Editor's note: Efforts to cut a multiple-use trail for hikers and mountain bikers at Big Bend National Park have generated ongoing debates over whether creating such trails for mountain bikers in national parks is a good thing. Roger Siglin, who long has followed the Big Bend matter, wonders if the National Park Service hasn't painted itself into a corner over this issue.
As someone who opposed the mountain bike trail construction at Big Bend National Park from the beginning, hiked the proposed route when it was first flagged, and recently hiked it with Jeff Renfrow of the Big Bend Trails Alliance, I have several opinions on the issue. I should also mention my 27-year-career with the National Park Service started in Big Bend in 1966, and I have hiked several thousand miles in the park.
As a hiking trail it is pretty innocuous. I would rate it as little more than a short walk, and it will probably will be the least interesting trail in Big Bend when fully constructed. This doesn’t mean it won’t get some use, particularly if combined with a roadside picnic area since there is none near the visitor center at park headquarters.
It could especially appeal to families with hungry children tired of the long drive from the nearest town, assuming park staff at the visitor center promote it. The park concessioner is also planning to update and improve the adjacent gas station and grocery store. Use will still be limited by high temperatures for about six months of the year. But putting all of that aside, I support completing the construction as a hiking trail since substantial money has already been spent and it would be nice if the public got something in return for its taxpayer dollars.
As a mountain bike trail, it is even more innocuous and probably will not attract many mountain bikers since there are better opportunities both on some of the park’s 120 miles of rough dirt roads and hundreds of miles of bike trails to the west in Terlingua, Lajitas, and Big Bend Ranch State Park. The state park is heavily promoting mountain biking on its 300,000 acres, which I supported in a draft public use paper I prepared several years ago.
Some day there should be another 30,000 acres available in the Chinati State Natural Area west of Presidio, again an area where I outlined several good single-track opportunities in a draft public use plan I authored. There is also no good reason the 23,000-acre Elephant Mountain Wildlife Management area 26 miles south of Alpine could not offer mountain biking on tens of miles of old ranch roads and cattle trails.
In my opinion, the primary reason for the mountain bike trail project in Big Bend (now called a hiking trail until a special regulation is promulgated) is to get the mountain biking industry’s foot in the door to build a stronger constituency for opening up single-track hiking trails in the National Park System to mountain bikes. That includes designated wilderness and lands managed for their wilderness potential by the National Park Service. There is a lot of money to be made by the industries supporting bringing mountain bikers to the parks. This is not to imply that individual mountain bikers themselves are not part of the driving force behind this effort.
There seem to be two visions of mountain biking. One is promoted by IMBA -- the International Mountain Bicycling Association -- as providing access to nature in a healthful way with little or no conflict with hikers, if everyone would agree to get along. The other vision is the one you see on most mountain biking websites. They show bikers riding at high speed on single-track trails, some bermed with jumps, wood ramps, and other construction that provide additional thrills and spills.
What the websites don’t show is other trail users who have been driven off the trails by the antics of the thrill seekers on bicycles. This is not true everywhere, but it is becoming increasingly common where large numbers of mountain bikers congregate, particularly near large population centers. To make matters worse, many state and local parks set aside for preservation of plant and animal communities are being damaged by both legal and illegal trail construction.
Big Bend is remote enough and the rocks and prickly vegetation bad enough that the worst problems may be avoided, but it leads to the main question: what is the purpose of national parks?
The first place to look is the National Parks Organic Act of 1916, which says in part “........which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.”
Congress has reaffirmed the unimpairment part of the act several times. In general, the pendulum has swung back and forth between those who emphasize unimpairment and those who emphasize enjoyment. Not surprisingly, the recreation industry has emphasized the latter, using increasing clout in the current political climate.
The NPS has often been on the fence between the two extremes, but in general has not built facilities for, or encouraged, the more extreme thrills or adventure aspects of various uses. Instead it encourages activities that allow the appreciation of the natural features, including the scenery at a leisurely pace.
