more damage than hikers (especially downhill and in muddy areas), but probably less than horses and much less than motorized travel. Still, I like mountain biking and even 4X4ing (in appropriate areas) as well.

I guess I don't understand why they were banned in the first place.

They were banned before mountain bikes existed. Even in 1984 the sport really didn’t exist yet. Mt Naomi Wilderness was designated before mountain biking really existed.

The problem with changing the wilderness act is that once one group changes it, a number of other groups will want to as well. I also think it would be nice to have more mountain biking areas. When the wilderness act was passed back in 1965, it had overwhelmingly bipartisan support. Now days, congress doesn’t really do anything bipartisan and the act would have never had a chance in today’s political climate. I hate to be pessimistic, but there is no way that the law is going to be changed in the current political climate. One side will want the law to stay how it is and the other side will want it repealed. If the Wilderness Act were changed, it would be shot full of holes, guaranteed.

If there is another land designation similar to wilderness that permits mountain bikes, I think that would be ideal. The BLM and NF does have areas where they do this on a case by case basis. Personally, I feel that mountain bikers and hikers are usually on the same side when it comes to land use opinions and it would be good if it stayed that way.

Around Logan, there are still many single track trails open to mountain bikers. We were just on the trail to Jardine Juniper yesterday, which is just outside the boundary. As far as I know, all trails on the south and east side Logan Canyon are open to mountain bikes.

[neilether]

Do you have links to the studies? Overall, mountain bikes definitely do more damage than hikers (especially downhill and in muddy areas), but probably less than horses and much less than motorized travel. Still, I like mountain biking and even 4X4ing (in appropriate areas) as well

Here is a good discussion on trail impacts from various user groups. Full Disclosure; this is an article put out there by a Mountain Bike advocacy group. There are references to all their claims, and it seems to be fairly objective. :
https://www.imba.com/resources/resea...ountain-biking


Literature review showing Horses are worse than hikers, but inconclusive on mountain biking:
https://www.uvm.edu/~snrvtdc/trails/...ingImpacts.pdf


Here is one from the anti-mountain biking side:
http://www.culturechange.org/mountai...ng_impacts.htm
ironically, the guy that wrote this article was arrested and charged with battery and assault with a deadly weapon when he was involved in an on trail altercation. Not sure if that bears stating, but it's a fun fact nonetheless.

They were banned before mountain bikes existed. Even in 1984 the sport really didn’t exist yet. Mt Naomi Wilderness was designated before mountain biking really existed........Around Logan, there are still many single track trails open to mountain bikers. We were just on the trail to Jardine Juniper yesterday, which is just outside the boundary. As far as I know, all trails on the south and east side Logan Canyon are open to mountain bikes.

This is very true. Mountain biking is a relatively new sport and only kinda sorta existed in 1984.

Logan has a bunch of great trails that are perfectly legal. Jardine is a great example of this whole topic. It is heavily used by horses, hikers, and bikers. The trail is sustainable for all users. When there are erosion, or other problems (of which, the FS has identified a handful that we are working together to fix) they can go up and fix the issues as appropriate.

However, there are a lot of big backcountry routes that are not legal. Two weeks ago, I dropped into the wilderness area right by that bench 2/3 of the way up Jardine Juniper. Besides the fact that they have marked the boundary incorrectly, that "trail" is a disaster. in 1/4 mile there were 12 downed trees. Thorny bushes have encroached the trail to the point where it's hard to even walk on. This is unfortunately fairly common to the more obscure trails in the Logan Wilderness.

Good stuff Scott. Thanks for keeping me honest on the literature references. Let's keep this going.

Just for fun, here is a good video, from the MTB perspective about the recent trail closures in Idaho:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oyy4...utu.be&t=4m40s

[neilether]

If there is another land designation similar to wilderness that permits mountain bikes, I think that would be ideal. The BLM and NF does have areas where they do this on a case by case basis. Personally, I feel that mountain bikers and hikers are usually on the same side when it comes to land use opinions and it would be good if it stayed that way.

It was my understanding the National Monument Status would have still allowed Mountain Bikers on these trails. That's one of the reasons why IMBA was pushing hard for that designation.

[double moo]

in '8

[Sombeech]

Mountain bikers do FAR LESS trail damage than horses, hands down.

With the feeling of peace that comes over one's self as they are in the wilderness because there aren't any mechanized modes of travel (oh yeah, bikes are much more quiet than horses too), as the horsemen can pack many of the comforts of home up into the wilderness because of the payload capacity... They pack in stereos, tablets, nice cameras, nice comfy camp chairs, huge tents, propane stoves.....

Don't get me wrong, I do NOT hate horses, I grew up riding horses in the High Uinta Wilderness. But to allow horses and ANYTHING they can carry into the wilderness, but not allow bicycles because it might let somebody think less of their solitude in the wilderness, I think it's quite ridiculous.

