Officials at Big Bend National Park in Texas want to know what you think of a plan to develop a multi-use trail backcountry trail, one whose primary mission would be to accommodate mountain bikers.
Already the International Mountain Bicycling Association is trying to rally its troops, sending out an "action alert" that contains a letter supporters can copy and send off to Big Bend officials who are working on an environmental assessment (EA) that will examine the project.
While the National Park Service is taking public comments through September 20 to see what the EA should consider, this project seems greased. After all, creating a mountain bike trail in Big Bend a year ago was "certified" as a Centennial Initiative project even though the Park Service was still in the middle of a five-year study examining the propriety of mountain bike trails in the National Park System beyond current practices, which limit mountain bike use to existing paved and unpaved roads in the parks.
And back in June the director of the National Park Service, Mary Bomar, attended IMBA's World Summit and suggested that there be a special "parks edition" mountain bike.
The proposed trail in Big Bend would start near the visitor center at Panther Junction and run roughly 5 miles in a loop, crossing the Chihuahuan desert and wrapping Lone Mountain while providing sweeping views of the Chisos Mountains, the southern-most mountain range in the country. The trail would be roughly 5 feet wide because of the need to accommodate mountain bikes. It would not cross into recommended wilderness in the park.
Big Bend officials have scheduled some public meetings to discuss this project. They are set for September 10 from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. at the Brewster County Community Center in Study Butte, Texas, and September 11 from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. at the Sul Ross State University - Espino Conference Center.
To provide comments and identify issues for consideration, visit the National Park Service Planning, Environment and Public Comment (PEPC) website during the comment period. Or, you can submit written comments to: Superintendent, P.O. Box 129, Big Bend National Park, Texas, 79834.
Support Essential Coverage of Essential Places
Comments
Barky;
You raise a very good point:
You're right - on moderate topography it is relatively practical to build wide tracks, without extensive "road-building". Big Bend might be such a place. Easy terrain also lets us use multiple routes, 'wherever', almost at will (perhaps allowing for separate walking & biking trails.
But in rugged country, there is often only one route that can be used, and to make 60 inch track-bed on steep slopes would involve heavy engineering. Indeed, it is common to see evidence along Olympic Nat'l Park trails, that even the original 18 inch tread was excess for the conditions.
(Mike - I think a possible/partial antidote to 5-foot tracks might be to make bike-trails one-way. Then bikes don't have to have 'clearance-width' when they meet.)
Ted et al,
I just don't know enough about the topography of the proposed trail sites to weigh in on the width issue. I know of a number of state parks that have narrow multi-use trails, including some trails in the GW National Forest in Maryland and Virginia (not a park, of course), and most of the state parks permit bikes on the trails provided there's been no rain in the previous 48 hours (a good rule). On such trails I worry more about horses than anything else. As someone noted earlier, the dangers are quite real.
As for the fun of MTB being in the adrenaline high, I agree in part -- nothing like a screaming downhill. That said, some of the most fun I have biking comes from a nice rolling ride through the spectacular scenery just as the sun starts to drop or rise. Red Rocks in Vegas and Saguaro near Tuscon come to mind. And as I get older, it's likely that that kind of fun will be more and more in my future (sigh).
I do think that there's merit to the slippery slope concern. I agree it's a logical fallacy in a vacuum, and I also agree that it is a big leap from a bicycle to a 4-stroke, but stranger things have happened. But the park systems rely in part on serious people who care about the parks (such as those represented here), and I feel safe in assuming that such persons would be vigilant for any such leaps.
That's really the thrust of the issue for me: anytime you post rules in the parks you rely to a large extent on the goodwill and respect of the public to ensure compliance. My own experience in this regard has been quite good -- for every irresponsible or thoughtless person there is a dozen who are there to stop the damaging behavior or notify the rangers. And, not to be a polyanna, but part of me likes relying on that -- yet another reason why I love the parks.
What a neat site -- if only the dialogue in DC were this civil and substantive ...