I recently rode my daughter’s downhill bike at Keystone Resort. Going down the marked trail I often thought how nice it would be to see the flowers and decided I would prefer hiking the same route. An opposite view was taken by one of your commentators who describes the White Rim Trail in Canyonlands as boring. I guess there was not enough scenery or flowers.
I could go on and on about why I think single-track mountain biking is wrong in the national parks, but I also think the mountain bike fraternity is its own worst enemy. Just look at the websites if you don’t agree. I also think commentators should have to identify themselves with a brief statement. It should greatly improve the quality of the discussions.
Comments
"Similarly, mountain bikes using the same trails as hikers is like the mix of cars and bikes. It's unsafe."
Well, one solution would be to ban hiking, for hikers' own safety. I'll ask my member of Congress to get right on it! Problem solved.
While this worthwhile legislative effort is pending, hikers can stroll city sidewalks, where it's safe. Which is the same as what George Wuerthner asks of us, i.e., to stick to "bike trails and lanes in our communities."
I now feel like I understand the situation better. Thank you.
And yes, hikers would still be most welcome in our national parks and wilderness areas. Of course you are—as long as you ride your bike. No one would be kept out. Everyone has a bike. Well, almost everyone; for those who don't, charities can step in.
Thanks to others' explanations and commentaries, everything is becoming clear for me now. I am much benefited. Nor I can I take any personal credit for this new insight. Like Sir Isaac Newton, "If I have seen farther it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."
I note that none of Imntbike's questions were answered. Quite telling. :)
.....
Butch, your comment is well taken, but seems to imply that the choice is either get with the hiking respective contemplative bunch or sell the land to the developers. Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me that reality is not that black and white. Another bit of information for the anti thrillcrafts, cyclists probably spend 75 to 80% of their time climbing (at anywhere from 3 to 7mph). Not exactly earth shattering speed.
I would be interested in knowing at the demographics of the most ardent anti bike on this website.
I also met three joggers on a single track yesterday while I was riding and everybody had a good time, so it's also doable in national parks.
This comment was edited to remove a criminal allegation the Traveler has not been able to verify. It did not alter the message. -- Ed.
IMBIKE
You may not be aware but there and are issues about whether to allow other things like whitewater kayaking/rafting in national parks as well. For instance, canoeing/kayaking is banned on the Yellowstone river in Yellowstone Park. I also canoe and kayak. Do I feel like I'm being discriminated against? No way. There's plenty of other places for me to practice these activities. And thankfully the NPS continues its ban on use of these things on the Yellowstone.
Part of the reason the NPS has continued to ban kayaks, rafts, etc is ecological--to avoid disturbing wildlife on the river. But it's also a practical thing--avoiding one more activity to monitor and patrol.
Again the NPS has learned to its dismay that some activity that may seem innocuious at first can become a real problem later. I was around when Yellowstone decided to allow snowmobiles. The reason they were permitted is because no one anticipated that there would be very many of them. Only after time did it become apparent that snowmobiles were a major impact on the park experience for others as well as impacts on wildlife, air and so forth.
If the NPS had a choice, and could back in time, I know they would not allow snowmobiles.
I think the agency has to be very careful about allowing any new activities.
BTW, you can mountain bike in Grand Teton NP--on a nice bikepath that follows the existing road. So if you need to ride in a national park, there's a place for you. But backcountry trail riding is inappropriate. I really wish MB were not allowed on any national forests, or other public lands other than on old roads. But I guess they don't provide enough "thrills" for serious MB.
George, can you explain why mountain bike is "inappropriate"? It sounds to me like an unsupported opinion. And the main reason why mountain bikers seek a single track experience is exactly the same as hikers prefer it: to provide an experience closer to nature. The whole "thrill" angle is a red herring that HOHA use to tarnish what is simply a fun environmently friendly way to experience nature. Maybe, just maybe, your average hiker who opposes cycling is just jealous of the fun that one can have while riding. :)
As for Mr. Vandeman, the NPT can look up the docket at the following URL: http://www.acgov.org/sheriff_app/docket/docketSearch.do
docket No: 562037
Court: WILEY W. MANUEL COURTHOUSE
[size= 14px]
[/size]
I drafted a response to each of imtnbke's quetions but it became longer than I wanted to submit to NPT. I would however be glad to submit it to imtnbke and zebulon and others if there is a way to do that but here are a few brief points.
