Editor's note: Mountain biking in national parks has come up from time to time in recent years, specifically concerning desires to either cut new trails with bikes in mind or to allow mountain bikes to ride off into wilderness areas, or both. The recent dust-up at Big Bend National Park over a "multi-use" trail has Contributing Writer PJ Ryan recalling a certain "Mountain-Biker-in-Chief." We at the Traveler would like to offer IMBA officials a chance to present their position on biking in the parks. For more of PJ's thoughts, be sure to read Thunderbear on a regular basis.
There has been considerable debate about the wisdom of allowing mountain biking in the National Parks in general and Big Bend National Park in particular; that park becoming the poster child and cause celebre of mountain biking.
Mountain bikes are sturdy tools with hardy frames and parts that can stand the incessant pounding of off road use. They can go almost anywhere: That’s why their admirers love them and their detractors hate them.
Now, like most tools, mountain bikes are not inherently good or evil; everything depends upon use, such as the use of an axe depends on whether you are Abe Lincoln or Lizzie Borden.
The “Developing World” variant of the mountain bike is a prime tool for progress, even survival, in the more desperate parts of what used to be called “The Third World.” Mountain bikes provide goods transport as well as communication, carrying crops, chickens, pigs and other livestock to market.
It is truly amazing how much stuff you can pile on these stalwart mechanical mules. The U.S. military did not believe the Viet Cong could support their logistics using mountain bikes. The U.S. military was mistaken.
In the “Developed” or “First” World, the mountain bike carries only one thing; a very determined person devoted to expanding the “opportunities” for mountain biking. They are represented by the International Mountain Bike Association, (IMBA) an organization not too far behind the Viet Cong in enthusiasm and dedication to its cause.
Now I exaggerate, but not by much. It is true that many members of NPS, US Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management as well as the Sierra Club and other environmental organizations are avid mountain bikers. However, they generally place limitations on themselves as mountain bikers.
The mountain bike is an excellent solution for park or other public lands that have many miles of jeep roads such as Death Valley National Park, Canyonlands National Park, or Mohave National Preserve. Thus the taxpayer who is not wealthy enough to afford a four wheel drive as a second vehicle (or who doesn’t want the additional pollution) can explore these primitive roads with a mountain bike.
However, there is an element of IMBA with more expansive dreams and demands. (I would suspect that their Nirvana would be a rim to rim mountain bike race across Grand Canyon; they have not requested it and it is not likely to happen anytime soon.)
They have however, made some requests for a “Multi-Use” Trail at Big Bend National Park.
The Park Superintendent, who is shortly to be retiring, said that he and his staff would investigate “Mountain biking opportunities in Big Bend”, a rather unfortunate choice of phrasing, implying that such use would be a favorable outcome, if not a done deal: Unfortunate in that this evokes the environmental memory of a Yellowstone superintendent of long ago, who believed he could “open” winter Yellowstone by allowing snowmobiles. The superintendent was unfortunately correct.
Now the problem with a multi-use mountain biker-hiker trail at Big Bend, aside from the legal and aesthetic (The park “forgot” to do the environmental paper work) is one of safety. The advantages of the double track (jeep road) are that the hiker can proceed on one of the tracks or jump to safety if he/she encounters a biker. Danger is increased if bikers and hikers share a single track.
Make no mistake, collisions between mountain biker and pedestrian can result in serious injury.
Consider the case of The Mountain Biker in Chief, George W. Bush, President of the United States and member of the IMBA.
President Bush was in Scotland attending the 2005 conference of the G-8 Economic Summit. He had brought along his beloved mountain bike.
The following police report was “obtained” by THE SCOTSMAN, a left wing Scottish newspaper:
“About 1800 hours on Wednesday, July 6, a detachment of Strathclyde constables in anti-riot gear formed a protective line at the rear entrance of the hotel where George Bush was staying.
