Spend time poking around the International Mountain Bicycling Association’s website and you might start to wonder about the group’s thoughts regarding pedaling in proposed wilderness and officially designated wilderness. After all, head over to their “frequently asked questions’ and you’ll find the following position regarding “Wild Places.”
Are Bicycles Appropriate in Wild Places?
Yes, bicycling is a human-powered, low-impact, quiet form of travel compatible with wild places and the intent of the Wilderness Act. There are instances where bicycling may not be feasible or appropriate. Some trails in proposed Wilderness areas are too rugged or steep for our use. On some national trails, such as the Appalachian Trail, IMBA respects the prohibition of bicycles. In other cases, trails should be closed to all forms of recreation (hiking, bicycling, horse use, etc.) when sensitive plants, wildlife or weather-related seasonal conditions are present.
In light of IMBA’s desire to see more mountain biking opportunities in national parks and in seeing that more than a few national parks – such as Yellowstone and Great Smoky Mountains – have thousands and thousands of acres they treat as wilderness, but which are not officially designated wilderness – I decided some clarification was needed. So I contacted Mark Eller, IMBA’s communications director.
The bottom line, Mr. Eller assured me, was that IMBA has no designs on lobbying for bike trails into proposed wilderness in the parks and would probably support official wilderness designation of those landscapes.
“If we’re looking at an area where there are no existing bike trails, chances are very good we would support that wilderness designation,” he told me Friday. “We really just want to look at it on a case-by-case basis.”
That said, IMBA wouldn’t mind a change in the language pertaining to what type of equipment can be taken into a wilderness area. For instance, rather than the current prohibition against “mechanical” devices, Mr. Eller said his organization would prefer official wilderness and wilderness study areas be off-limits to “motorized” vehicles, something a mountain bike decidedly is not.
For now IMBA is not, however, lobbying for such a change.
“We’re willing to discuss it with our partners. But as far as wilderness goes, there’s no campaign to change that in wilderness right now,” said Mr. Eller.
Specifically regarding mountain bike access in the parks, the spokesman said that where the National Park Service believes mountain bike trails likely would be inappropriate, IMBA probably would not push to see biking trails. Yellowstone, he said, is one park where the organization “would not be pursuing a bike system.”
Overall, Mr. Eller said it’s important to the organization that biking be a good fit with a park.
“We don’t think that one size fits all works very well for us,” he said. “We work with the park staff and with local mountain bike advocates and look for areas that would be good opportunities to add mountain bike trails.”
Support Essential Coverage of Essential Places
Comments
Such a nonsensical argument. About we ban all hiking and make biking mandatory? How would you feel about it? Bottom line, the government should not be deciding what activity is best for us as long as said activity does not impact negatively the parks. And just because you enjoy the trails on foot does not mean that I have to.
Exactly where is it written that hiking is the only acceptable form of access to our public lands? Also, where is that data that shows that hiking has absolutely no negative impact on the environment, and offends no one?
You hiking purists need to come down from your lofty perches and realize that your mode of access to our national lands could be banned just as easily as biking, and for all the same reasons. How would you like it if your foot-bound access was suddenly stripped from you? Would you embrace it as “good for the environment”, and just hike away? Doubtful.
You hate all motorized access, and you are successfully banning that. You also hate any and every form of mechanical device used for public land access, and are attempting to ban those as well. Are snowshoes next on your agenda?
How long before the fickle finger of fate swings in your direction, and all human access is prohibited? It will probably occur within the span of our lifetimes, sadly…
Whoa, that's an awfully big brush you're swinging, Dapster.
I don't recall anyone saying that hiking is the only acceptable form of access to public lands. Indeed, as I've pointed out numerous times there are thousands and thousands of acres on national forests and across the BLM empire where mountain bikes are more than welcome. And, there also are more than 40 parks where there are mountain bike trails to varying degrees.
Beyond that, I and others have pointed out that we like both activities.
But why is it necessary that all recreational activities be permitted in national parks? Put another way, must the national parks be open to any and all activities simply because there's a support group that wants access?
The Forest Service and BLM are multiple-use agencies. It's written in their missions that they are to manage their landscapes for different activities, whether they involve logging, mining, or recreation. The national parks are to be managed to preserve/conserve the landscape unimpaired for future generations, and for public enjoyment, but not necessarily for multiple use.
And, as another pointed out, mountain bike enthusiasts are not being banned from backcountry trails in the parks. At the current time they just can't ride their bikes on them.
Kurt,
Broad brush cleaned and put away. My comments were aimed at some of the other posters, and certainly not at the author. Sorry if I was unclear on that. No offense intended.
My point is parallel to this one brought up by Zebulon:
And counter to comments like this:
It was certainly implied by other posters, on this and similar threads, that hiking is the only access they want to see in the National Parks. I think that is clearly evident. I just don't see much difference from an environmental impact standpoint between the two, and dislike seeing mountain bikes and their riders demonized.
I also am not advocating that we start opening motocross trails and such just because there are advocacy groups for them either. I just personally think that mountain bikes are a totally acceptable mode of transportation within our National Parks, and are as environmentally benign as hiking. I agree with you that the management issue would not be easy, but should we deny this group a chance at coexistence?
I really hope that biking can and will be accommodated within the park system, within reason and limits, and that an agreement can be reached that will make most people on both sides of the issue happy.
"And, as another pointed out, mountain bike enthusiasts are not being banned from backcountry trails in the parks. At the current time they just can't ride their bikes on them"
This is a completely disingenuous argument, and you know it. It's been answered before, so we won't go into it again. It only shows that the opposition to cycling is visceral and not based on sound rational arguments.
At Point Reyes Nat Seashore you can bike to a point on the Bear Valley trail, as at that point, 1/4 mile from the ocean, it becomes wilderness. I have seen a fire truck go beyond that point, on that trail that my bike cannot, and they cut trees alongside the trail so the fire truck could continue. There is no way things like that should happen. I bet that truck had the impact of thousands of bikes. One problem I have is I cannot hike very far, but I can ride much farther because of knee damage. I am not handicapped in the legal sense of the word, but I wish I could go to places I cannot hike to with my bike.
Who wrote that grayed box that says bikes are low impact and are compatible with wild places and the intent of the Wilderness Act? Does the Park Service really believe that mtn bikes are appropriate in wilderness as long as it isn't too rugged or steep? Since when?
Richard, the box you refer to came from a page on IMBA's web site regarding frequently asked questions and wilderness areas.