1. The nearby state parks contain hundreds of miles of rough 4-wheel drive roads and old cattle trails. There is no Wilderness or Organic Acts to consider. State Park staff promotes mountain biking and I did the job I was asked to do. Besides I am not opposed to mountain biking per se.
2.The NPS organic act mandates public use. Read it again.
3 . Most of his questions cannot be answered by me, but in the final analysis the Organic Act and subsequent congressional acts form the basis for most NPS regulations.
4. His generation and future one's may decide they don't like them and congress has the power to change them. If park visitation declines enough businesses and politicians will push that or find ways around them with pressure on park managers and decreased funding for parks. We see that happening nationwide on all manner of public lands and public resources in general have many enemies..
Beyond those points the issue has become too much of a pissing contest. I got involved because of attacks on some people I know and I felt responsible because of my comments on the bike trail. It is pretty obvious that peoples positions are locked in stone and we might as well debate religious beliefs. I do hope the article I sent and the comments clarify individuals opinions. At least we know more about them. Thanks to Kurt for having the courage to print them. Now I think I will concentrate on finding a solution to the middle east problems.
Zebulon,
I can tell it's election time, time to sling mud away from the real issue. We just love red herrings.
Everyone else,
The real issue is access to our parks and keeping the wilderness wild and the scenery beautiful and natural life alive. I have bad knees and walking great distances is difficult. Biking is getting me back there very slowly. Biking on roads and paved bike paths that is...I can enjoy nature in small doses so can the gentlemen with bad feet. Biking liberates us but mountain biking hurts nature and those who abuse it by riding fast on mixed use trails. You want to mountain bike, buy your own land and be my guest.
Otherwise, hike the trails, bike the pavement and seek thrills like spelunking or the other opportunities raised in this blog/discussion. My bike is off the trails in our NPS and I want you to keep yours off as well. No double standards here...
George, thank you for your candid remarks. I understand your perspective and appreciate your summarizing it in your 8:03 comment. In fact I agree with you in part, namely that the National Park Service has to be careful what precedents it sets regarding permitted uses, lest it make a mistake that it cannot later undo, at least not easily.
However, Zebulon eloquently explains why we want to ride our bikes on singletrack and I agree with him 100%. Singletrack is usually beautiful, quiet, and able to provide a meditative and contemplative experience. Dirt roads do not usually offer these qualities; at best, they may be in a beautiful setting.
As Zebulon alludes to, mountain biking is hard work and not everyone is willing to spend the years needed to learn how to do it capably, any more than everyone is willing to spend years learning a martial art. Hiking, by contrast, can be mastered in two hours. The reward for all this work is—I say this as a backpacker and hiker since the 1970s—that it is a delightful way to see America's wildlands. All you have to do is read the Pacific Crest Trail discussion threads to see how much physical discomfort there is in hiking—dirt, dust, insects, joint and orthopedic problems, and on and on. And it's slow; you can't see much in one day, so to get very far you have to camp night after night, which has environmental effects. And mountain biking confers a lot of physical fitness benefits.
Frankly, I now find it boring to hike a placid meandering trail, even though I'm well into middle age and will soon be a senior citizen if I'm lucky enough to get that far. I still like hiking, however, on challenging trails that no bike could navigate. For example, a couple of years ago I climbed to the top of Wheeler Peak (13063') in Big Basin National Park. There's no way to ride a bike up the 45° boulder field that the last 1500' of climbing involves.
Would you not agree that your preference for no mountain biking on any narrow trail in the United States is a pipedream? So how would you propose to manage mountain biking on singletrack in a way that everyone can live with?
I, like Zebulon, find it telling that the essay's author has not replied to my series of questions that I posed earlier. Nor has anyone else. So I appreciate your taking the time to respond to my later post.