The Unit was covering the road junction at Braco Road where the President was cycling through. As the President passed the junction at speed. He raised his left arm from the handle bar of his mountain bike to wave to the police while shouting “Thank you guys for coming! “
The President lost control and fell to the ground.”
According to the report, one of the constables was struck by a “Moving and Falling Object” (That would be the 43rd President of the United States, which, when you think about it, is not a bad description of George W. Bush)
The police report goes on to say “The officer fell to the ground, striking his head. After striking the constable, President Bush continued to bounce along the pavement for an additional five meters before coming to a stop”.
Like most mountain bikers, President Bush is tough as titanium and was not injured in the incident; not so in the case of the constable. According to THE SCOTSMAN, the constable was taken to hospital and was off duty for some 14 weeks due to injuries to ankle ligaments.
The President, a good-hearted soul, was most contrite and visited the constable in hospital.
Now neighbors, lets consider the implications of this incident and hiking on a “multi-use” trail in Big Bend National Park. Recall that the constable was in full riot gear, including helmet, face shield, and flak jacket and that STILL didn’t save him from a flying mountain biker! (Though the helmet may have prevented a concussion.)
It is unlikely that you will be wearing a helmet and flak jacket while hiking in Big Bend, but as “Dubya” has retired to his ranch in West Texas, you might consider it as a safety option.
He just might be comin’ around the next bend in the trail!!
Support Essential Coverage of Essential Places
Comments
Did your little public vent helped you feel better there 'Thunderbear? My turn.
Your cheap shot at Dubya was obnoxious at best - but he's a big boy and has a proven sense of self-deprecating humor. You know he's been gone for about 4 years now, so maybe you can let it go. By the way I have a friend that rode with him and she said he was an excellent mountain biker and was a gentleman too - she is a liberal by the way.
I've ridden mountain bikes for over twenty years on multi-use trails all over the country and don't recall having seen or been involved in a single accident with a pedestrian. So, I am finding it difficult to define the true cause of your derisive remarks about cyclists. By the way, the US Army still employs bikes for the same job the VC did. It was a good lesson.
Hikers for years have had access to plenty of 'hiking only' venues in this country including the AT. Most of the new trails being constructed are thanks in part to advocacy groups like IMBA and they are almost all 'multi-use'. That means IMBA is building trails for user groups outside of their support base. I know of no hiker or equestrian groups with a similar mission. That is pretty generous of them don'tcha' think?
Having personally taken part in the design and construction as well as the maintenance of many existing multi-use trails over the years I am always impressed by two things: the enthusiasm of the cyclists that volunteer and the absence of hikers and equestrians from the project.
Perhaps you could improve the content of your writing by taking the coming summer months to devote some time to taking a few professionally guided mountain bike rides. Be careful, you might learn to enjoy it and gain perspective.
Mountain Bikers and hikers peacefully coexist on thousands (maybe millions?) of trails nationwide. It's simply not a big deal.
While we are on the topic of lame restrictions for national parks, can I also give a shout out to dogs? Similar to how bikes are better than jeeps. Dogs have WAY less impact than horses. So why are jeeps & horses allowed in national parks, while bikes & dogs are vilified?
I can honestly say that I am unable to enjoy national parks because of these rules, and generally avoid them. Which is very sad because they are very beautiful places. But it's simply not ok to leave my dog in the hot car in order to go for a hike without him (he would literally die). And if I'm home (in Jackson, WY), I generally choose to go on hikes outside of the park with the dog instead of leave him home and lonely all day. As much as I wish that I wasn't missing out, it's just not true. The best hikes are always in the national parks. And I can't go there with my dog, which sucks.
I'll give a million bucks to anyone who can explain to me with legitimate logic why my dog is 100% ok on the trails just to the south of grand teton national park, but would suddenly cause all sorts of harm if I cross an imaginary national park border.