While we are on the subject, what about Drones in the wilderness, as long as I pack it in on my horse, right?

And the airplanes that plant the fish in the high Uinta lakes, I haven't heard any "solitude destroyed" feedback from that act.

And don't get me started on letting the sheep roam anywhere to graze.

I believe it is a bunch of unfair prejudice against Mountain Bikers. But it won't be wild irresponsible folk like me who will make a good spokesperson, it will be a tiny, meek, cute blonde girl mountain biker who will win over the hearts of these prejudice idiots.

My brother and I on one of our many camping trips up into the Uinta Wilderness.

[neilether]

While we are on the subject, what about Drones in the wilderness, as long as I pack it in on my horse, right?

I'm actually not sure how these intricacies of the law work. I know you can't operate a drone in Wilderness, but am not sure about just having one within a wilderness boundary. I've heard of bikers getting ticketed whilst not riding. Just eating lunch around a lake when Ranger Joe ran into them. So, I guess I don't know if it's actually illegal to have a bicycle in Wilderness if there's no proof that you were actually using it for transportation.

Interesting question. Same would go for a chainsaw I suppose. Anybody know?

[neilether]

in '8

You'll have to clarify this comment.

[Sombeech]

.

Interesting question. Same would go for a chainsaw I suppose. Anybody know?

Yeah, it's really inconsistent if they mean to keep "mechanical devices" out of the wilderness. Chainsaws, battery powered air pumps for the sleeping mattress, radios, cell phones... each of these things are noisy, and most of them are packed on every horseback camping trip to the wilderness area.

[double moo]

9...

I wrote a whole stinking response about mountain binking in the erly '80s when they hadn't yet outlawed biking in wilderness areas (technically the law said no - but the USFS wasn't enforcing while they considered the issue)... lost it in the post function... operator error...

[Cliff Walker]

The original bill did not address biking.
Two interest groups, the Sierra Club and Wilderness Society, lobbied Congress for the amendment to ban mountain biking -- at a time when the sport was in its infancy and there were no advocates to counteract those organizations' efforts.
The history of biking in the mountains actually goes back a century; it is not incompatible with wilderness.
I think the Act should be amended to remove the added language banning bikes -- reverted to the original bill -- and land managers should be allowed whether to allow it in particular areas and on particular trails.

[Scott P]

Chainsaws, battery powered air pumps for the sleeping mattress, radios, cell phones... each of these things are noisy, and most of them are packed on every horseback camping trip to the wilderness area.

FYI: Chainsaws aren't allowed in wilderness.

[Painted Horse]

Yes any trail clearing has to be done by hand. Axe, Bow Saw etc. Chainsaws will get you a ticket.

I'm not sure that I believe the comment that horses do more damage than bikes. I've ridden trails where at some point, horses go right and bikes/hikers go left and the two trails rejoin down line after crossing some sort of obstacle. Usually a fence or water crossing. It has always impressed me how wide the trail is where multi-use is allowed and how narrow the trail gets once they separate and it's Horses only. I've also watched the Bonneville Shoreline trail change over the years. For years the trail remained pretty constant, but as bikers have become more prevalant, deep ruts have developed. Of course that is more a matter of people staying off wet trails. The bike tires make downhill tracks that the water follows encouraging erosion. If horses use muddy trails, They make post holes where they step, which creates a very rough trail So both groups need to be careful of when they use trails.

Most mountain bikers I've met on the trail have been very courteous. I have no problem sharing the trails with bikers.

I do use my horses to reach remote areas of the mountain west. It's my sole purpose for owning horses. I don't rope or rodeo, I trail ride to see remote areas, and I use them to help pack out the deer/elk I harvest in the fall. The fact that I can carry more in that a back packer or biker, allows me to do some trail maintenance.. I've hauled shovels/picks/sledge hammers in and rebuilt trails. In areas where allowed, I've taken in chain saws and removed blowdown trees that were blocking the trail. The Forest Service doesn't seem to care about keeping lessor used trails open, So it's up to the public to do that kind of work. And having horses in the back country helps me to do that kind of work. Now if I could get you bikers to clear the branches up to 8 foot high, I would get hit in the face less often.

https://youtu.be/VQjyNh20Gno

[neilether]

Former International Mountain Bike Assocation (IMBA) chairman officially joins the Sustainable Trails Coalition (STC). He explains his points of view in an open letter here:


http://www.bikemag.com/news/john-bli...rjRi7VktmfQ.97

[neilether]

Utah is leading the charge apparently. Very interesting.

http://velonews.competitor.com/2016/...-access_414913

I'd still love to hear more dissenting opinion on the "Bicycles in Wilderness" debate. Any out there. Genuinely curious in hearing the other side from forum members.