A freeze on new regulations proposed in the waning days of the Bush administration puts in limbo a number of rules and actions that affect national parks. One pending rule, for instance, could greatly expand mountain biking in the parks.
The Obama administration on Tuesday announced a freeze on publication of all proposed and final rules in the Federal Register until they are reviewed by an agency or department head appointed by the new administration.
Benefiting from this freeze are gray wolves in the Northern Rockies surrounding Yellowstone National Park and Grand Teton National Park. The Bush administration recently had lifted Endangered Species Act protection for the canids, saying they were sufficiently recovered. Conservation groups, however, have argued that there is not enough genetic diversity to maintain a healthy wolf population in the region.
The bid to make it easier for individual park superintendents to expand mountain bike opportunities was published December 18 in the Federal Register by the Interior Department. Since the change is open to 60 days of public comment, it has not yet been finalized and so possibly could be held up by the freeze.
Conservation groups maintain that the proposed rule could lead mountain bikers down hiking trails and into lands that are either proposed for or are eligible for wilderness designation. But International Mountain Bicycling Association officials have said the proposal merely makes it easier for parks where mountain bikes make sense to allow their use
At Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, though, officials interpret the proposed rule as much more egregious, saying it could open thousands of miles of existing national park trails to mountain bikes. And Wilderness Society officials said the proposed rule change would degrade the Park Service's conservation ethic by creating user conflicts on trails and eroding the landscape.
The current rule requires that designation of routes open to bicycles outside of developed (and special use) zones must be accomplished by promulgation of a special regulation for an individual park. IMBA wants to change this requirement, saying it's too cumbersome and requires a fair amount of redundancy when it comes to NPS officials signing off on the proposed change.
Under the Bush administration proposal, the promulgation of a special rule would no longer be necessary, except for as-yet-constructed trails. Thus, for thousands of miles of existing trails in what we call park "backcountry," a special rule would no longer be needed if the proposed rule took effect.
Now, to be fair, the NPS proposal does prescribe a process for designation of such trails as open to bicycles – although a less rigorous process than the one now in place.
Another concern of some groups is that the proposed rule appears to allow the designation of trails as open to bicycles even where they lie in areas formally recommended as wilderness by the president to Congress, or proposed by the NPS director to the Interior secretary, or the Interior secretary to the president. This class of lands, in the lower 48 States, amounts to approximately 8 million acres.
And yet, despite the current rule pertaining to mountain biking, which has been in effect since 1987, some parks have designated trails open to bicycles outside of developed zones -- such as in backcountry areas -- without a special rule.
Support Essential Coverage of Essential Places
Comments
It'll be interesting to see what happens. Will Obama cater to the very liberal wing of the party (i.e. your typical Sierra Club bike hater) or will he be more centrist in his approach (i.e. recognize that the rule simply transfers decision making power to the local park)?
I hope they're banned. The damage done by mountain bikes is enormous. The decision will be political but hopefully with an environmental foundation.
Those of us who appreciate peace and quiet in natural surroundings are not always "liberals". We are just folks who love our great natural areas and will hike to great lengths to get away from it all so we can enjoy nature in its most natural setting. There are plenty of places outside our National Parks where people can enjoy their mountain bikes, snowmobiles etc in backcountry settings.
JD, you're misinformed and factually inaccurate. Multiple studies have shown that bicycles do no more damage than hiking and way less than horse riding.
Betty, our parks belong to all of us and not to a favorite minority of users. Whether there are other places to bike is completely irrelevant to whether local parks should decide whether to let bicyclists on existing trails. Last and not least, lumping a human powered activity like cycling with snowmobiling is at the very least disingenuous.
This all boils down to the fact that entrenched users simply don't want to share a public good with other legitimate human powered recreational users.
Zebulon,
Nobody is banned when mountain bikes are restricted. You are still able to hike the trail along with the rest of us. It is only your mode of transportation that is restricted.
There is no reason to allow mechanized transportation, including mountain bikes or snowmobiles, on trails in the parks. They may be appropriate on dirt roads, but they totally destroy the experience for hikers on trails. And despite certain biased studies showing that they do no more damage than hikers, all you need to do is go to a heavily used mountain bike trail, and you will see incredible damage - way more than you ever would see from hikers.
Really Joan? Waaaaayyyy more damage than what I'd would see on the foot-travel-only section of popular hiking trails? Say, the Appalachian Trail? The Colorado Trail? The Wilderness sections of the Colorado trail? Come visit the later and take a good look at he sections that allow bikes and those that are restricted to foot travel. Then tell me if the bike sections are more degraded than the foot sections.
Try it and I think you'll sing different tune on the relative impacts of bike/foot travel. But then you'll likely say, "Well I just don't feel safe near/like to see/believe I can share trails with ... bicycles."
Joan, all great points. Let me address them if I may.
"I can still use the trails, I just need to walk them". How would you feel if we turned the argument around and banned hiking? You could still use the trails, you would just to ride a bike like the others. I don't believe it's the government role to decide for us how to use a trail, as long as said usage does not impact negatively the trail/environment.
Not allowing mechanized transportation. That good old reason to ban bikes from wilderness. Nobody sees any problem with other form of mechanized transportation such cross country skiing, kayaking, carbon fiber hiking poles. This is clearly not a solid reason to ban bikes. As for the difference between a gas powered machine and a bike, it should be self explanatory.
Destroy the experience of hikers on trails!!! Now, we get to the heart of the matter which is simply that a category of users refuses to share a public good. I can certainly understand how one would not want to share wonderful trails with another user group (personally, I'd love it if there were no hikers or equestrians), but then again, national parks are nobody's private Idaho either. :) This is especially silly since most trails more than 2 miles outside the trailhead are usually mostly empty.
As for the damage done to trails, I've seen trails torn to bits by horse riders, but that clearly does not bother anyone. I've also seen major damage inflicted by hikers shortcutting a hillside leading to major water erosion. Yet, I'm not asking that hikers be banned from all trails. Multiple scientific studies have simply shown that cyclists don't cause any damage to the trails. That's just a fact, unless of course all these people were out to get hikers. ;)
To get back to my initial posting, it'll be interesting to see whether Mr. Obama decides to cater to the Sierra Club wing of the democratic party or stick to a more moderate stance and let the rule stand.
@Zebulon: Of course it is the governments role to determine which kinds of use are allowed on which parts of the public lands. Bikes are permitted in National Forests, on BLM land and in more than 40 national parks including spectacular routes like the White Rim Trail in Canyonlands National Park. But other parks are closed to bikes - particularly on single trails. That's perfectly fine and in accordance with the mandate of national parks.
And regarding the detrimental effect on the experience of hikers: Please think about all your encounters between bikers and hikers on single trails. Who stops, steps aside and lets the other pass? Can you think of a single case in which the biker left the trail to let a hiker pass? I can't. It doesn't happen, not once. This infallible rule makes the hiker feel second rate and this ruins his or her experience.