And back to moutain bikes- let's just use good judgement. Some trails are great bike areas. Others, not so much. but we need to have a few good options for everyone to enjoy our public lands. MULTI-USE
what does george w. bush waving and then crashing have anything to do with mountain biking in national parks? and vietcong? really? does the writer know who the viet cong were and what they did? you bring up a great point shannons, what damage does a dog do that is more then a horse? if its owners not picking up after their dogs, someone please let me know if they have ever seen a horse rider stop get off his horse and clean up after it. i ride through more horse mess then dog mess.
Well, unfortuantely I'm not surprised at all by this uninformed anti-mountaining biking rant. If the author had ever been to Big Bend and/or was remotely familiar with mountain biking he would know that Big Bend, mountain bikes, and yes...even HIKERS can easily co-exist there. I love to hike. I love to mountain bike. I do not (and will never) believe that only one group of people "owns" the national parks and their trails. Certainly there are trails where cohabitation is not feasible, but there are thousands or miles of trails that could easily support all forms of non-motorized travel (foot, hoof, fat tire).
I have biked over 10,000 miles on single track that hikers hike. Yes, I have actually kept track with an odometer. I have never come close to hitting a hiker, never. Brakes on mountain bikes these days can stop a bike in a very short distance. Hikers and bikers can co-exist.
I have years of experience running a National Mountain Bike Patrol in a major, metropolitan city park that offers rugged, multi-use trails with a million visitors annually and have never witnessed or experienced cyclist and hikers running into each other. Your depiction of mountain biking is seriously exaggerated, inaccurate and unfair. How embarrassing for you to Inaccurately portray this socially acceptable and environmentally friendly activity based merely on your short-sighted, personal bias. Please stop misrepresenting other people and organizations. Your story clealy shows you do not know much about mountain biking, nor did you do any adequate research. Yes, I am an avid mountain biker, but I strongly advocate conservation and tolerance. I am an appointed member of my township's environmental committee and a member of the local sustainability organization as well. Through these organizations we teach responsible trail use for all users, as well as sustainable trail building. Also, fire roads are equally unattractive to hikers as they are to off road cyclists, both opting for single track trails. Double track or fire roads suggest there is motorized traffic. I would be much more concerned about getting run over by a jeep, than worrying about a biker/hiker encounter.
Why is it that mountain bikers can't ever tell the truth? Mountain biking is extremely dangerous, both for pedestrians and for the mountain bikers themselves. Here are just a few year's (280+) serious injuries and DEATHS: http://mjvande.nfshost.com/mtb_dangerous.htm. It's also not true that mountain biking is environjmentally benign: http://mjvande.nfshost.com/scb7.htm.
Wowzer, PJ, you sure touched off the hornets' nests.
Folks, you need to know something about Thunderbear. His writings are always laced with roguish humor, but they usually accomplish something. Like getting people to start thinking. Take it as a bit of fun -- and then sit down and do some thinking. Some of what he says here is satire, but some bears tidbits that might benefit by thought rather than knee-jerk immediate reactions and protests.
As one who had to hike out and then drive to an ER for seven stitches and some ice packs after two mountain biking teenagers clobbered me on a trail in the Wasatch Mountains (never heard them coming from behind me as the wind was blowing and we were all heading down hill), I can attest to at least some of the danger from those kind of folks. After the first one hit me, the second bounced off my left leg and crashed. But he quickly picked his bike up, mounted up and rode off while shouting obscenities at me for blocking the trail and not getting out of the way.
Granted, they were teen agers, and we all know the mental capacity of at least some of those folks. And granted, I do feel more endangered by bikes while walking the sidewalks of Salt Lake City. But as is the cases in which bad experiences with irresponsible ATV riders and Jeepers have turned some of us against them, it's the responsibility of the sensible riders to try to educate and regulate others of their ilk.
Now, I usually carry a walking stick and hope that if this kind of thing happens again, I'll be quick enough to thrust the stick through the bike's spokes as I fall to my death. (Hmm, maybe I should carry the stick in the city, too.)
Anyway, thanks, P.J. for another entertaining Thunderbear morning of chuckles.